David Kay Report

» Brian Tubbs - Iraq's WMD

The media has been abuzz the last few days over the fact that former CIA weapons inspector David Kay has said openly that he does not believe Saddam's Iraq 'stockpiled' weapons of mass destruction. He has further opened questions into the credibility of the Bush Administration and the intelligence community that believed Saddam had such WMD.

Secretary of State Colin Powell has further fed this media frenzy by speculating openly and publicly that Saddam may not have had WMD.

Let me say, for the record, that the continued failure to uncover stockpiles of WMD in Iraq (and now combined with Kay's and Powell's statements) represent a major public relations blow to the credibility of the Bush Administration, specifically key figures within it.

However, what has gone largely unnoticed by the news media is that David Kay confirmed, based on his extensive investigation into Iraq, that Iraqi officials "had an intention to continue to pursue their WMD activities." That's an exact and troubling quote from Mr. Kay.

Critics of Bush have jumped up and down over the fact that no WMD have been found, but are content to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Saddam was AT LEAST prepared to build WMD.

Moreover, it is an incontrivertible fact that Saddam possessed and used WMD (of the chemical variety, at least) in years past - not only against the Iranians but his own people. (And possibly against U.S. soldiers in Operation Desert Storm, based on some Agent Orange reports).

Finally, it is also an undisputed fact that Saddam refused to fully cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors. He pointedly declined to answer very specific questions about weapons and materials that were not accounted for. What was he hiding?

If there were, in fact, no WMD stockpiled in Iraq (as Kay has now alleged), then why did Saddam refuse to fully cooperate? And was it wrong for President Bush to insist that Saddam cooperate?

It was, after all, Saddam's refusal to cooperate in the face of U.S.-British intelligence that Iraq had WMD (however incomplete or inaccurate SOME of that intel may have been) that led to war. Saddam's full cooperation could've averted armed conflict.

The bottom line is that the lack of stockpiled WMD in Iraq does pose a public relations embarrassment for the Bush Administration and does raise some legitimate questions about U.S. pre-war intelligence. However, the fact that Iraq was pursuing or at least was prepared to pursue WMD remains a troubling and unavoidable fact that supports Bush's ultimate decision to use force.

The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq.

-- posted by Brian Tubbs

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» malthus6 - Re: Iraq's WMD

In response to message posted by BrianTubbs:

Critics of Bush have jumped up and down over the fact that no WMD have been found, but are content to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Saddam was AT LEAST prepared to build WMD.

I haven't seen any evidence, overwhelming or otherwise. Could you cite a reliable source please?

Moreover, it is an incontrivertible fact that Saddam possessed and used WMD (of the chemical variety, at least) in years past - not only against the Iranians but his own people.

Against the Iranians, true. Sadam used the mustard gas provided by the United States on the Iranian children defending their nation. It seems that the Reagan Administration was supplying arms to both sides during the Iran-Iraq war. But there is some doubt as to whether the Kurds were gassed by Iran or Iraq, there being a war in progress and gas being propagated by winds and not under the control of the gasser.

(And possibly against U.S. soldiers in Operation Desert Storm, based on some Agent Orange reports)

If the Iraqis employed gas it must have been a) of U. S. manufacture, left over from the Iran-Iraq war and b) very inexpertly deployed inasmuch as the U. S. suffered no deaths in the conflict. But George Bush 1's boys littered the countryside with radioactive spent uranium. I don't know where one draws the line between "weapons of mass destruction" and "weapons of minor destruction". I suppose the thermite and H.E. bombs dropped on Dresdan and Tokyo would come under the latter definition?

Finally, it is also an undisputed fact that Saddam refused to fully cooperate with United Nations weapons inspectors.

I must be hallucinating! I distinctly saw the weapons inspectors on television, running all over Iraq.

I guess the inspectors were really in chains that were carefully concealed so that they only appeared to have freedom of motion. Is that right?

I remember seeing Colin Powell pointing to some pictures of tin buildings and avowing that this was an A bomb plant or something. I remember when he held the little cigarette sized vial of white power and saying Sadam is making this anthrax stuff.

And was it wrong for President Bush to insist that Saddam cooperate?

Gee, no. Sadam must have been very uncooperative behind the scenes. I will be interested in your proof of this.

However, the fact that Iraq was pursuing or at least was prepared to pursue WMD remains a troubling and unavoidable fact that supports Bush's ultimate decision to use force. The world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq.

Oh, I don't know. Maybe slightly better off but is the world better off without the five hundred odd U.S. soldiers killed there? Or without the hundreds of soldiers with amputated limbs or shrapnel in their bodies? Or without the thousands of Iraqi civilians killed, women and children among them?

How can a single man like George W. Bush, take it upon himself the murder of thousands of people in a stupid war which most of the American people and the rest of the world opposed?? I can only think of one real precedent, one Antiochus Epiphanes.

-- posted by malthus6

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions