KAY Report to Congress on C-SPAN - LIVE THREAD

Now | Me

[Frank_Discussion]

I don't have C-SPAN, but I know somebody in FReeperland does. Keep us informed. Thanks!

[GraniteStateConservative]

Sensitive Compartmented Information? Classified information concerning or derived from intelligence sources, methods, or analytical processes, which is required to be handled within formal access control systems established by the Director of Central Intelligence?

[GraniteStateConservative]

I hope not. I hope we can reform our intelligence system.

[OldFriend]

You have connected the two incidents regarding Niger in a most cogent way. I suspect you are right and there was a conspiracy afoot to bring down Blair. Labor would still be in power but Blair would be gone. Bush was other target!

[WOSG]

This is the question I'd like to see posed: Mr. Kay, I'm curious about the definition of the term "large stockpiles." Would you consider 1 barrel of VX, an amount capable of killing a half-million people, a "large stockpile"? How many barrels would it take to qualify as "large."?

Good Question! I think the answer is - it could fit in a garage.

I'd followup and ask "You found that they were actively pursuing the ability stabilise VX nerve gas so they could store it, right?" "Right" "If they did that, at what time could our intelligence determine whether they had it or not?" "That is unclear"

"SO just as our intelligence could not be sure they did have it, it could not be sure they did not have it, so long as they had those programs?" "Correct"

"Given that, and given the evidence for the weapons programs, is it not a reasonable conclusion that we took to determine that Saddam had those weapons, since he had weapons programs trying to build them?" "Yes, it would be a logical conclusion. What we found so far indicates that Saddam Hussein strongly desired these weapons, but was not as successful as we estimated."

"Last question, prior to the war, leaders spoke of the tons of anthrax not accounted for. Are they still unaccounted for?" "Yes"

[carton253]

It has to be fixed... and I believe it will be.

[WOSG]

John Loftus was saying last night that Kay was told by the administration to play down the Syria angle right now, because they would be waiting until later in the campaign cycle to "reveal" the stuff went to Syria. Loftus has been saying this consistently since last March: the stuff went to Syria, and the truth will come out. Yeah, and I am beginning to TIRE of this story. I dont believe it. If true, it is highly irresponsible of the administration to let untruths like 'there were no WMDs' hang out there!

Let's not wait until the KERRY administration to find out Saddam shipped stuff to syria.

[woodyinscc]

A GOP Congress in 1995 saved us fiscally.

You are absolutely right, this is what I meant when I said Clinton should thank his lucky stars. He saw the figures, jumped aboard the horse and rode it for all it was worth. The press jumped right along with him, and his economy has become reality, and a rallying cry for all the unwashed.

I wish an author like James B. Stewart would right an expose' on the tech bubble, I believe fervently, it goes all the way up to Rubin and Clinton

[The Wizard]

and since I've seen the testimony no one has reported that he backed GWB 100%

[Pres Raygun]

Excellent point! We need to step back and look at this rationally. The RATS are focusing on a minor point in the grand scheme of things for their own political purposes. Yes as Huck and others have belabored over and over it is now probable that Saddam technically did not have WMDs at the moment we invaded Iraq. So what? To put things in perspective consider the following:

1. Saddam has had WMDs in the past and was insane enough to use them.
2. Saddam in the 80s started a nuclear energy program in Iraq, when his country is blessed with more oil and hydroelectric power than they could ever use. The only rational explanation for Iraq having a nuclear energy program would be for them to develop nuclear weapons.

Given these facts alone, any logical person would have come to the conclusion that Saddam was a threat to the world and should have been removed from power. In fact he should have been removed during Desert Storm. President G. W. Bush knew this and decided to act. After using this argument for a year trying to convince the RATs, the UN and the French who we now have evidence were paid off by Saddam, the President resorted to the use of the intelligence that suggested Saddam may still have WMDs (a reasonble assumption at the time and still possibly true) to justify the war. The possibility even probability that this intelligence was indeed wrong, does not negate the overwhelming reasons for going to war. Anyone playing this political game is quite frankly, dangerous.

We avoided nuclear warfare during the cold war, because the Soviets were rational enough not to use their nuclear weapons on us, simply for their own self preservation. Saddam is obviously not so rational. If he were rational, he would have cooperated fully with the weapon inspections, the way Libya is now doing. The idiot lost his country, his power, his wealth, and his freedom and eventually he will lose his life because he failed to cooperate. I for one am glad that the President did invade Iraq before Saddam could develop WMDs. How can the President be faulted for this?

[HenryLeeII]

Yes. And since you don't have access to such material, you don't have much of a basis for making the claim that the evidence that led George Bush, Bill Clinton, most members of Congress, the intelligence services of the French, Germans, British, Russians, etc., to believe that Hussein possessed WMD, was composed of "interviews with people who had agendas, fabricated paperwork, weren't in a position to know, etc."

It was, however, based on admissions from Hussein, evidence gathered by U.N. teams that sought and destroyed WMD after the Gulf War, and credible evidence gathered over a number of years by numerous countries. President Bush made the prudent decision based on the information that was known. Allowing Hussein free rein to further develop his WMD programs (Brucella, Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and ricin research, ballistic missile and unmanned aerial vehicle development, and rudimentary nuclear research, were all cited as active programs in David Kay's preliminary report of the ISG's findings issued last October) would have been a reckless endangerment of the world's safety.

[alnick]

Aren't you the one who dismissed the finding of all those mislabled sacks of castor beans? Turns out that Iraq was working on producing RICIN right up until we invaded.

[billbears]

And I still dismiss them. Sacks of beans have many purposes and I see no massive production facilities. BTW, neither did Kay

[maica]

While we worry about today's media barrage about GWBs lies, failures, deceptions, etc, let us not forget that his detractors are still blaming him for Knowing about the 9/11 plans in advance, and doing nothing about it. So the same people criticize him for both inaction and action.

They only demonstrate their own total lack of credibility.

[WOSG]

"Instead of rationally analyzing why we were unprepared and making adjustments, Bush has to operate in a wilderness of mirrors in which any attempt to correct any shortcoming is viewed as an admittance of guilt, if not culpability, for the 9-11 attacks. No attempt is made to credit bin Laden and his crew with either craftiness or operational skill. Political imperitives prevent this White House from admitting failure or mistake. They literally can't. Their opposition is only interested in returning to the White House, not in correcting the faults in the intelligence community. "

Good explanation.

the same intel that Clinton used to bomb Saddam in 1998, Bush used to invade Iraq in 2003. Somehow only one party gets blamed for that ... huh?

Fingers will get pointed to and nothing will get fixed.

Meantime, the fact that we likely underestimated the links between Iraq and AlQaeda is swept under the rug.

[WOSG]

she shoots ... she scores!!!

game over

[plain talk]

Exactly. They've found the WMD missiles but not the warhead chemicals or bio agents which would be easy to hide. We will probably will never find them. In the meantime, we are at war with the enemy within who will use anything as a distraction to invent an issue. Bush should declare that we DO need to improve our intelligence gathering capabilities that were watered down by the liberals but not concede any ground on this.

[WOSG]

"I wish an author like James B. Stewart would right an expose' on the tech bubble, I believe fervently, it goes all the way up to Rubin and Clinton"

Actually it goes all the way up to Alan Greenspan!!

He pumped up liquidity after the Asian crisis all the way through past the Y2K "crisis" that never happened. He took away the punch bowl in February 2000 .... check the Nasdaq and draw conclusions!

Clinton IMHO proved a golden role model for the corporate CEO rogues who abused their power and thought lying was just a form of "spin". Just a thought.

[cyncooper]

Kay live with Lester Holt on MSNBC.

Holt asks him about "banned weapons"

I noticed in the car a little while ago ABC news say Kay said "no banned weapons" and I thought "that is not what he said! he was referring to bio and chem".

Anyway, Kay set the record straight with Holt right off the bat and said they certainly did have banned weapons, and cited the missiles that exceeded the allowed range.

He's still talking..

[GraniteStateConservative]

It was, however, based on admissions from Hussein, evidence gathered by U.N. teams that sought and destroyed WMD after the Gulf War, and credible evidence gathered over a number of years by numerous countries. President Bush made the prudent decision based on the information that was known. Allowing Hussein free rein to further develop his WMD programs (Brucella, Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, and ricin research, ballistic missile and unmanned aerial vehicle development, and rudimentary nuclear research, were all cited as active programs in David Kay's preliminary report of the ISG's findings issued last October) would have been a reckless endangerment of the world's safety.

We had no real information on Iraq's WMD stockpiles post 1998. That is a fact. We had conjecture, we had unreliable information. We didn't have real evidence. Saddam is a liar. Do you take the word of a liar? Should our intelligence community take the word of a liar? The UN info is way out of date. Bush made the prudent decision, yes. I'm not arguing that point. I believe that Bush was given unreliable information, and that he was likely not told how unreliable it was. Otherwise, I'd think, he wouldn't put himself in a position to back track. The administration believed they were there in March 2003. The alternative is that Bush did know the information was foggy, but pretended it wasn't. I don't belong in that camp. I accept that Saddam was a threat to the world and deserved to be ousted. That's not the point here. The point is that the system failed. We need to have the system fixed.

[alnick]

Dayton: What are WMD related programs.

Kay: They were developing indigneous VX nerve gas precursors. Using a simulant the moved ahead two generations in the Anthrax production. They moved from liquid Anthrax to "freeze dryed" powdered Anthrax like the type we were attacked with here.

Now this is the type of thing that should make all the headlines.