Posted on 07/07/2006 9:44:44 AM PDT by Miami Vice
Democrats - and their liberal media myrmidons - often quote former Iraq Survey Group (ISG) Director David Kay about weapons of mass destruction (WMD's) in Iraq - yet they do so selectively.
On June 29, Kay testified before a House Armed Services Committee hearing regarding recent information made public about WMD's found in Iraq. They never mentioned what he said during that hearing.
The hearing was chaired by Pennsylvania Congressman Curt Weldon. During his opening statement Weldon said, "Today, the full committee meets in open session to receive testimony on information - released just last week by the Director of National Intelligence - about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. This declassified information specifically states that coalition forces have recovered about 500 munitions containing mustard or sarin nerve agent .... Four months ago it was brought to my attention by several former U.S. Intelligence Officers, that we may not have searched all suspected WMD sites in Iraq ... I was surprised to find out, that, as Charles Duelfer stated in a recent briefing '"we just didn't have the resources to check all sites"'.... Some may want to play down the significance of this report or even deny that WMD have been found in Iraq."
Weldon continued, "For those who claim these weapons are not the weapons of mass destruction that the United States went to war over, I would like to refer them to the 17 United Nations Security Council Resolutions that Saddam Hussein violated - and in particular, the 14 that specifically addressed WMD. The very first one ... 687 - directed the destruction of Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons. Saddam Hussein violated this resolution ... and the verified existence of such chemical weapons proves that. In part because of such violations, we voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq. ...Others may claim that this newly declassified information is not significant. In fact in the September 2004 report of the "Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction" - Charles Duelfer - states that coalition forces could expect to find numbers of these munitions throughout the Iraqi countryside. ... ones that could be sold on the black market, that could fall into the hands of terrorists or insurgents, that could end up outside of Iraq - still exist there ....Third, some people claim that these weapons are pre-Gulf War munitions with a badly degraded chemical agent that is no longer lethal or even harmful. ...I point to the declassified statement from the intelligence report that chemical warfare agents might degrade over time, but they still remain hazardous and potentially lethal." This hearing contained some revelatory testimony that the Democrats try to discredit. Kay's testimony is a perfect example.
When asked by the ranking Committee Democrat, Ike Skelton, if the ISG found the amounts of chemical weapons stated in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), because of which, "we went to war on March 18," Kay replied, "I came to the conclusion that there were no WMD's as described in the NIE... I thought Iraq was a more dangerous place than I assumed in the NIE, filled with people who knew how to make WMD ...[1]"
Kay was then asked another very relevant question by a committee member, Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter. Hunter, it must be noted, is a former Army Ranger and Vietnam veteran, who voted in favor of the war in Iraq. Hunter asked, "Dr. Kay, in light of your last statement when the gentleman from Missouri was asking you about the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the expectancy versus what we found when we got there, and your answer that you still found Iraq to be a very dangerous place - dangerous to American security. Having gone and done the survey, how would you have voted? Do you think it was worthwhile?
Kay replied, ".... I think the decision to go to war against Iraq was the decision I would have taken. " Hunter then asked a series of questions about the accuracy of statements made in Congress stating there were no WMD's found in Iraq:
Hunter: " ... when we have descriptions on the House floor .... '"There were no,"' and I'm quoting, "there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."' That's not accurate, is it?"
Kay: "It's not accurate by my personal knowledge."
Hunter (quoting a colleague): '"We are spending billions of dollars to occupy a country that did not have weapons of mass destruction."'
He then asks Kay, "That's not accurate, is it?"
Kay: "That's certainly not how I would phrase it, let me say that."
The following dialogue between Kay and Hunter illustrates how successful the misinformation campaign by antiwar groups, regarding the existence of WMD's in Iraq, has been. Hunter continued questioning Kay:
Hunter (again quoting an antiwar colleague): ... "'We know that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know that to be the case."' That's not accurate, is it?"
Kay: "I think - look, I don't want to get into criticizing your colleagues. We all knew that in Iraq we were going to find chemical weapons produced prior to 1991."
Hunter: "But Dr. Kay, you say we all knew. I don't agree with that. ...that's one reason we're having the hearing ... I think after the massive number ... of statements to the effect of what I just read to you that have been going on in town hall meetings, coming out of the radio, the television, the newspaper - if you ask the average American today ... if there are any weapons of mass destruction ... found in Iraq, I think 99.9 percent of them are going to tell you no. They're going to say no, there aren't."
This is the difficulty with the debate about Iraq. The American public, because of an administration that is not publicizing the facts and some politically partisan journalism, is not being furnished with the information necessary to form an opinion.
It is also unconscionable when our elected representatives make statements in Congress such as: "We are certain that Iraq does not possess weapons of mass destruction -and never did."
Michael P. Tremoglie is the author of the novel A Sense of Duty
This isn't rocket science folks. Remember that what we know is just from the unclassified parts of a larger classified report.
Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, the reason Bush isn't singing this from the rooftops is that he is more concerned about national security than his popularity ratings? Maybe he is downplaying this because of what is still in the classified portions and he maybe doesn't want to tip too much to the terrorists lest they get ahold of what is still missing? Just a thought.
Sorry, I didn't mean to pile on. I didn't see your corrected post until after I posted.
And, if you'd looked, you'd have seen the date of the report.
Not hundreds of millions; we've spent way over a billion at each location just to build the facilities. That's public record, by the way, and it's a great point that these things are not just benign because they're 16 years old. They're very toxic and very lethal. If the MSM and their Democratic allies don't agree, why don't they ask for the lab reports and show how innocuous these items were?
I think the official stance is, "We are certain that Saddam did not possess weapons of mass destruction -and we're the ones who sold them to him!"
This is the biggest mystery about the Bush Administration, IMO
Dubya's new tone again. He doesn't want to embarass the french or the russians who made the wmd artillary shells.
bump to an important post.
Yes that's correct folks, apparently all the sarin and mustard gas shells and canisters we've found have use-by dates on them. And the lib naysayers, like the Mount Everest of Ignorance himself Keith Olbermann, would be quite willing to prove that these "old" wmds are harmless by being exposed to the contents of a few released ones. Sure.
And furthermore the American public has been told that there were NO, NONE, ZILCH, NADA wmds whatsoever...not old ones.
I'm totally baffled by the president on this. I have been for quite some time. I have to assume it is to protect our troops. The downside to him is having to admit that we invaded Iraq to get his WMD, and now we don't have it all yet. That too would be a club for the Democrats.
Quite true, but then again, the Dems would use the President's choice in underwear as a club if they could. Unfortunately, in this case, the club is very effective.
Well, my point was that they make no sense. First they say he DIDN'T HAVE them, and then they see WE SOLD HIM SOME. If we sold him some, then he had them, right? They're very illogical.
Thanks so much for the ping to this. It just so happened that I caught a replay of this hearing on C-Span 2 yesterday.
Curt Weldon said to David Kay that it was stupid and unconscionable that Kay has tried to downplay the finding of 500 WMD in Iraq as being less dangerous than what was under the average kitchen sink.
Frank Gaffney was his usual brilliant self.
Fantastic
In my book, this cartoon sums up the GOP:
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.