CBS Uses Kay to Undermine Bush, But on NBC Kay Backs Iraq War

CBS’s skewed take on David Kay’s assessments. On Tuesday’s CBS Evening News, John Roberts trumpeted how CIA Iraqi weapons inspector “Kay's findings that Iraq likely has no stockpiles of banned weapons have now cast serious doubt on the President's central claim as he took the nation to war” and Roberts lamented how “the White House today tried to steer the debate away from weapons back toward Saddam's record, renewing the nonexistent tie to 9/11." But President Bush made a perfectly reasonable assertion in the subsequent soundbite which did not support Roberts’ suggestion of a baseless claim about Hussein being directly connected to 9/11: "Given the offense of September 11th, we know we could not trust the good intentions of Saddam Hussein because he didn't have any."

Roberts also ignored concerns of Kay which both ABC and NBC have found time to relay. On ABC’s World News Tonight on Tuesday night, Terry Moran noted how Bush “aides point to several other things Kay has said, including: That Iraq was working to produce a biological weapon, using the poison ricin, up until last year; that Iraq tried to revive its efforts to produce nuclear weapons in 200 and 2001; and that Iraq had an extensive and forbidden missile program.”

Tuesday morning on Today, Matt Lauer prompted Kay to outline how he “found that in 2000 and 2001 Saddam Hussein did actively try to develop and start a nuclear program” and, the MRC’s Geoffrey Dickens noticed, asked him: “So based on the information that you have, David, not what we had prior to the war, but you have, in your opinion, was it prudent to go to war? Was there an imminent threat?” Kay affirmed: “I think it was absolutely prudent. In fact, 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. It was of a system collapsing. It was a country that had the capability in weapons of mass destruction areas and in which terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it.”

The night before, Kay traveled to Bedford, New Hampshire to appear on Monday’s NBC Nightly News. Tom Brokaw asked him about Democratic charges that Bush lied, but then proposed to Kay: “The President described Iraq as a gathering threat, a gathering danger. Was that an accurate description?” Kay agreed: “I think that's a very accurate description.” Brokaw followed up: “But an imminent threat to the United States?” Kay warned: “Tom, an imminent threat is a political judgment. It's not a technical judgment. I think Baghdad was actually becoming more dangerous in the last two years than even we realized. Saddam was not controlling the society any longer. In the marketplace of terrorism and of WMD, Iraq well could have been that supplier if the war had not intervened.”

But none of that came through in CBS’s Tuesday night story. Dan Rather set up the January 27 piece, as taken down by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: "President Bush is playing down the statement of his former chief weapons hunter in Iraq that Saddam Hussein had no significant arsenal of illicit weapons. More on that now from CBS's John Roberts at the White House."

Roberts began: "Critics today called David Kay's conclusions a shot between the eyes in the White House's case against Iraq. The President called them premature." George W. Bush in the Oval Office: "I said in the run-up that Saddam was a grave and gathering danger. That's what I said. And I believed it then, and I know it was true now." Roberts: "But Kay's findings that Iraq likely has no stockpiles of banned weapons have now cast serious doubt on the President's central claim as he took the nation to war." Bush: "The Iraqi regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Roberts: "His chief weapons hunter doesn't blame Mr. Bush, pointing, instead, to intelligence he says was inaccurate, wrong. Democrats, on the other hand, blame not only bad intelligence, but what they term the President's misuse of it." Senator Carl Levin (D-MI): "It is a real disservice to the American people, and we've got to get to the bottom of it with a comprehensive investigation." Roberts: "And, critics say, the administration keeps using bad intelligence. Last Friday, the Vice-President claimed those trailers discovered in Iraq were mobile biological laboratories -- conclusive evidence, he said, of Saddam's misdeeds, even as Kay concluded they were most likely for producing gas for artillery balloons, at worst for producing rocket fuel. The White House today tried to steer the debate away from weapons back toward Saddam's record, renewing the nonexistent tie to 9/11." Bush: "Given the offense of September 11th, we know we could not trust the good intentions of Saddam Hussein because he didn't have any." Roberts concluded: "President Bush today refused to even entertain the notion that he received bad intelligence, but if what David Kay says is true, he is facing another massive intelligence failure right on the heels of 9/11. Only this time it's an election year."

U.S. SENATE,

Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, October 9, 1998.

The President,
The White House, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to express our concern over recent developments in Iraq.

Last February, the Senate was working on a resolution supporting military action if diplomacy did not succeed in convincing Saddam Hussein to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions concerning the disclosure and destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. This effort was discontinued when the Iraqi government reaffirmed its acceptance of all relevant Security Council resolutions and reiterated its willingness to cooperate with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by its Deputy Prime Minister and the United Nations Secretary General.

Despite a brief interval of cooperation, however, Saddam Hussein has failed to live up to his commitments. On August 5, Iraq suspended all cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, except some limited monitoring activity.

As UNSCOM Executive Chairman Richard Butler told us in a briefing for all Senators in March, the fundamental historic reality is that Iraq has consistently sought to limit, mitigate, reduce and, in some cases, defeat the Security Council's resolutions by a variety of devices.

We were gratified by the Security Council's action in unanimously passing Resolution 1194 on September 9. By condemning Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by demanding that Iraq rescind that decision and cooperate fully with UNSCOM and the IAEA, by deciding not to conduct the sanctions' review scheduled for October 1998 and not to conduct any future such reviews until UNSCOM and the IAEA, report that they are satisfied that they have been able to exercise the full range of activities provided for in their mandates, and by acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council has sent an unambiguous message to Saddam Hussein.

We are skeptical, however, that Saddam Hussein will take heed of this message even though it is from a unanimous Security Council. Moreover, we are deeply concerned that without the intrusive inspections and monitoring by UNSCOM and the IAEA, Iraq will be able, over time, to reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction programs.

In light of these developments, we urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.

Sincerely,

Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski.

Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John F. Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Letters,%20reports%20and%20statements/levin-10-9-98.html

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY

STATEMENT OF JOHN DEUTCH- CIA Director
FEBRUARY 12, 1998

3. Iraq, Iran and other rogue nations

The past two Administrations have adopted a dual containment policy towards Iran and Iraq. For differing reasons, I do not judge either policy to be a smashing success.

In the case of Iraq, while Saddam is increasingly militarily constrained by the U.S. and its coalition partners, he continues to be a major threat to security in the region and the cause of the misery of the Iraqi people. Finding an alternative to Saddam should remain a high priority. Because Saddam continues to frustrate international inspections, there is good reason to believe that our allies and coalition partners will assist in this effort to thwart production of weapons of mass destruction. On the other hand, Saddam enjoys considerable sympathy in the Middle East and elsewhere; he remains politically strong because of his skill at balancing competing political interests in the region.

The situation with Iran is quite different. Despite a clear record of sponsoring terrorism and advocating extremist Islamic separatist policies, our European allies, Japan, Russia and others, have shown progressively less willingness to attempt to influence Iranian behavior by the use of sanctions, especially as opportunities to do business with Iran loom larger.

Without denying either the record of Iran or the character of Iranian policy, I believe it is time to explore replacing the current policy of containment with a policy of measured engagement whereby step-by-step political and economic normalization would accompany verifiable progress on key issues: cessation of state sponsored terrorism, cessation of work on weapons of mass destruction, support for the Middle East peace process, and greater respect for the individual. There is some indication of as yet uncertain value that Iran is receptive to an alternative approach. We shall see.

While there are significant differences between those nations that we classify as ìrogue statesî -- Iraq, Iran, Libya, North Korea -- none of them have abandoned the effort to acquire greater nuclear, chemical or biological capability. Accordingly, I urge this Committee to continue to support the counter-proliferation programs of the Department of Defense

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.