Ex-U.S. Arms Hunter Kay Says No Stockpiles in Iraq

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - David Kay, who stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for weapons of mass destruction, said on Friday he does not believe there were any large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq

"I don't think they existed," Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War (news - web sites) and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.

Kay said he believes most of what is going to be found in the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has been found and that the hunt will become more difficult once America turns over governing the country to the Iraqis.

The United States went to war against Baghdad last year citing a threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. No actual banned arms have been found.

In his speech to the UN President Bush used the following line to demean critics of his Iraq war policy.

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. "

It appears now that that, ironically, vainly hoping in the face of evidence has become the province of war supporters.

We can expect the litany of conspiratorial explanations for the total absence of any WOMD or even well developed programs (all we have is WOMD program 'related activities' a rhetorical concoction so vague as to be almost Clintonian) to get wackier.

Currently I can see a few strands of diversionary illogic materializing:

1) "It's an open question". Yes, 99.9% certainty still leaves a 1/10 of 1 percent chance there is something we overlooked. Those most ardently inoculated to the persuasiveness of empirical facts will grasp the slightest degree of uncertainty and trumpet it to buttress their eroded assertions. Cognitive dissonance is a troubling situation brought on by incongruence between prior belief and new information. There are many ways of coping. Mature individuals reevaluate belief, others grasp at straws. Expect to hear a lot about secret burial sites and claims that Iraq is a big place (ignoring the fact that with satellite surveillance we would have easily spotted such a project--remember Powell's presentation of those alleged bio-weapons trucks!)

2) "Saddam secreted the weapons out of the country to Syria". A more wonderful lie because it explains away incompetence in the war decision AND justifies further dim-witted activity in the Middle-East against the next target of neo-con animosity (read threat to Israeli security).

3) "It wasn't about weapons, it was about UNSCR 1441 and Saddam's failure to prove he was disarmed". That anyone claiming to be a conservative can, with a straight face, argue that we needed to send young American men to be killed and maimed for the credibility of the UNSC is appalling. To believe for an instant that the American public would have supported war had the President said "Saddam may not have weapons but he's stonewalling the UNSC so we should take him down" is laughable.

Perhaps we should enforce one of several UNSC resolutions calling for complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories? Wait! That's not on the neo-con agenda...

4) "Bush never said he was an immanent threat but that we needed to prevent him from gaining dangerous future capability". I've already seen conceptual blurring of intent and capability used to support the war. The simple quote above is an indication that Bush used both the present (grave) and future (gathering) tense in his statements about Saddam and Iraq. We relied too heavily on the statements of anti-Saddam Iraqi defectors who manipulated the United States with tales of huge WOMD stockpiles. How does it feel to be a marionette of Achmed Chalabi?
Incredibly, it appears that the sanctions and inspections regime that lasted from 1991 to 1998 actually inhibited Iraqi WOMD aspirations. This fact suggests that containment was a viable policy option. The Clinton administration should never have allowed Saddam to eject the inspectors as he did.

Frankly I don't care if the war was 'Just' or not. I DO care if it was in our national interest. Currently US forces are stretched to the breaking point. Morale among active and reserve troops is falling like a brick. Recruiting is going to suffer as a result. The public and international image of our forces before Iraq was as positive as at any time since WWII. I pray it stays so high but I doubt it will.

Furthermore, Ossama Bin Laden is still free (and God knows where he is now) and plotting. I would have said rebuilding too, but there's little evidence to suggest that Al Qaida was ever 'unbuilt' by the Afghanistan campaign. Sure the Taliban was dispersed (although it seems to be reforming as the news from Afghanistan is far from encouraging on all fronts). Al Qaida has certainly reinvigorated itself in Indonesia, Malaysia, Southern Thailand and the Southern Philippines.

US credibility with the world has also taken a hit. We're the boy who cried wolf. George Bush is chicken little! I fear that the next time some future President identifies a REAL threat to security, and we will go looking for friends, we will find only ambivalence and obfuscation. Dick Cheney has been in Europe recently asking for 'greater unity for the War on Terrorism'. Remember how much respect and support the US had during and after Afghanistan? French, German, and Canadian forces all participated willingly and enthusiastically to increase US and the world's security. Now we have to send Dick out to try to rally these partners to our cause. The benefits of regime change in Iraq are FAR outweighed by this litany of costs.

Government employees (Bureaucrats) like to solve problems. If there are no problems handily available, they will create their own problems.

--George Van Valkenburg

The consistency of our foreign policy since Bush I and the collapse of the Soviet Union is indeed striking.

Look at our actions. The Soviet Union falls apart. It's conventional armed forces revealed to be a toothless tiger. It's economy in tatters. A threat to no one and incapable of even projecting Moscow's authority in much of the nation. How do we react? Do we celebrate our hard won victory with vast reductions in military spending? Do we lesson our involvement and reconsider our committment level to NATO? No - we expand NATO right up to the border of Russia itself and launch ourselves into the fray in the Balkans, involve ourselves in various intrigues with various regimes in the former Soviet States on the rim of their Old SOviet Union (pipeline and oil country) and even had troops in Uzbekistan before 9/11.

The Day the Soviet Union became the CIS is the day Conservatives should have set their sights and intellects against the second big enemy- the very government/industrial/ academic/ and media empire we had constructed to defeat the Soviet Union. Some did- most did not. This infrastructure wasn't just going to pack up and go away- job done! They needed new reasons for existence and foreign expansion and empire (for humanitarian and "democratic" reasons of course) is a great reason to keep the trillions flowing their way and to keep their government jobs and their government contracts intact.

If the Dems had bothered to listen to President Bush and Colin Powell and other administration officials, they never said that Iraq "had" WMD during the run-up to the war. They were citing the previously-acknowledged stockpiles, and also the fact that production facilities from the 1980s and '90s were still intact and seemed to be used for something which our satellites couldn't discern. Common sense says we could only assume they were being used as they had in the past.

Whether or not there are WMD in Iraq is not important. Every country involved said they did, some Dems said they did (during the Clinton years and also during 2002), they had them in the past and used them, and never accounted for the stockpiles they admitted to having. Also, with their concealment activities and cat-and-mouse games with UN inspectors in late-2002, we could only assume they were hiding something. Of course Dean is still insisting that Bush was claiming that Iraq was an immediate threat, so some people are just psychotic liars...

Let me ask you a simple question: How many people in Iraq suffer from Brucella or Congo Crimean Hemmorhagic Fever? Then why were Iraqi scientists working with reference strains? Oh, that's right, developing biological weapons! Why were chemical warfare suits stored in hospitals, when the Iraqi's know that the U.S. military would not be using CW against them? Oh, that's right, in case the Iraqi military resorted to them! Duh!!!

If you and the Dems had bothered to listen to President Bush and Colin Powell and other administration officials, they never said that Iraq "had" WMD during the run-up to the war. They were citing the previously-acknowledged stockpiles, and also the fact that production facilities from the 1980s and '90s were still intact and seemed to be used for something which our satellites couldn't discern. Common sense says we could only assume they were being used as they had in the past. That is why, if you had bothered reading the congressional resolution that authorized the war, and many Dems signed off on, including Kerry and Edwards, Iraq had the "capacity to possess" WMD, not that they actually had them.

Why don't you go over to the thread called "Kay: Bush Was Right to Attack Iraq" which reads:

Critics of the Bush administration have seized on Iraq weapons hunter David Kay's pronouncement over the weekend that Baghdad didn''t have any WMDs immediately before the U.S. attacked last March.
But Tuesday morning Kay gave President Bush an full-fledged endorsement on his decision to go to war.
In an interview with NBC's "Today Show," Kay told host Matt Lauer that the U.S. decision to attack was "absolutely prudent."
"In fact," said Kay, "I think at the end of the inspection process, we'll paint a picture of Iraq that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was before the war."
Kay described Iraq's government as "a system collapsing."
"It was a country that had the capability in weapons of mass destruction areas, and ... terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it."
Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein was "was putting more money into his nuclear program, he was pushing ahead his long-range missile program as hard as he could," Kay said.
Although Baghdad wasn't successful, Kay said Iraq "had the intent to acquire these weapons," adding that Saddam had "invested huge amounts of money" to do so.
The chief weapons hunter also debunked the notion that the White House pressured U.S. intelligence to exaggerate the Iraq threat.
"The tendency to say, well, it must have been pressure from the White House, is absolutely wrong," he told "Today."

Whether or not there are WMD in Iraq is not important. Every country involved said they did, some Dems said they did (during the Clinton years and also during 2002), they had them in the past and used them, and never accounted for the stockpiles they admitted to having. Also, with their concealment activities and cat-and-mouse games with UN inspectors in late-2002, we could only assume they were hiding something.

If you can find a quote from George Bush stating emphatically that Iraq was currently in possession of WMD and that is the sole reason he was leading us toward an invasion, I (and the desperate Dems) would really like to see it. Do you realize you are wrong, or do you actually think that you are different somehow from Dean, Kerry, Clark, and the rest of the empty suits? I used to work in the Intelligence Community, so I have an understanding of what is discussed regarding intelligence estimates, satellite photos, etc. You obviously lack that understanding.

Been watching you mock the party faithful with facts on the WMD from the sidelines and have enjoyed the show greatly. This whole WMD issue has been a fascination to me but this the first time I’ve commented on it.

When the news that we had not found the weapons we went to war over came out I thought well it’s early yet. As time went on with nothing turning up I considered that perhaps they were destroyed after all but as I have no way of knowing I kept no set opinion. So I sat, watched and listened and pondered. As more and more time elapsed and we came up empty handed I was amazed that we would supposedly allow our credibility to take such a hit. If nothing else one would suspect at least for us to plant some so we could justify ourselves. There is however something else that has had me thinking all this time. On the surface of it not finding the WMD is a set back in light of world opinion but the war party is Machiavellian enough to deny the weapons exist even if they did and even if they did find them in Iraq. Since the war ended I've heard murmuring along the lines that Saddam shipped those weapons to Syria or Lebanon. Now I am hearing this line a bit more loudly. Coming up empty handed in Iraq could be a set up. When the time is right we find “proof” those weapons are in Syria and Viola! the war party has cause belie for phase two of “democratizing” the ME and they restore face. So in the end it really doesn’t matter if the weapons ever existed or not, whether they were destroyed or not as they can any ways and all ways be reason to further the agenda. If I were a betting man I might wager on this.

Been watching you mock the party faithful with facts on the WMD from the sidelines and have enjoyed the show greatly.
When the news that we had not found the weapons we went to war over came out I thought well it’s early yet.

First, JohnGalt has not been using facts, and he cannot account for those that I throw at him. Secondly, if you can find evidence that we went to war over WMD, contact Howard Dean's campaign staff or John Kerry's, they would really like something besides hollow rhetoric with which to attack our president.

Have you read the congressional resolution authorizing war? Among the several reasons listed for the invasion of Iraq, the "capacity to possess" (not actual present-time possession) was one of those listed. Did you bother listening to President Bush et al when they addressed the U.N. and other organizations? They cited stockpiles of WMD that Iraq admitted to possessing at the end of the first Gulf War, but could not account for since. U.S. officials also discussed facilities that were previously used for WMD production, and had since re-opened for undisclosed purposes. We could only safely assume they were being used for the same purpose.

Have you ever wondered why Iraq's scientists were working with strains of Brucella, ricin, Congo Crimean Hemmhoragic Fever, and other diseases, along with ballistic missile and UAV programs?

Fortunately, we have a mature president who recognizes a threat when he sees one and is willing to do something about it. If we had someone like you or John Kerry in the White House, my children's future would be much more cloudy. With your lack of knowledge on this subject, perhaps you should stay on the sidelines more.

Each of you responded to my post #93 but since time is short I will respond en mass rather than individually. Besides we all have similar thoughts on government, the constitution and the current state of affairs foreign and domestic so my comments should interest all even if I'll be saying nothing profound or new to any of us.

The differences we have on policy with others on this site stems from the fact that we have a guiding set of principles that we adhere to which others merely play lip service to. When confronted with the discrepancy between those base principles and current policies they support our fellow "conservatives" rationalize, excuse, explain, twist, turn, cite this or that or just plain get mad. What we have witnessed is Antonio Gramsci's revolution through evolution. And I am referring to the conservative movement itself not society at large.

We all recognize and loath how liberalism appeals to the base human emotions of greed and envy. How they group people, play up grievances and pit groups against each other then uphold government as savior, protector and provider. I submit that since W.W.II the anti-liberals (we'll call them conservatives for discussions sake) have been misled by a leadership that appeals to base human emotions just like the liberals. Where the liberals group individuals into ethnic, race and gender groups (and now sexual) the conservatives group the individuals into one large group - we're all American's, then pit us against other groups (nations and ideologies). In short they take survival and patriotism and turn it into expansive nationalism under the guise of self defense. A base human instinct is tribalism, both the left and right play on that but in different ways. The liberals capitalize on other base human instincts like food, clothing and shelter and the right plays on the survival instinct of both the individual but moreso the nation and its way of life. Godless communism fit the bill perfectly to get conservatives to embrace all the aspects of globalism and empire and now Islamic terrorism gets the religious and survival juices flowing.

Conservatism is dead. Look at the countless Civil War threads where it is amazing how many conservatives jettison principle of self determination, states sovereignty and limited federal power because of the greater good of preserving the union. They value quantity over quality though they actually believe they have both. They lament that if the states split in the 1860's we wouldn't be the big powerful nation we are today. And there lies the crux of it. They worship power. As I mentined once before it's the sportsfan complex. As countless posts attest they like "kicking ass" more than peace, prosperity and security. So in summary it is the worship of power and the fear of boogie men that has conservatives embracing empire, global government, fiscal irresponsibility while ditching national sovereignty and peace. They have embraced a socialist globalist world view as wise policy all their own. Look at that sicko who posted the FOUR MORE WARS thread last night and how many agreed with him as a sign of how far we've fallen. Too many conservatives respond to war like Pavlov's dogs. I blame the 50 year state of perpetual cold war for hammering the last nails in the coffin of the old republic and it was the so called loyal bodyguards of that republic which drove those last nails home.

Your points stand, and it seems the politics of the national security state has carried the moment, we may also agree that the disenchanted right has yet to rally around a political figure let alone a consensus on how to proceed. Sam Francis suggests a version of Euro-nationalism; Lew Rockwell argues just ignore them and they will go away; Chronicles argues recovering our political liberty begins with local institutions like Churches.

That will play-out over time.

In the meantime, the current brand of PC conservatism has a massive aesthetics problem. While we have Braveheart, Legends of the Fall, and The Outlaw Josey Wales, they have crappy pulp like Independence Day.

We have Ken Kesey, Tom Wolfe, Thomas Fleming (the historian), they have a plagerist, Stephen Ambrose and what...a pulp novelist in Tom Clancy?

We get Murray Rothbard and HL Mencken; they get who, Bill Buckley? Fred Barnes? David Frum?

Their version of beauty is a landing on an Air Craft carrier; ours, the humility of Rembrandts depictions of the Crucifixion. We get Mel Gibson; what do they get?

We get Southern military heroes like Lee and Jackson, they get fanciful tales of the foreign monsters FDR slew.

We get Johnny Cash; they get, who, Toby Keith?

Most periods in history are the subject of very ambiguous lines of right and wrong, think a bourgeoisie in 1935 Bavaria; ours, the lines could not be more clear, could they?

I think the WMDead Enders are an example of the crisis in masculinity. [Oh, so standing up for truth and for a president willing to lay his political future on the line in order to protect the country and rid the world of a madman shows a crisis in masculinity?]

War mongers in the past like say Rudyard Kipling were still masculine individuals who boldly declared that Empire was a worthy cause to die for. These people are like policy wonks, boring you to sleep with tales that would not scare a 10 year old, let alone understand what the hell the person is babbling about. [This from a person who lacks knowledge of basic facts regarding active WMD programs found in Iraq, or the basic intellect to realize that WMD programs produce WMD! Gee, most ten-year olds would understand that, but not the exalted JohnGalt!]

Thus the absence of the WMDs will be handled in stride by Mainstream Rightists as an intelligence and political failure that requires a remedy (resignations, dismissals), however, the Dead Enders will keep digging their own graves, unable to deal with the shame of being duped. [What absence of WMD? Brucella, ricin, Congo Crimean Hemmorhagic Fever...sound like BW agents to me. Ah! But they were only being researched, they weren't stored in nicely-labeled vials marked "Banned WMD Agent"! You have the same foreign policy understanding as a John Kerry- or Howard Dean-type.]

Dude, I see your little fantasy world is still intact and harboring you safely from the realities of the cold world! People who question others' masculinity usually have some deep-seated problems of their own.

I have asked you several times to spell out the difference between Hussein having WMD programs and WMD stockpiles, and you can't. I have asked you several times to show me actual quotes of President Bush stating that we were going to war solely on the basis of actual WMD stockpiles, and you can't. You lack basic factual information relevant to this debate, and when I wipe the floor with you and run circles around you, you slink off without replying to my questions. Not the sign of a real man in my book.

You are typical of many delusional people in thinking that whatever or whomever you like personally is representative of your political beliefs. But, I have news for you, Johnny Cash was not a right-winger in spite of being a great musical figure, and Ken Kesey was not a right-winger, either. Lumping them into some fantasy all-star camp of right-wing purists is just further evidence of how far out-of-touch with reality you are.

To further your comparison of old right/new right I quote something posted on the LRC Blog the other day:

"What starts with Whittaker Chambers, Ludwig von Mises and Russell Kirk and ends up with Sean Hannity? The Conservative Book Club, apparently, which turns 40 this year and has an ad in the new National Review showing a selection of the club's authors, beginning with Chamber and Mises and running through the Bookie of Virtue to Sean Hannity. Could there be a better illustration of the decline of the life of the mind on the American Right?"

Speaking of Kirk, on a thread yesterday equating Limbaugh with the Passion of Christ there was an argument between the rushbots (who were busy doing the full Monica, Clintonian style for their "conservative" hero) and a few sane individuals. One poster suggested to another that he should read some Russel Kirk. Another staunch conservative asked contemptuously and in all sincerity who was Kirk and why he should care.

On another thread a column criticizing Bush from the real conservtive angle quoted Goldwater circa 1964. Pretty amazing reaction Goldwater received on a conservative website. I'm sure you can guess correctly how it went.

There were no WMDs in Iraq; I don't know how even David Kay could have been any clearer. Most 10-years olds don't brown their shorts over a pile of beans, and that is precisely why I suspect your position is based on an overall feminization of the culture.

So, I take it that you've sifted through the sands of Iraq, from the northern Kurdish lands through the marshlands of the south, from the open western border with Syria to the wild no-man's land of the east, bordering on Iran. Wow, what an effort you must have given!

One thing David Kay was clear about: He agrees with the president's decision to go to war. Oh, make that two things: Iraq was probably even more dangerous than we had previously believed.

And the "pile of beans" that you so ignorantly dismiss was ongoing research on Brucella, Congo Crimean Hemmorhagic Fever, ricin, ballistic missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, and the beginnings of a reconstituted nuclear program. Apparently, Hussein having these things doesn't bother you because you are so manly that you are immune to deadly diseases, or don't care that he was working on ways of delivering them throughout the Middle East (including Israel).

A third thing that Mr. Kay made clear was that Hussein could not control who was in his country, and what they took out with them. Apparently you are so manly that allowing elements of terrorist organizations access to free-lancing scientists (Mr. Kay's words, again) and the poison fruits of their labors, does not pose a threat to you or your dreamworld! What a luxury you have!

Real American conservatives don't see the world through such narrow ideological parameters. Johnny Cash was an American patriot; Ken Kesey left the world Sometimes A Great Notion; Tom Wolfe captured the American spirit of both the Hells Angels and Ken Kesey's Merry Pranksters.

Yes, Johnny Cash was an American patriot, but there are many patriots and war heroes that are not right-wing purists. Didn't think that far through your little belief, did you? Joseph Heller left us with perhaps the greatest distillation of the bumbling nature of bureaucracies, but that doesn't make him a right-winger either.

Regarding Ken Kesey and the Merry Prankster, I like some of Mr. Kesey's writings, but his political beliefs were hardly right-wing purity. As for the "American spirit" of his followers, hmm, fornicating drug-abusers who sponge off of the profits of a successful author are hardly representative of my ideal American, or I may safely guess, the ideal of many on this forum. But then again, we're not all as brilliant as you.

You see, its American [sic] we love, not the Republican Party or a particular ideology that has the favor of the moment or pulls on the reigns of power.

So, supposedly, you are the arbiter of who is "American" and who is not? There was a political party in Germany back in the '30s that you would have really loved!

Don't forget the questions I have put forth to you. I know you can't answer them, but I appreciate the chuckles you give me with your attempts.

David Kay spent a billion dollars searching for weapons and he concluded there were none. I am far more concerned about the Chinese purchasing US debt thanks to the soccer moms and the scaredy cats who supported a deft financed war.

You have thus far added nothing to an aesthetics discussion of the Old Right vs the 'new' right. In two posts you have not even attempted to offer a cultural icon of your little neck of the ideological woods all you could do is try to pin each icon I put out into an ideological corner. That tendency is more striking of the "political party in Germany back in the '30s" that defined everything by its ideology rather than its connection to the larger culture.

I can tell you, Johnny Cash is an icon of the Old Right. It has nothing to do with rightwing-leftiwing dichotomies. Tom Wolfe wrote the Hells Angels and The Electric Acid Kool Aid Test so you lost me. I thought even the new right considers Tom Wolfe a conservative, but perhaps you are new new right.

I consider your brand of 'rightwingism' to be ahistorical, anti-patriotic, and generally alien to the American tradition. To play the Nazi card really gives the game away. You are not even new new right, just a scared Leftie.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.