Skip to comments.
Ex-U.S. Arms Hunter Kay Says No Stockpiles in Iraq
Drudge Report ^
| 1-23-04
| Reuters
Posted on 01/23/2004 12:01:47 PM PST by MamaLucci
Ex-U.S. Arms Hunter Kay Says No Stockpiles in Iraq
Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!
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.
TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: appeasers; davidkay; hateamericafirst; iraqiwmds; pacifism; wmdeadenders
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-173 next last
To: Vets_Husband_and_Wife
Things can't have changed that much in three months. So keep the faith!
But that's what's so troubling. Kay is quoted in this article as saying" I don't think
they [weapons stockpiles] existed."
That is a drastic change from what he was saying to Tony Snow a short time ago.
More than strange, if you ask me.
To: witnesstothefall
Saddam is not this much of a gambler.........something isn't right.
Fool the CIA....ok.......but fooling MOSSAD....MI5 and MI6....and Every Intelligence agency in the world for 10 plus years.........nope I don't buy it.
42
posted on
01/23/2004 12:52:21 PM PST
by
Dog
("America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our Country")
To: Dog
Was Saddam so stupid as to let a war take place.....when he didn't even have squat.
I don't think Saddam had any choice in the matter.
43
posted on
01/23/2004 12:52:48 PM PST
by
Belial
To: Dog
Was Saddam so stupid as to let a war take place.....when he didn't even have squat.
I find it very hard to believe that there never were stockpiles.
To: conserv13
We said we knew where they were, not just that they had them.
45
posted on
01/23/2004 1:00:06 PM PST
by
GraniteStateConservative
("Howard Dean is incontrovertible proof that God is on Bush's side in the 2004 election"- Dick Morris)
To: billbears
"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 and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said. It is simply fascinating to watch 'denial.'
46
posted on
01/23/2004 1:00:39 PM PST
by
JohnGalt
("...but both sides know who the real enemy is, and, my friends, it is us.")
To: MamaLucci
Plus all those chemical suits they found. Highly unlikely Saddam thought WE were going to spray HIM.
47
posted on
01/23/2004 1:01:32 PM PST
by
txhurl
To: Dog
That Aussie ex-UN inspector Richard..(blast, can't think of his name), the one that got kicked out in '98 sure thought Saddam had them. So did Tony Blair.
We've seen Kay use poor judgement before especially where the press is concerned. His last report wasn't put together to foster media coverage. Too long with details buried too many pages down.
The new guy taking over says he doesn't think large stockpiles were there either. So what's up with the UN and all their resolutions and their sanctions then? Was it all about money and the oil for food? A GIANT money laundering operation?
Prairie
48
posted on
01/23/2004 1:01:37 PM PST
by
prairiebreeze
(God Bless and Protect the Allied Troops. And the families here at home---they are soldiers too.)
To: GraniteStateConservative
We said we knew where they were, not just that they had them.
Members of the Administration have flat-out said WMDs were used to sell the war to the public. There were other, less marketable reasons for invading Iraq.
It's just too bad those reasons weren't put into the public discussion, instead of all the fearmongering about Saddam's nuclear and chemical stockpiles, which has been proven to be BS.
49
posted on
01/23/2004 1:02:55 PM PST
by
Belial
To: prairiebreeze
It was 'all about' Clinton needing an agreeable place to bomb when he needed to distract from problems at home.
He had lots of friends in the UN.
50
posted on
01/23/2004 1:03:01 PM PST
by
JohnGalt
("...but both sides know who the real enemy is, and, my friends, it is us.")
To: JohnGalt
No John, the resolutions go back further than when Clintoon got involved. IIRC
Prairie
51
posted on
01/23/2004 1:04:14 PM PST
by
prairiebreeze
(God Bless and Protect the Allied Troops. And the families here at home---they are soldiers too.)
To: GraniteStateConservative
Exactly. I think folks who say that the WMD issue is no big deal should put the shoe on the other foot and think what if it had been Clinton? There would be no end to the conspiracy theories, BS, etc...
In other words it be like DU on any given day : )
To: Dog
Oh I don't buy it either. But I do allow for the possibility.....
To: JohnGalt
Some serious questions need to be asked...
Tenet has some splainin' to do.
54
posted on
01/23/2004 1:07:17 PM PST
by
Dog
("America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our Country")
To: Dog
The fact that Tenet still has a job is very telling when you consider the PNAC crew that pushed the intelligence through the Office of Special Plans.
God's Speed Jim Baker.
55
posted on
01/23/2004 1:08:31 PM PST
by
JohnGalt
("...but both sides know who the real enemy is, and, my friends, it is us.")
To: Dog
Tenet part of the problem?
56
posted on
01/23/2004 1:09:24 PM PST
by
prairiebreeze
(God Bless and Protect the Allied Troops. And the families here at home---they are soldiers too.)
To: prairiebreeze
No......the bad intelligence is the problem.
What else could the CIA be wrong on.
57
posted on
01/23/2004 1:10:49 PM PST
by
Dog
("America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our Country")
To: Dog
Not to pick up for the CIA, but unless the Brits etc. were just relying on us 100% for everything, was EVERYBODY wrong?
Richard Butler is who I was trying to think of earlier. He insisted stuff was there. At least if it hadn't been moved.
Prairie
58
posted on
01/23/2004 1:13:44 PM PST
by
prairiebreeze
(God Bless and Protect the Allied Troops. And the families here at home---they are soldiers too.)
To: Dog
This is one of the big questions that I have yet to see answered: Where are the weapons that "Saddam" claimed he had...and that UNCSOM accounted for. In 1995, after Saddam's son-in-law tunred on him, Saddam was forced to account for his program. While the UN said they detroyed most of them by the time they left in 1998, even they admit that they only got between 95-98% of them. What was left, according to them, was still a subsantial amount which is that laundry list that Bush and Blair quoted in their speeches.
Even as Ritter addmitted in his 1998 testimony before Congress, Saddam could easily reconstitute his program within 6 months. It only takes small samples of material to grow and cultivate new stock. And even if we assume Saddam destroyed what was left...without the presence of UN inspectors, other experts have said that these "destroyed" materials would still leave trace elements in the sand (or wherever they disposed of it) that would confirm this claim. Yet no such records or proof existed that Saddam destroyed his own stockpile. There are still alot of unanswered questions.
59
posted on
01/23/2004 1:14:09 PM PST
by
cwb
(Dean = Dr. Jeckyll exposing his Hyde)
To: Belial
I didn't understand why he didn't just use arguments from people like Christopher Hitchens and focus hard on Saddam's intent to build a serious WMD program-- easily provable arguments. I didn't understand why he thought he needed to hard sell this. We had more good reasons now than in 1991, and Americans were all supportive of the war.
60
posted on
01/23/2004 1:17:21 PM PST
by
GraniteStateConservative
("Howard Dean is incontrovertible proof that God is on Bush's side in the 2004 election"- Dick Morris)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 161-173 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson