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

Drudge Report ^ | 1-23-04 | Reuters

[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.

[FirstPrinciple]

Oh please. If we have to go to war to enforce UN resolutions, we will need you and I to pick up guns and start fighting. We need to attack India for failing to hold plebiscite in Kashmir and we need to attack every po-dunk state in Africa who openly flout UN resolutions.

[FirstPrinciple]

All I am saying is that it wouldn't make a dime worth of difference in the long run. People there have mentality of Stone Agers. Our presence will only delay formation of dictatorships there. All we have done is postponed another 9/11 for maybe 5-10 years.

[Gippers Brigade]

The DemocRATS just don't get it, do they? I'm just thankful we didn't launch this just and noble war for something as trivial as WMD or connections to OBL, but rather for two things much more important, payback for the '88 massacre of the Kurds and to promote a traditional Islamic democracy.

[prairiebreeze]

People there have mentality of Stone Agers.

That is slowly changing I believe. But I understand your point, that ME mind-set can be very frustrating.

I hope we have a better outcome than your prediction. But it may be a long time in coming and not without further strife....from both sides.

Prairie

[WhiteGuy]

No kidding...............

I could have told you that.

[FirstPrinciple]

...promote a traditional Islamic democracy.

Brought to you by infidels. Yeah that will succeed.

[MaxPlus305]

Exactly. Unfortunately, it won't be sold that way to the gullible members of the public by the democrats in an election year. One of Bush's primary assets, his credibility, is being seriously challenged with some success. The democrats may very well score major points with this report.... unless the republicans conduct a persistent campaign to educate/remind the public.

"Gullible" public? In the sense that many of them have automatically assumed Bush was right in his claims. It was the administration's own fault for playing up the WMD card, and now they have to accept the consequences of their gamble.

[Recovering_Democrat]

If we have to go to war to enforce UN resolutions...

My point is not really to defend the United Nations...I find it a useless organization on the level of the DNC, NEA, and NAMBLA. I am merely providing a political reason for some of the poor souls among us who just don't "get it" that we can and should act to defend our national interest.

I am foursquare behind Bush's "no permission slip needed" statement of the SOTU.

That being said, the fact of the matter is Iraq WAS in violation of a Security Council Resolution that promised "severe consequences" if compliance was not immediate and complete. Compliance by Saddam was not immediate and complete, and in the lack of U.N. Testicular Fortitude, the U.S.A. is in the right to enforce the Resolution.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

I don't recall India threatening the US. Can you tell me when they did? Do they have a history of doing so?

Do they support al Queda or have a history of doing so? Do they have a history of terrorism and genocide, or promoting terrorism by paying suicide bombers families 25,000 dollars after their sons or daughters blow themselves up? Did you even know that one of the terrorists that flew a jet into the Twin towers was previously *IN* Iraq?

So the 12 long years of IGNORING UN Resolutions that were mandated to AVOID war, were ignored at the PERIL of innocent people who are now being dug up in Iraq. Do you know how many Dead tortured people have been dug up to date? Can you *guesstimate*? Is that ok with you? Should it be ok with any of us?

Oh, and did you hear the news that a top al Queda leader was just captured in Iraq? What a co-incidence! Whodathunkit!! Course, you knew that al Queda was there right? Do you really think they got there *since* this war began?

You know to date we've captured 2/3rd's of the al Queda's leadership?

Considering all that our troops and this administration have accomplished since 9-11, and all that our troops have accomplished in Afgahnistan and Iraq in such a short time frame when compared to any other war, I'd say they've done a pretty damn good job.

Considering the sacrifice of life and limb, I think it is a slap in the face to all who gave the ultimate, a slap in the face to the families, for anyone to not applaud and be DAMN proud of all our men and women for what they have done and are doing..and yes PROUD of our country too!

We'd still be sitting in Germany or Italy, or a multitude of other places trying to figure out what to do next at this point. We may have even surrendered a few times!

Yet in 6 months in Iraq we've accomplished so much! And look at Afghanistan! Yes, we are still encountering terrorists and snipers! But we would be getting a LOT more support if we didn't have EX-presidents and Senators and wannabe Presidents all saying horrific things about our country which are making for great sound bites world wide! Things like "This war was made up by Bush". Things which embolden our enemies and demoralize our troops. NICE!

BTW,. our troops LOVE this Commander in Chief! So, despite all the crap that the dems try to do and say.. it ain't working as far as the troops feel! And they are the ones that matter when it comes to life and death. It would be nice if Americans would remember that!

So until I see India threatening us, or until I see a threat from Africa,.. your comments are beyond ridiculous. Show me a UN resolution where we are telling India that they are repeatedly a threat to our security or to world security. Show me one regarding Africa, and your point will be valid.

Good grief people need to get a clue.

[FirstPrinciple]

Why should the US take it upon themselves to go enforce UN resolutions? So, next time some dictator somewhere flouts an UN resolution, it is upto us to get rid of him? Our action is writing checks that our military can't cash. We all get the "political" cover. The downside to using that cover is that all of a sudden we elevate the status of the UN. It is about time that we just say, "Oops." That sounds a lot better reason than the defensive posture we are taking.

[FirstPrinciple]

Take a deep breath and go to the medicine cabinet. No use of using inflammatory rhetoric on me. I won't bite that bait. Lets debate reason.

If flouting UN resolutions was a reason for our attack, then there are plenty of countries we need to attack, including India. If genocide is a reason, then there are plenty of countries to attack, including India. If presence of one of those terrorists involved in 9/11 in Iraq was a reason, then we need to attack all of western Europe. If writing checks to suicide bombers in Israel (not the US!) was a reason, then we need to attack Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the UN itself. BTW, Saddam hired Al Queda after the war. There is no evidence of linking the two prior to the war, according to the CIA. The reasons you gave are absolutely ridiculous.

We need a deliberative process to go to war. I can guarantee you that if we caught Ossama, we wouldn't have gone to war right away. Bush needed to capture some other bad guy to divert attention and, in the long run, for his political survival. The war on terrorism should not be politicized. We need to pursue terrorists ruthlessly. If that includes attacking Pakistan to get Ossama, then we should do that as well. We shouldn't worry about political consequences of pissing off China, which is a major ally of Pakistan. I can tell you right now that if we get rid of China and Saudi Arabia, the world will be at peace for a thousand years. China has been feeding rogue states like Pakistan and North Korea for years. If we are serious about the war on terrorism, our nuclear missiles better point to Beijing and Riyadh.

[Recovering_Democrat]

Why should the US take it upon themselves to go enforce UN resolutions? So, next time some dictator somewhere flouts an UN resolution, it is upto us to get rid of him? Our action is writing checks that our military can't cash. We all get the "political" cover. The downside to using that cover is that all of a sudden we elevate the status of the UN. It is about time that we just say, "Oops." That sounds a lot better reason than the defensive posture we are taking.

Well, the U.S. is part of the U.N., isn't it? There are arguments that say we should get out of it, and there might be good reasons to do so. But as long as we are in it, we might as WELL use it to our advantage. I think you think I'm saying we should pay homage to the U.N. I am not: on the contrary, I'm saying we should use the lousy world bureaucratic system to our benefit: God knows they stick it to the USA every chance they get!

Your statement above about dictators flouting a resolution sounds to me like the arguments given before the Iraq war by Democrats: "Why aren't we invading North Korea? Why aren't we invading Iran? Why aren't we invading a hundred other places where things are brutal?" And those questions have been adequately answered by the administration. We can pick and choose, to our national interest, how to enforce whatever Resolutions the U.N. can't or won't enforce. Our enforcement doesn't make the U.N. stronger, it makes us stronger. Qadaffi didn't give up his programs because of U.N. action...he gave it up because of U.S. action. UBL isn't hiding in some feces-covered cave now because of the U.N.'s strong arms: he's batting the flies away from his stench pile because of the USA's strong arms.

I disagree with the thought that my argument "elevates" the U.N. in any real sense.

Elevating the U.N. would be to turn over our foreign policy decisions to them, ala John Kerry or Howard Dean. That isn't going to happen. NO permission slip is needed, as GWB said the other night.

[u-89]

You are correct that Clinton used occasional foreign policy crisis cynically for domestic political advantage like getting his scandals off the front pages. What should be considered though is that Clinton and the Democrats faithfully followed through policy set in place by Republicans i.e. Bush the Elder’s Iraq policy which shows a unifyied vision for the world amongst our governing elite. The WMD dead enders, as you call them, are using Clinton’s supposed belief in WMD as proof of Saddam’s malfeasance and justification for Bush the Younger’s war which is pretty ironic as these people never believed Clinton about anything. Funny using a sociopath serial liar and convicted perjurer as a character witness.

What many good people fail to consider (or refuse to) is that their government has intentions which are not pure, peace loving or altruistic whether it be Republicans or Democrats who are in charge. It is never considered that the collapse of the Soviet Union and Saddam's trouble with Kuwait made a golden opportunity for our moving into the mid-east large military forces and leaving Saddam in power provided cause for leaving our forces in place. 9/11 was the perfect excuse to take a giant leap forward in our plan to dominate the mid East and central Asia. One does not have to be an insider to know about this, our moves are painfully obvious. The sad part is that so many good people can not grasp how our actions of duplicitous diplomacy, aggression, war and occupation breeds enemies and blowback. How can so many basically intelligent people actually believe we were attacked by terrorist “because we are good” and that “they hate us for our democracy” and why do they believe we have a right to police the world and overthrow governments for our convenience and profit. Our foreign policy is no different than the big city gangster tactics of bribery, extortion and applying muscle. All of which is considered morally bankrupt when practiced by regular citizens but somehow interpreted as righteous and proper when done by the government. History shows that since the dawn of man the reasons for war have always been power and money but somehow this could never be considered part of our history. We always were white hats afterall so don't forget that and you'll feel much better.

[alrea]

Unfortunately, it won't be sold that way to the gullible members of the public by the democrats in an election year.

journalists for howard dean

[u-89]

TYPO ALERT!

Last sentance of my last post "were" should read "wear."

[JohnGalt]

You know I like to offer free political advice, so I will offer the Dead Enders a story to run with, no charge.

David Kay, CIA, was sent over to find WMDs, thus the CIA not, say, the Pentagon, was in charge in finding out the correct information. David Kay is an errand boy and through past discussion we know that he will say whatever he is told to say, depending on who the highest bidder is.

Tenet, after the Plame affair, is on shaky ground with both his own troops in CIA, and the White House who keeps 'em around so the true believers can say 'look see, he's a Clinton appointee.' So behind the scenes, the CIA lifers were cutting deals with the Dean Team for soft treatment should Dean win; my guess is that the agreement was to blame the whole thing on the 'neocons.' On the other side, the establishment GOP and the Clinton Team have agreed to just forget about the whole WMD thing all together.

Dean loses Iowa, many say because the war issue was fading. The establishment media says Dean is finished based on nothing; a quick check will tell you Dean still has a large bank roll and contributions have continued to flow uninterrupted. Campaigns & Elections says the Dean is still the favorite. Three days before the NH primary, Kay drops what you and I know, is a bombshell.

There are no words to parse in his statements...

I will let the 'conspiracy theorists' run with it from there...


My first pint of ale last night was to you, Friend. We preformed nobly on the L'Affair Kay beginning last June.

[JohnGalt]

Every word you say is true, and the answer to your question is 'government education camps', but as patriots, and personally where I have friends in Iraq, I must stay focused on the policy goal: bringing the boys home. We are our brother's keeper, after all (see tagline as it relates to Rs and Ds).

Politics, the art of the possible, requires that we 'cut deals' to obtain policy objectives, and at this moment in 2004, I am trying to tell (sell?) a story that will embrace those on the Right, without compromising my own positions.

As you and I both noted in our posts, citing a sociopath for any kind of proof, is not a position I am willing to take-- indeed no person who did would have any credibility with an 'honest Right.'

While no doubt history will barely mention the War on Terror as China emerges as the world's super power, the zeitgeist of our age seems to be the need of the public to believe they are under attack from 'all evil' even as a criminal class is imported by the government to nearby neighborhoods. We can blame that on 40 years of Cold War propaganda, I guess, but I am only 30 so others in their 40s and 50s will need to answer that question.

[billbears]

The WMD dead enders, as you call them, are using Clinton’s supposed belief in WMD as proof of Saddam’s malfeasance and justification for Bush the Younger’s war which is pretty ironic as these people never believed Clinton about anything. Funny using a sociopath serial liar and convicted perjurer as a character witness.

And there you have it. The premise has fallen not to whether or not they were even there in the first place, but because the Democrats said it automatically Bush was right to send troops to Iraq. They're now depending on scare tactics from the other party as justification for the invasion? Everything Clinton said was a lie, except when it came to Iraq?

[tallhappy]

I'd like to see Kay's comments directly.

Here

[JohnGalt]

HLII: Proud WMDead Ender.