Kay's comments show war was justified

Knight Ridder/Spokesman-Review | 1-31-2004 | Joel Mowbray

[lilylangtree]

The man who until last week was in charge of investigating Saddam's weapons of mass destruction stash has become either a hero or an enigma--it just depends on who you are.

To the anti-war crowd, David Kay's recent statements that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction on the eve of the war is a valiant admission. To many in the administration who respect the weapons expert but are awestruck at the timing and the bluntness of some of the comments, Kay is a hard man to figure out.

Kay's statements make one thing clear, though: Bush was justified to go to war.

Within hours of leaving the Iraq Survey Group--the team that has been scouring Iraq for weapons of mass destruction--Kay gave Reuters a phone interview what the news wire described as a "direct challenge to the Bush administration." When asked if he thought that Saddam had destroyed weapons of mass destruction before the war, Kay flatly responded, "No, I don't think they existed."

The predictable headlines followed: "U.S. arms hunter says no Iraq WMD." Peaceniks were pleased--and Bushies were bummed.

Coming just three days after the State of the Union and dab smack in the middle of the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary, the timing struck some as suspect, at best. But Kay's statements were not all bad for the president.

In talking to NPR over the weekend, the former head of the Iraq Survey Group emphatically defended Bush: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president (an apology), rather than the president owing the American people."

Dangling an intriguing theory in the Sunday Telegraph, Kay said, "We know from some of the interrogations of former Iraqi officials that a lot of material went to Syria before the war, including some components of Saddam's WMD program." Less than a day later, though, Kay sought to dampen growing speculation. The Times reported, "Dr. Kay said there was also no conclusive evidence that Iraq had moved any unconventional weapons to Syria."

What gives?

He made a point in each interview to provide political cover for the president, such as leaving open the Syrian possibility or making clear who needs to apologize. It stands to reason, however, that Kay is smart enough to know that his simple sound bites would be used to bash Bush over the head.

The former lead inspector's comments are particularly stinging, though, given his past public comments.

After testifying before Congress last July, Kay said, "We have made significant progress in identifying and locating individuals who were reportedly involved in a mobile program."

And in October, Kay told Congress, "Iraq concealed (dozens of WMD-related program activities) from the United Nations during the ispections that began in late 2002."

Kay's credibility also has another question mark.

Giving ammunition to those who question his motives, Kay admitted to NPR, "I hope there is a book out there sometime."

It's possible that Kay is trying to ignite a bidding war among deep-pocketed publishers, but people who know him say it's not in his character.

Taken together, however, Kay's statements actually provide a compelling justification for going to war in Iraq.

The only reason Kay has been able to make the determination he did was because he had 1,400 people combing through documents and examining facilities in a way that simply would not have been possible during Saddam's reign.

It's not exactly as if Saddam's Iraq was a weapons-free zone.

Halfway through his team's search, Kay had already found substantial evidence of weapons of mass destruction-related programs and believed he would uncover hard "proof."

Add to that the intelligence before the war--that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction--and the simple fact that Saddam had used chemical weapons against both Iran and his own people, and Bush's decision was the very definition of reasonable.

Even in a world of uncertain intelligence--probably a permanent reality until God decides to spy for us--a president's job is to guard against the worst potential scenarios.

Right up until the war, Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction, the intelligence community thought he had stockpiles, and history shows he's used them.

Intelligence failures in Iraq point to the need for reform, but they do not alter reality: then, and now, the war is not simply just, but necessary.

[lilylangtree]

This editorial is well-written and easy to comprehend the message. The author does make a valid point in wondering: What's Kay up to talking out of both sides of his mouth? Plus, regardless whether WMDs are located or not, toppling a sadistic and fanatical Saddam Hussein was necessary for everyone on this planet.

[stylin_geek]

I don't know that Kay is talking out of both sides of his mouth. I saw an interview where David Kay was answering a question, and it was obvious he was about to say WMD programs existed in rudimentary form. However, his statement was edited at the word "rudimentary" and left incomplete. This happened with Brokaw on NBC I believe.

[ambrose]

Dude... the Vatican supported Hitler during World War II. Don't give me crap about what the Vatican thinks.

[jwalsh07]

I think Kay has been a remarkable public servant and only wish there were more like him. He is giving it to us exactly as he sees it.

Who can ask for more than that?

[jwalsh07]

The problem with Iraq is that it people all over the world protested against the war, former allied governments included, e.g. Canada, Mexico. When even the Vatican harshly condemns us you can only call it a disaster for diplomacy. Not only have we lost the trust of former allies, but radicalized Muslims got just more propaganda to feed their victims. Would you feel safe when travelling in an Islamic country? High price for a despote given there are dozens of others staying in power.

Lunacy.

[ambrose]

And countries all over the world did nothing when Hitler rose to power. The Soviets even made a peace pact with Nazi Germany.

The French just rolled over and couldn't hand their Jews over to the Gestapo fast enough.

Just the United States and Great Britain stood in the way of Germany capturing the world.

"Good intentions" don't count for squat at times... that's why Edith Keeler had to die.

[ambrose]

But you are right on one thing... this Iraq thing did radicalize the Muslisms. Hell, they're so pissed off, I am worried they might do something like fly airplanes into office buildings full of innocent civilians.

[jwalsh07]

Dude... the Vatican supported Hitler during World War II.

No dude they didn't.

[ambrose]

Then why does the current Pope continually apologize about their WWII conduct?

[cwb]

I agree...I don't think Kay is talking out of both sides of his mouth. I think what you have are certain indivduals with an agenda who pick and choose...and take out of context, his statements. While it is true that he didn't find...nor does "he" believe, that any stockpiles of WMDs existed, he has said that the ISG should continue its investigation because the possiblty still exists that they may find something. After watching his testimony first hand (instead of getting the media's interpretation), he concluded that Saddam went to great lengths to conceal a procurement program that was ready to go once the inspectors were gone. While he didn't find the WMDs, he did document the infrastructure that was in place, including what he called new construction on buildings that were to be used for Saddam's nuclear program. He also mentioned how Saddam was getting wiser, and instead of leaving "stockpiles" around to be found and destroyed, he was concentrating on his delivery systems (missiles)...which was a clear violation of 1441. What I found most disturbing was that (according to Kay) Saddam was getting to the point were almost everything could be done indigenously...were he wouldn't have to import materials from out of country. This made him a greater danger because he wouldn't need stockpiles, as he could just whip somthing up when he needed it.

The bottom line is Kay unequivocally said that Saddam was in violation of 1441. And for those who insisted that UNSCOM was right...and that they could've got to the bottom of this, he says, no they couldn't of. It was only the fact that Saddam was removed from the process that Kay was able to gain this info from people who weren't willing to talk when Saddam was in power. As much as liberals hate to hear this, WMDs were only one of the problems in Iraq; the other was the man who would use them. As liberals readily point to other countries that have WMDs that we haven't invaded, they conveniently leave out that these other countries don't have Saddam Husseins who have used them. Saddam has had over a decade to change the way he has done business...and thanks to our diplomatic efforts, we gave him almost a year to hide it all.

[jwalsh07]

Why don't you provide a quote from Pope John Paul II and we can discuss your erroneous assumptions.

Like I sid, the Catholic Church could have done more but they did much more than most.

[ValenB4]

Let's go after Robert Mugabe then. He's also sadistic and fanatical. Doing so may not benefit everyone on the planet, but it will benefit the 5 million people he is starving to death. He doesn't even have WMD, so there's nothing to worry about.

[stylin_geek]

Thank you for your reply, it is probably the most concise overview of Saddam's weapons program I have read. I agree completely with your assessment of the situation in Iraq in regards to the WMD question.

The thing that irritates me most about those who complain about not finding WMD in Iraq is the refusal of those people to understand that Saddam was one nuclear or biological weapon away from military blackmail.

[meenie]

Monaco is suspect now, they are one weapon away from having a WMD or nuclear weapon.

[Right_in_Virginia]

BTTT

[stylin_geek]

Well, the U.S. actually has these weapons. Know of any neighboring countries we have invaded, any citizens we have poisoned by the thousands using chemical weapons, or wars we have started with neighboring countries where we used them?