A closer reading of the Kay report tells a very different story (WMD ALERT)

Star Newspapers (Chicago) ^ | Thursday, February 26, 2004 | Christopher S. McNeil

[Chi-townChief]

After all of the publicity relating to the David Kay report, I thought it might be wise to read the report for myself to test whether or not the coverage has been accurate in the local newspapers.

What I found was surprising.

In my view, the Kay Report actually included enough information to justify the war in Iraq, and yet, no media outlet has said this.

On the contrary, it seems as if most media outlets have given an incomplete accounting of this report, and specifically have been very anti-Bush in overall coverage, in my opinion.

See for yourself if you agree.

David Kay was America's top weapons inspector in Iraq, searching for any banned weapons of mass destruction.

He recently issued his report that stated, among other things, that he did not find any large stockpiles of weapons that our nation's intelligence services thought Saddam Hussein possessed.

This report has fueled debate within the press as to whether this nation should have gone to war in Iraq given this lack of weaponry.

After researching this report for myself, I find that the report actually proves going to war was the proper thing to do and that our president should be congratulated for his courage and leadership.

I encourage all of your readers to sift through this report for themselves. For those of you with limited time, please find here some of the findings I believe to be critical in deciding for yourself what the proper course would have been.

Looting destroyed or dispersed important evidence of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

Some WMD personnel crossed borders during the war and may have taken WMD with them.

Even the bulkiest materials we are searching for can be concealed in something as small as a two-car garage.

"We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment ..."

Examples of the program activities and equipment Kay found are:

A network of laboratories and equipment suitable for chemical and biological weapons.

A prison laboratory used in human testing of biological weapons.

Actual live biological weapons found in the homes of the scientists working for Saddam Hussein.

Newly developed research in how to produce brucella, Crimean fever, ricin, and other biological weapons.

Documents and equipment to develop nuclear weapons.

Specially developed airplanes, designed to spray anthrax out of a small device on the underside of the plane.

Such a device could be used against our troops stationed around the world or in our country over one of our cities, farms and water supplies, etc.

Mr. Kay also mentions that they found several vials of live biological weapons that could be used to replicate and mass produce toxins to kill humans "within one week."

Saddam could have ordered the production of mass quantities of biological weapons and ordered his military to spray such toxins out of these specially designed airplanes to kill at will, with only one week's notice!

Mr. Kay reported that the scientists caught holding these weapons of mass destruction admitted that there were large stockpiles of such weapons but refused to identify their location.

Again, Saddam's own scientists have admitted that they have large stockpiles, but will not identify their whereabouts.

Additionally, David Kay estimates that out of Iraq's 130 known storage sites, only 10 have been properly searched.

And besides the chemical and biological weapons evidence they did find, it was also discovered that Saddam was very active in his efforts to procure new types of missiles to deliver these gruesome payloads over a longer distance; something he was not allowed to do given the resolutions enacted by the United Nations.

All of this gloomy data is bad enough, but to hear the press tell the story, nothing consequential has been found, or will ever be found.

Many now question the decision to go to war, using the false image of what this report actually says.

Combine these findings of the Iraqi survey group with a story in the Chicago press a few weeks ago, and you begin to see why the president made the decision to go to war.

The story reports, "U.S. forces discovered seven pounds of cyanide in a raid last month on a Baghdad house linked to a suspected al-Qaida operative.

"The cyanide salt, shaped into bricks, was found Jan. 23 in the home of an associate on Abu Musab Zarqaqi, a Jordanian linked to Osama Bin Laden."

Couple the fact that terrorists found sanctuary in Iraq, and Iraq possessed airplanes to disperse such weapons over a major city: There is little doubt that the president made the proper decision.

Could we afford to allow a madman, who has used these weapons before on his enemies, to possess such weapons and have the chemical and biological weapons programs in place to mass produce toxins within one week of his order?

Should we have hoped and prayed that Saddam would have done the right thing and not shared these weapons with al-Qaida?

Or should we have acted to remove Saddam from power and annihilate al-Qaida's base of support in Iraq?

I say we choose the latter. In fact, I say we did the right thing by removing this threat.

And the other question is, why hasn't the media reported on all of the facts of the David Kay report?

Why hasn't the other half of this report been publicized?

The answer quite simply is that the press has an agenda all its own and will not do our homework for us. We must do it for ourselves.

(Christopher McNeil lives in Frankfort. His views, and his reading of the report, are strictly his. The Star invites a reply.)

[Chi-townChief]

The bad thing is how Kay said "We were all wrong," unwittingly, I think, giving the America-haters their bumper sticker for the decade.

[rhombus]

Move along, nothing to see here.

[KJacob]

"Again, Saddam's own scientists have admitted that they have large stockpiles, but will not identify their whereabouts."

Is this really in the report?? If this is the case why is Kay insisting that they never existed. Something doesn't add up.

[Maria S]

Meanwhile, in Amarillo, Texas, some of our louder-mouthed liberals continue to write in and repeat the DNC talking points (I deleted this female contributor's name; she's well-known for her hatred of Bush):


It's time to call Bush on the carpet

Every American should be concerned with the enormous price we are paying for President Bush's war in Iraq. I heard him proudly state on television he was the "War President," which made me cringe.

Each day the cost in American lives and taxpayer money escalates. The count as of Feb. 19 was 540-plus American dead and more than 3,000 wounded. The cost to the U.S. Treasury is $166 billion, and $50 billion more is anticipated for this budget year.

Iraq is in shambles and our economy is in the toilet. These are the consequences of George W. Bush's lies and misrepresentations. Now he admits there was neither an imminent threat to the United States nor weapons of mass destruction.

Lying by the president should not be tolerated. I do not understand why he is not called to task for these blatant offenses.

Richard Nixon was impeached for breaking into an office. Now Bush should be held accountable for his actions. It is time our senators either censure Bush for his deceit or begin impeachment proceedings.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Amarillo

[sandbar]

>On the contrary, it seems as if most media outlets have >given an incomplete accounting of this report, and >specifically have been very anti-Bush in overall >coverage, in my opinion.

*gasp* When did this come about??? This anti-Bush thing in the media outlets???

[GunnyB]

The bad thing is how Kay said "We were all wrong," unwittingly, I think, giving the America-haters their bumper sticker for the decade.

Indeed. What I find most disingenuous about Kay is that in his many appearances post report he has not stressed these facts. Rather, he has, like some lapdog of the media elites allowed himself to be led around by the nose.

Perhaps it is fallout of him being involved with politics and government for so long. But I know that if it were I making such a report, knowing how the Dims were looking for any excuse to diminish the President's record, I would have said these things loudly and repeatedly. The aspect of this that bothers me the most is that now that the Kay Report has been cited over and over by pundits and pols as being proof that we should not have gone to war, it will be a monumental task to use that same report to prove that the President was right.

[Ben Hecks]

Here is the interim progress report dated Oct. 2, 2003. Also interesting is the reference to foreign involvement in the development of missiles and other systems that violated U.N. sanctions. The foreign country(s) are not named.

http://www.odci.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

[ScreamingFist]

"A network of laboratories and equipment suitable for chemical and biological weapons."

Or aspirin manufacturing.

"A prison laboratory used in human testing of biological weapons."

Should be easy to prove, Im waiting.

"Newly developed research in how to produce brucella, Crimean fever, ricin, and other biological weapons."

Should be easy to prove, Im waiting.

"Actual live biological weapons found in the homes of the scientists working for Saddam Hussein"

Should be easy to prove, I'm waiting.

"Documents and equipment to develop nuclear weapons"

The local library, order your equipment off the internet.

"Specially developed airplanes, designed to spray anthrax out of a small device on the underside of the plane."

Right. RC aircraft, flown from Bahgdad, by satellite (ours) remote control. Spare me, I can draw anything on paper and call it a plan.

"Mr. Kay also mentions that they found several vials of live biological weapons that could be used to replicate and mass produce toxins to kill humans "within one week."

Details? I'm waiting.

"Saddam could have ordered the production of mass quantities of biological weapons and ordered his military to spray such toxins out of these specially designed airplanes to kill at will, with only one week's notice!"

The airplanes that don't exist? Right.

"Mr. Kay reported that the scientists caught holding these weapons of mass destruction admitted that there were large stockpiles of such weapons but refused to identify their location."

Sure they did. "Ahmed, here's a billion dollars and amnesty, where are the stockpiles? Errr, I can't tell you."

"Additionally, David Kay estimates that out of Iraq's 130 known storage sites, only 10 have been properly searched."

Then why did Kay come back and say there are no weapons?

"The story reports, "U.S. forces discovered seven pounds of cyanide in a raid last month on a Baghdad house linked to a suspected al-Qaida operative.
The cyanide salt, shaped into bricks, was found Jan. 23 in the home of an associate on Abu Musab Zarqaqi, a Jordanian linked to Osama Bin Laden."

Cyanide is NOT a weapon of mass destruction. It is good for killing prisoners in jail cells, see above.

[Go Gordon]

Bump for later reading

[CyberAnt]

Please inform this person NIXON WAS NEVER, EVER IMPEACHED. The only president who was ever impeached was BILL CLINTON.

[CyberAnt]

I don't think it gives the America-haters anything .. after all, the "we" in Kay's statement includes the SECURITY COUNCIL OF THE UN.

The fact the media has tried to say "Bush lied" about this stuff is just stupidity .. there is NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT SUCH A CLAIM.

I still maintain .. we know Saddam had them .. if we can't find them now .. WHERE THE HELL ARE THEY ..?? That is the only question of relevance.

[texasflower]

I waiting for you to be something other than a big jerk.

Still waiting.

[Criminal Number 18F]

Well, I won't waste a proper fisking on that uneducated letter. One point will do:

It is time our senators either censure Bush for his deceit or begin impeachment proceedings.

Unless you were stoned to a fare-the-well throughout the nineties (good possibility for this lady?) you know that the House brings impeachment charges. The Senate can only sit in judgment once the house does that.

Ignorant [pejorative term deleted]. Probably a schoolteacher!

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Criminal Number 18F]

The only president who was ever impeached was BILL CLINTON.

Right about Nixon, wrong about Clinton. He was impeached and acquitted, but he wasn't the only one. So was Andrew Johnson.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[okie01]

An altogether silly response.

Surely, you can do better than that.

I'm waiting.

[okie01]

Ping for an enlightened read.

[COEXERJ145]

Please inform this person NIXON WAS NEVER, EVER IMPEACHED. The only president who was ever impeached was BILL CLINTON.

Andrew Johnson was also impeached but was acquitted by one vote.

[COEXERJ145]

Kay has been changing his story lately. He has been going around implying that President Bush "misused" the intelligence on Iraq.

[GretchenEE]

bump for later

[Joe_October]

..Sure they did. "Ahmed, here's a billion dollars and amnesty, where are the stockpiles? Errr, I can't tell you." ...

If you believe you will never spend the first penny of that billion, you wouldn't speak a word. Say for example you worked for a guy that mutilated and tortured people for say 20 years and when he was caught in the past, they let him go.

Just a hypothetical, we don't know anyone like that.

Until they inject Hussein and his band of brothers, a number of the scientists won't talk.