OT - Powell unsure whether WMD will be found

[NoMyths]

For informational purposes: Powell unsure whether WMD will be found in Iraq

Text:
(CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Saturday that it remains unclear whether weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq.

On Friday, the Bush administration's former top weapons investigator, David Kay, told the Reuters news agency he had concluded that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had no stockpiles of weapons.

Responding to the remark, the secretary of state said it was not clear who was right.

Last year, Powell presented evidence to the United Nations that Saddam had such weapons. President Bush used their alleged existence as the primary rationale for the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

"I think the answer to the question is 'I don't know yet,'" Powell told reporters. "Last year, when I made my presentation, it was based on the best intelligence that we had at the time. It reflected the National Intelligence Estimate that the intelligence community had presented to all administration officials and had briefed to the Congress. And it was consistent with the views of other intelligence agencies of other governments, and it was consistent with the body of reporting over the years."

Powell said the United States had demanded of Iraqi officials a full accounting of what had happened to the nation's weapons, "and all they did was make statements without proving it, proving it to our satisfaction."

Powell said the Bush administration still plans to transfer sovereignty at the end of June, though he added, "There are a lot of things that have to happen. We've got to get a fundamental administrative law written, and a lot of work is being done on that."

Powell made his comments aboard a plane en route to Tbilisi, Georgia, where he is to attend Sunday's inauguration of President Mikhail Saakashvili.

U.S. troops in Georgia are training and equipping Georgian forces to root out Chechen separatists and other militants operating in the Pankisi Gorge.

Powell played down any suggestion of a rift between the United States and Russia over what he called "a very modest presence" in Georgia.

The troops' mission is likely to be completed in the next several months and has been largely effective, he said.

"The number of terrorists believed to still be wandering around in the gorge area is much reduced from what it was before we started."

Those terrorists, he said, had been attacking Russia through Chechnya.

"And so, it was a mission that we had explained to the Russians all along. It is no threat to anyone. It was a way of assisting the Georgians in dealing with a terrorist threat that was affecting Russia," Powell said.

He predicted the United States would "probably maintain some continuing liaison with Georgian military and paramilitary forces in the gorge, so that we have a sense of what their needs are and what their training requirements in the future might be," but said the basic mission should be ending soon.

Powell is to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday in Moscow, as well as with Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov.

Powell is scheduled to return to the United States on Tuesday.

[Dutch]

I think this is a case of the media making exaggerations, not Powell or the USA. The facts remain the same that Saddam Hussein made every suggestion he had WMD to keep the fear in the Kurds, the Shite's, and all his less than beloved neighbors. If he didn't have them, he had to pick his poison. Have one of a dozen or so local enemies start kicking him around, or work his magic (again) and see if he can play the world leaders off of each other to buy himself some time.

If he does not have any WMD left (i.e. He did in fact destroy the known stockpiles he never accounted for) he fooled me, he fooled Reuters, he fooled the AP, he fooled Bush, he fooled Clinton, he fooled the Iranians, the Russians, the Germans and French, his own people, his own generals, and just about everybody on the face of the planet including you, the reader of this post.

If we fail to act, and he does have these things ready to go, and gives them to Hamas to drop off in Tel Aviv, or to Answar el Islam, or even Al Qaeda to drop off in any of a number of unprotected western cities, who's responsability would it have been? The Germans? The French? The Chineese? No, the reality is that only one nation on Earth had an opportunity to put the threat out of action. And I am proud that we did what I believe we had to do.

In the high stakes game of world diplomacy, perception IS reality. If you allow your nation to be a perceived threat, you ARE a threat.

We did the right thing, and I don't care what the ratings mongering news media spin doctors say.

[amdaily]

For all my my differences with him, Joe Lieberman summed this up best: "I think the president put too much emphasis on weapons of mass destruction because the case against Saddam was enough. Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction."

[NoMyths]

Followup: Blair defends Iraq WMD reports

Point of interest:
"Blair made the comments shortly before U.S. official David Kay quit his job as head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), the body tasked with locating Saddam's alleged WMD. Kay signed off by saying he did not believe there were stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq."

Full text:
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Intelligence reports suggesting Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction were correct, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair said in an interview with a Sunday newspaper.

Blair said he believed in the intelligence material presented to him ahead of last year's conflict, despite the subsequent failure of coalition forces to find WMD in Iraq.

Blair made the comments shortly before U.S. official David Kay quit his job as head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), the body tasked with locating Saddam's alleged WMD.

Kay signed off by saying he did not believe there were stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq. (Full story)

Interviewed by The Observer, Blair was pressed on whether he still believed that weapons would be found, despite the ISG's failure to date to uncover such evidence.

"I can only tell you I believed the intelligence we had at the time. It is absurd to say in respect of any intelligence that it is infallible, but if you ask me what I believe, I believe the intelligence was correct, and I think in the end we will have an explanation.

"I have absolutely no doubt at all in my mind that the intelligence was genuine."

Asked if the weapons will be found, Blair said: "Well that is something that the Iraq Survey Group is going to have to find. All I can say is that prior to the conflict, during the conflict, immediately after the conflict, we were having meetings, discussions, taking precautions precisely on that basis."

Blair acknowledged that Wednesday's publication of the Hutton report into the apparent suicide of government weapons expert David Kelly would put his integrity under the spotlight.

"I think in this job you spend the entire time at risk, so there is not a moment when you are not," he said.

"The issue vis-a-vis my integrity is did we receive the intelligence and was it properly relayed to people? And obviously I believe that we did.

"The Conservative leader (Michael Howard) in particular has accused me of lying over weapons of mass destruction, and as far as the report touches on these issues it will be important."

Blair told the newspaper that he had "every intention" of still being in his job at the end of the coming week.

Meanwhile, The Sunday Telegraph newspaper said it had been told by aides to Blair that the prime minister has not received a letter from Lord Hutton warning him of potential criticism in the final report.

The newspaper says that suggests that Blair will not face direct condemnation.

[JPhillips]

Dutch: I actually agree with getting rid of Saddam, but this intelligence failure and lack of concern by the Bush folks is astounding. I agree that everyone thought he had this stuff. What I don't understand is how we could all be so wrong. This isn't a little off, this wasn't even close to reality and we used it for the justification to kill thousands.

I'll give Bush and co. some benefit of the doubt, but as long as they insist on ignoring this massive failure of intelligence because it will be politically inconvenient I can't have any respect for them. When we are making the decision to go to war we have to have the best possible intelligence. Here we clearly did not and nobody at the top seems to give a damn.

[Dutch]

My problem is with the media's insistance that there was no Iraq Crisis. At all. No proof of WMD's. No crisis.

But we still know that the 1990's really did, in fact, happen? Here are what the Democrats believe (or used to believe). They were so supportive of the US stance not too long ago when President Clinton was in office.

I think most American's can see through the media "drama" and makes more and more people distrust the media when the media offers us a distrust of America to gather their ratings.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998.

"[W]e 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 Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

[JPhillips]

But the real issue is that there apparently wasn't a crisis. Everyone was wrong, dems, repubs, media, UN, all of them. We need to figure out how the intelligence was so far off the mark. Kay is now saying he doesn't believe there was a weapons program throughout the nineties. This is a bombshell to say the least. Something was/is fundamentally flawed withour assessment of Iraq and again I say, it seems that nobody in charge gives a damn because getting to the bottom of it would be politically inconvenient.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by amdaily

For all my my differences with him, Joe Lieberman summed this up best: "I think the president put too much emphasis on weapons of mass destruction because the case against Saddam was enough. Saddam was a weapon of mass destruction."

I hadn't heard Lieberman's take on this, but that is pretty much my position on this issue. We had many worthwhile reasons to remove Saddam. In my mind the administration chose to promote the danger of Iraqi WMDs to the top of the list because it was a danger that reached us here at home. I think it was played up because, well honestly what reasonable person would be against stopping the proliferation of Chemical or Biological weapons for use against America. It wasn't the only reason. It wasn't the only reason the administration cited when making it's case for war. It was the most popular among the media as well as the general population. It was popular because it was the one to be most superficially feared. The administration had to "sell" the war to congress, the public, and the world community.

I don't hold selling the war to the public against the administration, then again I wasn't really needing to be "sold" on removing Saddam. I was for it when President Clinton was escalating the situation. I do like all of the quote dutch listed. Everytime Bush spoke about Iraq,and focused on the danger of WMDs here in the US, I was actually saying "Hey if you wanna focus on the WMD because it plays better, I guess I can't blame you. I think there are lots of other reasons, but I would have to defer to the political guys suggesting this route." In retrospect, I don't think anyone was lying to me. I think the administration chose to focus too much on a single thing.

I don't really even fault them too much for that blunder though, because I think it was really unfathomable that there would be no weapons found in Iraq. EVERYONE thought Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Anyone who says they didn't is out right lying. Well perhaps not lying, but I don't think they are being honest with themselves. For eight years of the Clinton Administration the intelligence community was warning about Saddam and WMDs. President Clinton brought it to the public as well as congress. Congress thought he had WMDs. The world thought he had them. His enemies in the area thought had them. His enemies within Iraq's own borders thought he had them. His generals thought he had them. Even Hans Blix, who said He "didn't know if Iraq possesed WMDs" did say that Iraq had not even come to the fundamental conclusion that it was required to disarm.

In any case, sorry for the rant. I guess this is probably another reason I will be throwing a vote to Joe Lieberman's dead campaign in the California Primary.

[jeff061]

I'm to busy watching reality television and keeping tabs on the Lacy Peterson trial to care about minor stuff such as this.

[Vegas Vic]

OF course there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, or at least there were. And guess who was complicit with their development and use? That's right -- Uncle Ronnie and Donald Rumsfeld.

[jeff061]

Pretty much right up to Gulf War 1. Our support of Saddam is not ancient history. I have less of a problem with this and more of a problem with constantly being lied to. I'd support military action for things most people wouldn't, but i'm not going to support it if a lie is being told to push it.

[Vegas Vic]

Well, if Colin wants to find the weapons of mass destruction, perhaps he should have a brainstorming session with Rummy and Caspar Weinberger.

[CamEdwards]

Jeff,

It's only a lie if the administration knew the intelligence was wrong. As JPhillips pointed out earlier, clearly most people in the past two administrations believed Saddam was pursuing and had WMD.

Looking at it from the outside, I'd say that was because of several different things.

1- Saddam never complied with the cease fire agreement to document the destruction of the WMD he had after the first Gulf War.

2- Saddam's scientists apparently misled the government over progress in WMD programs. There was a story a couple of months ago (can't find a link, sorry) about the scientists who would tell Saddam and his cronies about their progress, even though nothing was really happening.

3- Relying too much on the word of defectors.

Out of those three things, I'd say the only thing that bothers me is the question of how much did we rely on what defectors were telling us. Human intelligence is sometimes faulty, especially if lies are being told to the head man in charge.

There's also a lot we don't know. I'd say our intelligence is probably still sketchy on Iraq. But clearly, despite the lack of progress on WMD programs, the intent was there. Witness Saddam's payment to North Korea for missile technology. Witness the precursors for chemical weapons that were being stored in Iraq. Witness the fact that Saddam DID want a WMD program (despite the best efforts of his scientists to do nothing).

The president said in last year's state of the union address that we can't wait for our enemies to become imminent threats. I'd say that's ultimately where the argument should be: pre-emption vs. reaction.

[Fritz]

Vic, that photo is pretty damning. Very sly of Rumsfeld to slip Saddam the secret formula in an otherwise simple handshake.

[Vegas Vic]

Originally Posted by Fritz

Vic, that photo is pretty damning. Very sly of Rumsfeld to slip Saddam the secret formula in an otherwise simple handshake.

Saddam already had the secret formula. What he got from Rummy and Uncle Ronnie was a wink and a smile to gas 1,000,000 Iranians.

[Fritz]

Originally Posted by Vegas Vic

Saddam already had the secret formula. What he got from Rummy and Uncle Ronnie was a wink and a smile to gas 1,000,000 Iranians.

Ah yes, I see the pompus fucker winking in that grainy photo.



In this picture, JFK is commanding Monroe to fuck him and then kill herself. Damn politicos are all the same.

[NoMyths]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

EVERYONE thought Saddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction. Anyone who says they didn't is out right lying. Well perhaps not lying, but I don't think they are being honest with themselves.

Some folks may have been swayed by debunked claims such as the one that I discussed in this post. I don't think it's accurate to say that "everyone" thought Iraq had WMD...I know that I for one was very skeptical as to the extent of any such weapons and programs. On the other hand, for people who depended on the Bush administration to provide them with accurate information on which to base a decision about such claims, its not surprising that they would have been misled into thinking the threat was greater than what we've since discovered it was.

(The link to the article referenced in my post is no longer active; you can find another copy of it here.)

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The facts remain the same that Saddam Hussein made every suggestion he had WMD to keep the fear in the Kurds, the Shite's, and all his less than beloved neighbors.

I find this a little funny in light of the fact that Saddam spent 4-5 months prior to being invaded swearing up and down to anyone who would listen that he had no WMD's. He released a huge report to the UN saying the same. Granted he's not a very trustworthy source, so I don't fault people for not believing him, but it's a bit silly to say he was suggesting he had them.

[Mac Howard]

Everone's commenting on Kay's statement that Iraq probably didn't have WMDs when the war started. In an editorial in this morning's "The Australian" newspaper this comment is included:

"too little attention has been given to the other aspect of Dr Kay's comments which is that Saddam Hussein moved part of his WMD program to Syria shortly before the war."

If you put together the two comments:

a) there were no WMDs in Iraq at the start of the war
b) the WMD program was moved to Syria shortly before it began

It seems to me the message is very different to that being put out by the media.

I've not seen Kay's full comments, only seen the reporting of them. Anyone know if there's a full reading of his comments anywhere?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Everone's commenting on Kay's statement that Iraq probably didn't have WMDs when the war started. In an editorial in this morning's "The Australian" newspaper this comment is included:

"too little attention has been given to the other aspect of Dr kay's comments which is that Saddam Hussein moved part of his WMD program to Syria shortly before the war."

I've not seen Kay's comments, only seen the reporting of them, but if the above is true it seems to throw a whole different light on what he's saying. Anyone know if there's a full reading of his comments anywhere?

There's a direct quote from Kay in this article:

Kay Says Parts of WMD Program In Syria

[Mac Howard]

That would seem to confirm it though I'm wary that it is a report from The Telegraph which is a right-wing paper that psupported the war (as is The Australian).

What puzzles me is that Bush and Blair have not pointed this out because if it's true then we have nothing more than a media beat-up that could be easily answered and credibility of the reports seriously undermined.

[BishopMVP]

Here's the direct quote from Kay on Syria

Originally Posted by David Kay

But 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 programme. Precisely what went to Syria, and what has happened to it, is a major issue that needs to be resolved.

Also, FWIW, here is his quote about the weapons programs

Originally Posted by David Kay

What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production programme in the 90s.

There is a difference between a large-scale production program and no weapons of mass destruction. I get the impression that Saddam had the technology and research and would have been ready to start up again at any point in the future he felt he needed to, and this quote does nothing to refute that.

[Desnudo]

He obviously had the technology since he gassed the hell out of the Kurds and Iran back in the day. He's no dummy either though.

[Mac Howard]

Not exactly the stuff of sensation the media are making out, is it?

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Not exactly the stuff of sensation the media are making out, is it?

On the WMD program quote, absolutely. On the Syria quote, most news agencies and articles didn't even mention it or buried it near the end. What Liberal Media?

[CamEdwards]

The most in depth article about Kay and his comments that I've found is in the New York Times, believe it or not. Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/26/in...9fnHV24X+Z99kw

[HornedFrog Purple]

Ah yes, McNamara Jr. takes the credit and Colin Powell takes the blame. I nailed that one the day Powell went to the UN on this very board.

[Buddy Grant]

Maybe once the WMD are found George can put part of the crack WMD search team to work finding the real killer of OJ's wife. This is like another remake of Dumb & Dumber, except instead of Jim Carrey & Jeff Daniels it stars the leaders of the most powerful nation on earth.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by -Mojo Jojo-

I find this a little funny in light of the fact that Saddam spent 4-5 months prior to being invaded swearing up and down to anyone who would listen that he had no WMD's. He released a huge report to the UN saying the same. Granted he's not a very trustworthy source, so I don't fault people for not believing him, but it's a bit silly to say he was suggesting he had them.

Mojo Jojo, but thinking back to that time, wasn't he only saying that to please the anti-US crowd?

He refused to allow weapons inspectors back into the country was pretty damning that he wasn't serious about his claims of being WMD free. And only when the threat of war came again did he allow UN inspectors back in. And unlike the inspections in South Africa, where the country willingly showed the UN inspectors where all their stuff was, it was inventoried, destroyed, and finished with...Saddam insisted on a cat and mouse game, you saw the small intelligence bits from Colin Powell that surely didn't prove the existance of WMD, but did prove Saddam's resistance to the idea of allowing UN weapons inspectors into his country. He started a war, he lost the war, it was always his obligation unde the 1991 Cease-Fire to allow UN weapons inspectors to work WITH HIM to rid Iraq of WMD. He failed. He lost. It's not the USA fault he did what he did.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

But the real issue is that there apparently wasn't a crisis. Everyone was wrong, dems, repubs, media, UN, all of them. We need to figure out how the intelligence was so far off the mark. Kay is now saying he doesn't believe there was a weapons program throughout the nineties. This is a bombshell to say the least. Something was/is fundamentally flawed withour assessment of Iraq and again I say, it seems that nobody in charge gives a damn because getting to the bottom of it would be politically inconvenient.

The problem is how we get our information. It's true that our intelligence is severely lacking compared to the "olden" days. Back in the day, we could have any number of "bad guys" under payments from the CIA to get information. But the idea of "bad guys" working intelligence for the USA was big headlines not too long ago and forced us to cut many of our Human Intelligence programs *worldwide* in order to please whomever it was that was bitching about it. I think Reagan and Bush Sr. had to make some moves in this area and Clinton sealed the deal. I can't really remember now, but had those same programs been going on today, and if Saddam was just playing a big charade, there is much better chance we would have known if he was...just kidding. Now I think we realize that Sattelites alone cannot be that advantageous, and we need to rethink all the powers we took away from the CIA. Can the American people stomach that? I really think they could if they didn't have to hear about it every damned day in the....media. But that's what happened back in the late 80's early 90's and all of a sudden, people hated the fact the CIA worked with thugs to get thier info. Pick your poison is what I say. I vote for the CIA to hav more power with the risk of them working internally to the USA (which is really unconstitutional, but maybe neccessary in the new rules of fighting terrorism).

[Easy Mac]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Mojo Jojo, but thinking back to that time, wasn't he only saying that to please the anti-US crowd?

But what he said was evidently true, so you can't say it was only pandering unless you ignore the facts we have now.

He refused to allow weapons inspectors back into the country was pretty damning that he wasn't serious about his claims of being WMD free. And only when the threat of war came again did he allow UN inspectors back in. And unlike the inspections in South Africa, where the country willingly showed the UN inspectors where all their stuff was, it was inventoried, destroyed, and finished with...Saddam insisted on a cat and mouse game, you saw the small intelligence bits from Colin Powell that surely didn't prove the existance of WMD, but did prove Saddam's resistance to the idea of allowing UN weapons inspectors into his country. He started a war, he lost the war, it was always his obligation unde the 1991 Cease-Fire to allow UN weapons inspectors to work WITH HIM to rid Iraq of WMD. He failed. He lost. It's not the USA fault he did what he did.

I'm not saying Saddam is a good guy, but he willingly showed the inspectors around the country to every place that could produce weapons, wrote a detailed report on their destruction, and what damning evidence from Powell? A photo of a jeep... wow, thats never been picked up surveillence before. The weapons inspectors were there for 7 years until Clinton bombed Iraq, when they left for 5 years. If anything, its our fault they left in the first place. You can ingore facts if their wrong, but to do so because you can't admit some part of the argument is false is just wrong.

[NoMyths]

And this:

Originally Posted by Dutch

I vote for the CIA to hav more power with the risk of them working internally to the USA (which is really unconstitutional, but maybe neccessary in the new rules of fighting terrorism).

is just as dangerous to America as any terrorist.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

But what he said was evidently true, so you can't say it was only pandering unless you ignore the facts we have now.


I'm not saying Saddam is a good guy, but he willingly showed the inspectors around the country to every place that could produce weapons, wrote a detailed report on their destruction, and what damning evidence from Powell? A photo of a jeep... wow, thats never been picked up surveillence before. The weapons inspectors were there for 7 years until Clinton bombed Iraq, when they left for 5 years. If anything, its our fault they left in the first place. You can ingore facts if their wrong, but to do so because you can't admit some part of the argument is false is just wrong.

Well, first of all, it's not evidently true. Iraq has used WMD before and have no documentation of destroying their stockpiles. With Saddam's insistance on being a pain in the arse, unlike South Africa, it would lead me to believe that Iraq having WMD was true, or at the very least, suspicious. And that's really on the tip of the iceberg when it comes to instability this knucklehead has caused in the Middle East.

Saddam did not show the UN inspectors every place that could produce weapons, btw. He showed the UN inspectors every place that the UN thought he could produce weapons. Mostly from dated information and what satellites could see from above. If Saddam had any reason to keep it clandestine, my best guess is that he would do it underground, if possible. Any place active in producnig these weapons above ground could have been well cleaned and sanitized before the arrival of any UN inspectors. At least the 2nd time around. We learned of massive ammounts of documentation after the first Gulf War on quantities of different chemicals inside Iraq. But never any documentation on their removal or destruction. At this point, it's a needle in a haystack approach. If the only people that knew about these weapons are gone (been executed or died in the war), chances are we may never find the WMD. Hopefully, to quell the conspiracy theorists, we will get lucky and find the damned things.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

And this:
is just as dangerous to America as any terrorist.

I know. It's kind of a catch-22, pick your own poison kind of thing. Reactive vs. Proactive. They both have their merits, but they both have their downsides as well. Nothing's ever easy, I guess.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

But what he said was evidently true, so you can't say it was only pandering unless you ignore the facts we have now.

The problem here is that for this to be true, you are left with the unlikely scenario that Saddam destroyed his stockpiles of WMD and then refused to turn over any of the evidence he had done so even in the face of an invasion. Regardless of how much he believed France/Russia/Germany would prevent the US from actually invading, that's a pretty big leap of faith.

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I'm not saying Saddam is a good guy, but he willingly showed the inspectors around the country to every place that could produce weapons, wrote a detailed report on their destruction, and what damning evidence from Powell? A photo of a jeep... wow, thats never been picked up surveillence before. The weapons inspectors were there for 7 years until Clinton bombed Iraq, when they left for 5 years. If anything, its our fault they left in the first place. You can ingore facts if their wrong, but to do so because you can't admit some part of the argument is false is just wrong.

I think your timeline is a little off. I'll try to find the exact information, but I'm pretty certain Clinton bombed Iraq because Saddam kicked the inspectors out. EDIT - Saddam kicked them out 6 weeks prior. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stori...s/clinton.html

Dutch - I would rather we risked allowing terrorists to smuggle in a nuke or any WMD than give the CIA power to do as they pleased in the US. A better reactive strategy is going after the terrorists at their roots - the money backing them and the conditions of stagnating poverty in much of the Arab world that seems be much of the cause.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

The problem here is that for this to be true, you are left with the unlikely scenario that Saddam destroyed his stockpiles of WMD and then refused to turn over any of the evidence he had done so even in the face of an invasion. Regardless of how much he believed France/Russia/Germany would prevent the US from actually invading, that's a pretty big leap of faith.

The deal is I am thinking this is the most likely scenario. He acted as if he was hiding something right up until the end. But we can't find the weapons. Not one to date. I am left believing that He did in fact disarm, but didn't really want anyone to actually know he had done so. While I think that scenario is likely, I still can't think of any reason why this scenario would be logical. Perhaps it comes down to saving face amongst his neighbors. Maybe he thought he would appear weak if he apparently bowed to the U.N. demands. Maybe he felt that his neighbors fear of chemical and biological weapon attacks was to his advantage. Or maybe he was simply too proud to allow Iraq's and his own sovereignty put into question.

It cannot be denied that they hampered the Inspection efforts. Staging auto accidents and road repairs to delay the inspectors, denying them permission to use helicopters freely were at least two of the impediments they employed. Even Hans Blix said that they "had not yet even arrived at the conclusion that they must disarm". We have seen reports that Iraq's generals thought they would be deploying WMD in the defense of Bagdhad. The intelligence services of at least the U.S. and U.K. thought he had weapons at his disposal. Yet there are none to be found. Since these are currently the facts the public has, I don't think you can arrive at another reasonable conclusion without delving into conjecture. I am left thinking that he did disarm, but acted like he had not. It isn't reasonable, it isn't logical, yet that is what we are left with.

[BishopMVP]

Good post, only thing I disagree with is the 'Not one to date' statement. We have found some stuff, but nothing near the stockpiles predicted.

As long as we are on the subject of David Kay, here is an interesting quote from him. When asked on NPR, he said it was reasonable to charecterize the threat as imminent before the war, and then adds this "I must say, I actually think what we learned during the inspections made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than in fact we thought it was even before the war."

http://www.npr.org/display_pages/fea...e_1615880.html - at about 11:50 in the clip if you care.

[Mac Howard]

The confusion over Saddam's behaviour - destroying the weapons but not providing proof - is removed if Kay's second statement is valid - that shortly before the war the weapon materials were moved to Syria.

That's why the second statement isn't being reported or is hidden. It's doesn't suit the political agenda of the media!

This statement alone:

"There were probably no WMDs in Iraq at the start of the war" says that Bush etc were lieing.

But when you add this statement:

"Weapons were moved into Syria shortly before the satrt of the war" the message is that Bush etc were telling the truth.

Omitting the second statement is a deliberate distortion by the media to turn information that contradicts their position into one that supports it.

[Dutch]

And linked from that page is David Kay's speech/briefing last October. Quite an interesting picture that I certainly never read about in the newspapers. What's up with the media???

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affair..._10022003.html

[Mac Howard]

They have their own agenda! They have so much self esteem and reputation tied up in Iraq not having these weapons that only being the victim of one them would cause them to admit their existence

All Kay is saying is that they're probably no longer there to be found. He makes no suggestion at all that they weren't there relatively recently and at the time the decision was made to go to war..

[NoMyths]

Mac: You sound a bit deranged, screaming about how "the media" have "their own agenda" ("!"). There are plenty of right wing outlets--Fox News, say--who would do plenty of reporting on this story if the information was there. Right now, there's evidently not enough information there.

[BishopMVP]

What's with the scare quotes? Everyone in the media has their own agenda, whether it is to support the war, go against the war or to objectively report the truth. It's funny to see The Guardian and The Telegraph's different takes on the story. Too bad there aren't more people in the third category.

Nothing Kay said was particularly enlightening to anyone follwing the story closely, yet I find it funny that now you say there isn't enough information out there when you brought it up in the first place.

[Dutch]

There are plenty of right wing outlets--Fox News, say--who would do plenty of reporting on this story if the information was there. Right now, there's evidently not enough information there.

Actually, they have been reporting on what David Kay *also* said, not that ABC or CNN picked that up.

[BishopMVP]

I didn't want to start a new thread, especially because the article is in French, but here http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,...-350628,0.html is an article where they are starting to list politicians/journalists etc. who were (supposedly)paid off by Saddam.

This is the google translation, but it's not great. http://translate.google.com/translat...language_tools

[Mac Howard]

>Mac: You sound a bit deranged, screaming about how "the media" have "their own agenda" ("!").

What's "deranged" about it, NoMyths? The reporting of Kay's, and indeed most stories on the Iraq war, is very unreliable precisely because of this agenda. The levels of distortion - and the reporting of Kay's statements is a classic case - are deplorable. This distortion has already led to the suicide of a British inspection scientist when the BBC exaggerated statements of his to promote their own anti-war agenda (the BBC have since admitted culpability on this and sacked the journalist).

>There are plenty of right wing outlets--Fox News, say--who would do plenty of reporting on this story if the information was there.

Absolutely right! Indeed I consider Fox News one of the worst offenders.

I'm not chasing a right agenda of my own here, I consider myself left of centre (and what's more on a European basis), but that doesn't stop me from trying to to find out what Kay actually said. His "no weapons of WMD" statement has been used to promote the argument that the war was not justified. But after I read the comment - itself only a throw-away comment - that he had also said he believed weapons material had been moved to Syria then, in the interests of accuracy, I investigated further. As a result of which I've come to the conclusion, which I believe everyone capable of rational investigation and reasonably free of prejudice will come to, that he has been grossly misrepresented by a media determined to justify its own opinion.

I expect better of the media I consider it worth my while reading.

>Right now, there's evidently not enough information there.

If you're referring to the existence or not of WMDs in Iraq then read the full statement from Kay you'll see just why. If you're referring to whether Kay has been misrepresented then I believe that you're ducking the truth - for whatever reason is best known to you.

__________________

[Dutch]

I think Fox News is very open to showing as much news as they can, but you have to watch a lot of it (I do) to see it. However, the big slant here comes in the form of America (or North America over European or World views). So while internally, FoxNews shows us a lot of information, they aren't going to go out of there way to present the French side of things, the British side, the German side, or what have you. They are very USA slanted.

Most of the other News agencies will use the world opinions if it favors their agenda's, such as in the recent Iraq crisis and anything anti-Bush.

But even if you are Left of center in European standards which is far left to me and me being Right of center in American standards which is far right to you, I respect the fact that you can at least see the news media has become very fraudulent in their reporting.

As Hitler said, "The masses are stupid." And the easiest way to turn an opinion in the information age is with mass-media. It's a powerful tool and one that should be available as "free" but like any other invention that was created for the better, it can easily be used by the villains of the world. And having the news media not on the good-guys side is very dangerous (Al Jazeera shows exactly what I'm talking about by making bin Laden look like a hero and people believing it in the Middle East).

I don't think the news media is out of control yet, but the thought that they are no longer reporting the news on Iraq, but trying to change opinion (and is) should not be taken with a grain of salt. It's not their job.