Kay Briefs Lawmakers on Iraq WMD

Reuters via Yahoo ^ | 10/2/03 | Rueters

[billbears]

If they didn't find anything, why would it be classified...let alone, "highly" classified?

Would you want the citizens of the respective states knowing you're going to approve 87 billion dollars, never mind the other billions, to fix a bombed out country that didn't actually present a threat? The more 'highly classified' the information is, the more likely it is nothing was ever there

[Peach]

Yesterday when I told you that it's gratifying to see you finally admit they had WMD, you just changed the subject, as usual.

The levels that Bush stated in his SOTU are the levels that have been used for over 17 UN resolutions, and by every nation in the world that has intelligence agencies.

You claim you admit (now) they had WMD in the 80's. How big of you, considering they used them repeatedly.

You have yet to admit they had them in the 90's and yet to tell us where you think they are now.

[InterceptPoint]

"Kay separately briefed the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate intelligence committees behind closed doors in what lawmakers called a highly classified session from which they emerged tight-lipped."

Right.

Tight-lipped for any good news I'm sure. The bad news will somehow be interpreted by the Dems as "not really classified, you know" and they will have it on the street before you can say "Joseph C. Wilson".

[BushisTheMan]

So if anyone leaks...10 years in prison?

[geedee]

They were only tight-lipped because they'd been sitting on their tushes and their panty-hoses were giving them a weeeeeee-geeeeeeeeee.

[RandallFlagg]

It will be very easy to tell in the next few days if there was any substance in the report. Watch and judge the attacks of the Dems. We should all know very shortly what Kay discussed based on the next in a series of scandals they roll out.

Yep! If the librats start acting like they supported Bush all along, it's over...

[lasereye]

I freely admit they had them in the 1980s. That being said, there has been no evidence of 30,000 munitions or anything else Bush outlined in his speeches building up to the war.

So what do you think they had recently? Nothing? A lesser amount? No idea?

[My2Cents]

Correct. I wonder, does the Dept. of Justice have jurisdiction over leaks made by members of Congress?

[billbears]

The levels that Bush stated in his SOTU are the levels that have been used for over 17 UN resolutions, and by every nation in the world that has intelligence agencies.

Now would these be the intelligence agencies that stated WMDs were no longer there or would this be the intelligence agencies Bush and Blair relied on with a little coaxing by the Pentagon? I can't remember which 'intelligence' agencies count now. Or are we back to relying on defectors that have a definite interest in seeing Hussein gone?

You claim you admit (now) they had WMD in the 80's. How big of you, considering they used them repeatedly.

Don't think I've ever stated otherwise. Of course they used them. They used them against the Kurds without serious condemnation from the administration at the time. You know those same Kurds that 'we' just have to go to war to 'save' now?

You have yet to admit they had them in the 90's and yet to tell us where you think they are now.

I don't know. Where are the kooks at the PNAC saying they 'are' currently? Iran? Syria? Anywhere but Saudi Arabia?

[My2Cents]

This will be interesting. If the essence of Kay's report is that "there continues to be no evidence of WMD in Iraq," leaks will be all over the place. But, everyone remains mum on the hearing, then we can assume that there is some blockbuster information about to be released. I find it interesting that the nits the Democrats are currently picking are focused on the sideshow of Joe Wilson's wife. Whatever happened to the claims that "there are no WMDs!" Those naysayers went silent pretty quickly in the early summer. I think the other shoe is about to drop.

[mewzilla]

If nobody leaks then the situation must be pretty hairy.

[Almondjoy]

What are you using the same old tired arguements from the left that have already been debunked? I don't get it. Could you please explain this to me?

First off Saddam was used to keep the Iranians at bay in the 80's. It's simply a matter that we were trying to keep a snake as a pet and we all know snakes are notrious for having no loyalites.. they will bite their handlers at the first opportunity. To argue whether this was a sound policy would lead to another lengthy debate which I'm sure neither of us want to get into.

It is no lie to say Saddam is a madman. Being the fact that he's a loose cannon makes him dangerous to everyone in world for that fact alone.

It's well documented that Iraqi agents tried to kill the older Bush(I believe in 1994 if my memory serves correctly). Hense if we presenting this to a court of law you have now established motive as to why Saddam would love to see us go down(this one event is not the only one in which it's well documented Saddam put his hand in to bring harm to the US and her interests).

WMD without a doubt was in that country. The American media harps more on that fact that France, Germany, Russia, or China. You ever stop to think why? They know WMD was there.. they will not take the chance of getting a pie in the face by bolding lying and saying "There was no WMD in Iraq."(except for France.. they have no world face left to save.

Now that we have established motive and the means to carry out harm on the US let's move on to reasons for the war.

There is really only one important reason for the war. While we know that Saddam needed to go because of what a horrible dictator he was.. and that we were doing the world good by getting rid of him(another reason we must sacrifice our blood in Iraq so that the soliders that have already died do not die in vain). The big reason was the to increase overall security of the US and of the world as a whole. We are the only nation with the money and power to go into the Mideast and spend and do what it takes to ensure that radical Islam doesn't start putting nukes in the western capitals of the world. It's a shame that we must take this task(for the most part) on our own. The other major powers must think the are immune.. or simply in denial because Osama continues to name only the US and Britain in his threats(by name I'm saying.. not his threats against the "west"). The fact that Iran is still pursing nuclear weapons only futher justifies our cause. Syria is moving inline.. regardless of what we think they are still doing the progress can be seen in what they ARENT doing. Hezbollah has been for the most part silent for the last 2 years.. I don't know if that will continue but for their sake they better hope they do.

We thought there would of been more support from countries like India. Hense our timetable and our troop deployments have been extended farther than we would of liked. I would like to believe that we thought India and some other countries would of ponied up so we could bring a few more troops home for rotation so that when Korea and Iran come to a head will be fresh enough to take them on.

In order of importance.. Iran than North Korea.. there are alot more countries that want North Korea to remain in a box and nuke free than Iran.. Iran.. new missle.. range.. Israel.. nuff said.

All that being said God Bless our troops.. our cause.. and our nation... forget politics.. forget the blanket hate.. We need to focus people on this task that is ours to bear. If armagedon is to come during my children's lifetime I hope we don't let it happen by a few Islamic crazies.

[My2Cents]

Saddam Hussein presented no more of a threat than any other crazed dictator in the Middle East.

Precisely why we should push for regime change through the whole region.

[Peach]

By your first paragraph you have just shown your complete and utter ignorance of the 16-17 UN resolutions which were agreed to UNANIMOUSLY BY EVERY MEMBER OF THE SECURITY COUNCIL with regard to the amounts of WMD Iraq had.

There is no sense talking with someone who so wilfully disregards the basic facts, all of which were discussed ad naseum last year.

[NutCrackerBoy]

It will be very easy to tell in the next few days if there was any substance in the report. Watch and judge the attacks of the Dems.

Please don't conflate "substance in the report" with "hard evidence of WMDs". The report could contain substantial information about Saddam's weapons programs or the nature of Saddam's bluffing if that be the case.

I consider it surprising if all recent intelligence is based on bluff, but not a result that should be considered harmful to the President's case (though of course that is how it will be spun).

[My2Cents]

[Why] are you using the same old tired arguements from the left that have already been debunked? I don't get it.

Look at his "About Page." He's clearly a proud son of the Confederacy who has never acknowledged that the Union won the war. He probably doesn't recognize the legitimacy of the United States government, or its foreign policy.

[billbears]

What are you using the same old tired arguements from the left that have already been debunked

What arguments? Simple fact of the matter. NO WMDs HAVE BEEN FOUND. No 30,000 munitions, no tons or liters, nothing. A bag of beans and a half buried centrifuge with a non conservative administration backtracking for new reasons almost daily. What is it you don't understand about that?

[Almondjoy]

You might want to read my whole post before you spout off things. You will find my answer there.

[My2Cents]

So if anyone leaks...10 years in prison?

News report: "Questioned about the Mr. Kay's remarks given during the hearing of the Sen. Select Committee on Intelligence, Committee member Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Illinois) said, 'Sorry, I have to take a leak.'"

[Almondjoy]

Oh.. I usually don't look at those.. apparently I'm wasted my time aruging with someone who hasn't quite caught up to the realities of 2003.