What David Kay said and what they report

Undertoad · 01-25-2004, 09:55 AM

Outgoing weapons inspector David Kay gets interviewed by everyone and what he says is selectively reported.

What he said that they do report (source AP): Kay Says Iraq Likely Had No Banned Arms

Quote:

"We led this search to find the truth, not to find the weapons. The fact that we found the weapons do not exist, we've got to deal with that difference and understand why," Kay said Sunday on the National Public Radio program "Weekend Edition."

What he also said, which they don't report (source UK newspaper): Saddam's WMD hidden in Syria, says Iraq survey chief

Quote:

"We are not talking about a large stockpile of weapons," he said. "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."

What Syria thinks of this notion (source same story):

Quote:

A Syrian official last night said: "These allegations have been raised many times in the past by Israeli officials, which proves that they are false."

Elspode · 01-25-2004, 10:38 AM

The key to all of this is simple. Any given party will state the situation in a manner that furthers their own best interest, whatever they feel that best interest will be.

David Kay tells what he knows.

The press reports what they think will result in an administration that will futher the best interests of the press.

Syria says everyone is fucked and it is Israel's fault.

No surprises here...sadly.

xoxoxoBruce · 01-25-2004, 01:23 PM

Last May I said Saddam would have moved, hidden or destroyed any WMD's he had. He knew they would not stop the US military and would only make the US look better in world opinion. They could have gone to Syria or anywhere for that matter. Every weapon the US military owns could be hidden under Iraq's desert.

elSicomoro · 01-25-2004, 03:03 PM

Just because some material and components may have been moved doesn't necessarily mean that Iraq had enough to produce WMD. Besides, if this news were that important, FOX would have been all over it.

elSicomoro · 01-25-2004, 06:58 PM

MSNBC mentions the Syria link, but not in the same way as the Telegraph:

Kay also said chaos in postwar Iraq made it impossible to know with certainty whether Iraq had had banned weapons.

And, he said, there is ample evidence that Iraq was moving a steady stream of goods shipments to Syria, but it is difficult to determine whether the cargoes included weapons, in part because Syria has refused to cooperate in this part of the weapons investigation.

Undertoad · 01-29-2004, 07:25 AM

It looks more and more likely that the Iraqi scientists put together a deception program of their own, to convince Hussein that they had weapons in some cases when they actually didn't.

This would explain why the scientists acted like they did in UN interviews, why they had an active program in place to deceive the UN inspectors, why the country acted like it was armed even when it wasn't.

I remain unconvinced by people who claim they understood all the issues and knew there were no WMDs before this point in time. If a country believes it is a threat and acts like it is a threat, it has to be dealt with.

xoxoxoBruce · 01-29-2004, 06:20 PM

If you stick your hand in your pocket and tell me you have a gun. I'll act accordingly.

Undertoad · 02-05-2004, 09:44 AM

CIA Director George Tenet delivered one hell of a speech just now, defending US intel on Iraq and in general. Amongst the points:

-- It ain't over: despite Kay saying the search is 85% done, it isn't anywhere near that point and the search for bio in particular will take a long time.

-- When the facts of Iraq are all in we will neither be completely right or completely wrong, and that's simply how it is with intel.

-- It's very clear that Hussein wanted to build bio weapons, and very clear that he was building non-permitted long-range missiles. It's very clear that they were working to deceive UN inspectors and were in extreme violation of 1441.

-- Before, during, and AFTER the fall of the Hussein regime, there was a program of deliberate destruction of useful information.

-- For the last 7 years the CIA has been working to recoup its human intel program, and it is strong and has led to many huge wins, including Libya and Al Qaeda and Pakistan.

Happy Monkey · 02-05-2004, 09:52 AM

The CIA won't let Tenet be the scapegoat.

Kitsune · 02-05-2004, 10:27 AM

When the facts of Iraq are all in we will neither be completely right or completely wrong, and that's simply how it is with intel.

Well, they didn't find the 1,000 tons of VX nerve gas they were looking for, or the 2,245 gallons of anthrax, or the yellow cake purchased in Africa, but they did find a drawing done by a child of some, uh, tubes or something.

I guess that is not completely wrong, but I would sure say they weren't completely right.

Undertoad · 02-05-2004, 10:32 AM

That's nice Kit, but I'm sure you don't have access to *all* the intel.

Kitsune · 02-05-2004, 10:35 AM

That's nice Kit, but I'm sure you don't have access to *all* the intel.

It is true that I don't. I guess my big frustration is that with us invading a country and all for the reasons they gave, we sure haven't seen much proof. I suppose we might see it someday, but I just question as to why they would keep such a hot topic so secret for so long. It would be nice to have some answers before the public changes their mind as to why we went to war.

lumberjim · 02-05-2004, 10:54 AM

If I was in Saddam's shoes (sandals), and I wanted to build WMD's in the post desert storm era, I wouldn;t be building them IN Iraq. I'd have a super secret deal with an ally and build them in THAT country. Syria? will we invade THEM next? or does that depend on what happens in November?

I know next to nothing about politics and matters of the state, so the above is based in nothing but conjecture. would it be feasible to build weapons on foreign soil? or would the potential loss of control of said weapons be too risky?

Beestie · 02-05-2004, 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
If you stick your hand in your pocket and tell me you have a gun. I'll act accordingly.

I honestly don't think it can be said any better than that.

If [insert your name here] are Prez fresh off 9/11 and everyone on the planet from Kofi Annan to Bill Clinton to Jacques (you can't spell Iraq without) Chiraq says Iraq has all this stuff and it is your sworn duty to protect this country, what choice do you really have?

I'm as pissed and mortified as the next guy that we didn't find what everyone thought was there but what else was Bush supposed to do I ask incredulously? Sit back and wait for 9/11 part II? Whether I like Bush or not he did the dirty work that needed to be done. If it costs him his job then I'm sure he's prepared to accept that.

There is absolutely no excuse to sit back and let a threat mount. That is exactly what we did with bin Laden and did we ever pay for that.

Kitsune · 02-05-2004, 11:47 AM

There is absolutely no excuse to sit back and let a threat mount.

Then what are we waiting for? Next up is: Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

01-25-2004, 10:38 AM	#2
Elspode When Do I Get Virtual Unreality? Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Raytown, Missouri Posts: 12,719	The key to all of this is simple. Any given party will state the situation in a manner that furthers their own best interest, whatever they feel that best interest will be. David Kay tells what he knows. The press reports what they think will result in an administration that will futher the best interests of the press. Syria says everyone is fucked and it is Israel's fault. No surprises here...sadly. __________________ "To those of you who are wearing ties, I think my dad would appreciate it if you took them off." - Robert Moog

01-25-2004, 01:23 PM	#3
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	Last May I said Saddam would have moved, hidden or destroyed any WMD's he had. He knew they would not stop the US military and would only make the US look better in world opinion. They could have gone to Syria or anywhere for that matter. Every weapon the US military owns could be hidden under Iraq's desert. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

01-29-2004, 06:20 PM	#7
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	If you stick your hand in your pocket and tell me you have a gun. I'll act accordingly. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

02-05-2004, 09:52 AM	#9
Happy Monkey I think this line's mostly filler. Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: DC Posts: 13,575	The CIA won't let Tenet be the scapegoat. __________________ _________________ \|...............\| We live in the nick of times. \| Len 17, Wid 3 \| \|_______________\| [pics]

02-05-2004, 10:27 AM	#10
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	When the facts of Iraq are all in we will neither be completely right or completely wrong, and that's simply how it is with intel. Well, they didn't find the 1,000 tons of VX nerve gas they were looking for, or the 2,245 gallons of anthrax, or the yellow cake purchased in Africa, but they did find a drawing done by a child of some, uh, tubes or something. I guess that is not completely wrong, but I would sure say they weren't completely right. Attached Images

01-25-2004, 03:03 PM	#4
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	Just because some material and components may have been moved doesn't necessarily mean that Iraq had enough to produce WMD. Besides, if this news were that important, FOX would have been all over it.

01-25-2004, 06:58 PM	#5
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	MSNBC mentions the Syria link, but not in the same way as the Telegraph: Kay also said chaos in postwar Iraq made it impossible to know with certainty whether Iraq had had banned weapons. And, he said, there is ample evidence that Iraq was moving a steady stream of goods shipments to Syria, but it is difficult to determine whether the cargoes included weapons, in part because Syria has refused to cooperate in this part of the weapons investigation.

01-29-2004, 07:25 AM	#6
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	It looks more and more likely that the Iraqi scientists put together a deception program of their own, to convince Hussein that they had weapons in some cases when they actually didn't. This would explain why the scientists acted like they did in UN interviews, why they had an active program in place to deceive the UN inspectors, why the country acted like it was armed even when it wasn't. I remain unconvinced by people who claim they understood all the issues and knew there were no WMDs before this point in time. If a country believes it is a threat and acts like it is a threat, it has to be dealt with.

02-05-2004, 09:44 AM	#8
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	CIA Director George Tenet delivered one hell of a speech just now, defending US intel on Iraq and in general. Amongst the points: -- It ain't over: despite Kay saying the search is 85% done, it isn't anywhere near that point and the search for bio in particular will take a long time. -- When the facts of Iraq are all in we will neither be completely right or completely wrong, and that's simply how it is with intel. -- It's very clear that Hussein wanted to build bio weapons, and very clear that he was building non-permitted long-range missiles. It's very clear that they were working to deceive UN inspectors and were in extreme violation of 1441. -- Before, during, and AFTER the fall of the Hussein regime, there was a program of deliberate destruction of useful information. -- For the last 7 years the CIA has been working to recoup its human intel program, and it is strong and has led to many huge wins, including Libya and Al Qaeda and Pakistan.

02-05-2004, 10:32 AM	#11
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	That's nice Kit, but I'm sure you don't have access to all the intel.

02-05-2004, 10:35 AM	#12
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	That's nice Kit, but I'm sure you don't have access to all* the intel.* It is true that I don't. I guess my big frustration is that with us invading a country and all for the reasons they gave, we sure haven't seen much proof. I suppose we might see it someday, but I just question as to why they would keep such a hot topic so secret for so long. It would be nice to have some answers before the public changes their mind as to why we went to war.

02-05-2004, 10:54 AM	#13
lumberjim I can hear my ears Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 25,571	If I was in Saddam's shoes (sandals), and I wanted to build WMD's in the post desert storm era, I wouldn;t be building them IN Iraq. I'd have a super secret deal with an ally and build them in THAT country. Syria? will we invade THEM next? or does that depend on what happens in November? I know next to nothing about politics and matters of the state, so the above is based in nothing but conjecture. would it be feasible to build weapons on foreign soil? or would the potential loss of control of said weapons be too risky? __________________ This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality Embrace this moment, remember We are eternal, all this pain is an illusion ~MJKeenan

02-05-2004, 11:47 AM	#15
Kitsune still eats dirt Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Tampa, FL Posts: 3,031	There is absolutely no excuse to sit back and let a threat mount. Then what are we waiting for? Next up is: Syria, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)