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

Drudge Report ^ | 1-23-04 | Reuters

[MamaLucci]

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.

[Dog]

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.

[Belial]

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.

[MamaLucci]

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.

[GraniteStateConservative]

We said we knew where they were, not just that they had them.

[JohnGalt]

"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.'

[txhurl]

Plus all those chemical suits they found. Highly unlikely Saddam thought WE were going to spray HIM.

[prairiebreeze]

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

[Belial]

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.

[JohnGalt]

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.

[prairiebreeze]

No John, the resolutions go back further than when Clintoon got involved. IIRC

Prairie

[conserv13]

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 : )

[witnesstothefall]

Oh I don't buy it either. But I do allow for the possibility.....

[Dog]

Some serious questions need to be asked...

Tenet has some splainin' to do.

[JohnGalt]

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.

[prairiebreeze]

Tenet part of the problem?

[Dog]

No......the bad intelligence is the problem.

What else could the CIA be wrong on.

[prairiebreeze]

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

[cwb]

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.

[GraniteStateConservative]

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.