David Kay Report: Iraq's WMD

» 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