Putting the Kay Report on Iraqi WMD in Perspective: Experts and Resources from the Arms Control Association

[minibush1]

Putting the Kay Report on Iraqi WMD in Perspective: Experts and Resources from the Arms Control Association

9/25/03 3:56:00 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National and Assignment Desks

Contact: Daryl Kimball, 202-277-3478, or Paul Kerr, 202-463-8270, ext. 102 both of the Arms Control Association

WASHINGTON, Sept. 25 /U.S. Newswire/ -- News reports today suggest that a much anticipated report by the Bush administration's top Iraqi weapons inspector David Kay will not offer conclusive evidence supporting the administration's pre-war claims that Iraq had accumulated extensive stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons or revived its pursuit of nuclear weapons. If true, it's ever clearer that Iraq did not pose the urgent threat that the administration charged, according to the Arms Control Association.

"The Bush administration should be forthright about the Kay report, publish its findings, and explain to Congress and the American people why it used discredited and disputed claims about the Iraqi WMD threat to make its case for war," recommended ACA Executive Director Daryl Kimball today.

Outside arms control experts argued before the March invasion of Iraq that the international arms inspection and disarmament process initiated after the 1991 Persian Gulf War had successfully led to the dismantlement of the bulk of Iraq's illicit weapons programs. They further contended that the return of UN arms inspectors to Iraq last November would constrain Saddam Hussein from developing or hiding militarily significant quantities of weapons and urged greater Iraqi cooperation in resolving outstanding concerns.

The work of the UN weapons inspectors between November 2002 and March 2003 substantiated these claims. They did not unearth any evidence proving Iraq had resumed major weapons activities, particularly with regard to nuclear weapons. But the Bush administration belittled and dismissed these reports and disparaged the arms inspection process as ineffective, arguing that the arms inspectors could not account for some weapons and materials that Iraq had prior to 1991. Yet, the lead UN arms inspector, Hans Blix, cautioned that one should not equate "not accounted-for with existing." Blix now says that as more time passes without dramatic weapons discoveries, it is increasingly plausible that Iraq may have destroyed its illegal weapons during the 1990's.

Blix's view is shared by former UN weapons inspector Frank Ronald Cleminson, who wrote an article on the Iraqi weapons search in the September 2003 "Arms Control Today." Cleminson's article can be accessed on the ACA Web site's Iraq resource page, http://www.armscontrol.org/country/iraq/, along with other information on Iraq, including a July 9 press conference with former State Department intelligence official Greg Thielmann charging that the administration exaggerated the case for war, http://www.armscontrol.org/events/iraq_july03.asp.

Also available on the ACA Web site:

-- An extensive June 16 "Arms Control Today" interview with Hans Blix;

-- A comparison of the Bush administration's claims about Iraq's nuclear program with U.S. intelligence and UN weapons inspectors' assessments;

-- A chronology of Bush administration statements on Iraqi efforts to import uranium from Niger; and

-- Reports on the record of arms inspectors in Iraq.

Media interviews with Cleminson, Thielmann, and Jonathan Tucker, a chemical and biological weapons expert who participated in the UN arms inspections process, can be arranged through the Arms Control Association.

------

The Arms Control Association is an independent, nonprofit membership organization dedicated to promoting public understanding of and support for effective arms control policies.


http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

 

[sandorski]

Yup.

 

[her209]

But, but, but... look at all the free Iraqi people.

 

[Moonbeam]

Amazingly some people actually still seem to think that WMD had something to do with going to war. That was a pretext. Bush either lied or didn't lie about the weapons, but he was certainly deceived by pretending they were an issue.

 

[Queasy]

Who said the following?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

George Bush? Nope. Colin Powell? Nope. Hilary Clinton? Yep.


Now, who said this?

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Donald Rumsfeld? Nope. Dick Cheney? Nope. Ted Kennedy? Yep.

 

[flavio]

So Queasy, you're saying it's ok for Bush to lie to the public so that he can go to war because a couple other people thought we should keep an eye on him? How's that work in your head?

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: Queasy
Who said the following?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

George Bush? Nope. Colin Powell? Nope. Hilary Clinton? Yep.


Now, who said this?

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."

Donald Rumsfeld? Nope. Dick Cheney? Nope. Ted Kennedy? Yep.

Let me reiterate my point here in this thread...

TED KENNEDY DIDN'T POUR HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF OUR TAX PAYER MONEY IN A JOBLESS ECONOMY WITH A LOOMING 600 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT; SO OUR SOLDIERS COULD RISK THEIR LIVES IN IRAQ SO DICK CHENEY COULD GIVE HALLIBURTON A FAT CONTRACT TO EXTRACT IRAQ OIL; MEANWHILE THE REST OF THE WORLD HATES OUR GUTS AND TERRORISTS KEEP ATTACKING US OVER THERE.

Ted Kennedy didn't use this shady information to start a war.
Get. A. Clue.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: flavio
So Queasy, you're saying it's ok for Bush to lie to the public so that he can go to war because a couple other people thought we should keep an eye on him? How's that work in your head?

No, I'm saying that previous administrations and current Bush administration detractors were saying nothing different back then than what Bush and Co. have been saying since they have been in office. The only difference is that Bush ACTED on those words and the Hilarys, Kennedys, and Gores of the Democrat party are not in the White House.

Since we have already liberated Iraqis from Saddam's heel, I'm willing to have a little more patience than just a couple of months for the search for WMDs. Hell, they found 30 Iraqi jets buried in the desert just a month and a half or so ago.

All the info on Kay's report is preliminary. So far it says nothing surprising. No WMDs found but obvious steps have been taken to deceive and conceal in defiance of the U.N. and 17 resolutions. People seem ready to shove the knife in Bush's gullet and twist the handle. Why don't we wait and see how the situation plays out before everyone pulls the knife out of the sheath.

 

[DealMonkey]

There are no WMDs in Iraq. Bush either lied, or his entire administration is stupid, or we have the WORST intel services EVER in the entire world. Either way, I sincerely hope history mentions what a dickwad Bush was for using WMDs as a pretext to invade Iraq.

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

TED KENNEDY DIDN'T POUR HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS OF OUR TAX PAYER MONEY IN A JOBLESS ECONOMY WITH A LOOMING 600 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT;

You're right. Ted Kennedy would rather pour hundreds of billions of tax payer money into union pockets, socialized health care, and nanny care for all. Oh, and last I looked the unemployment rate was at 6%. That's not jobless. Hell, that's not even close to the highest unemployement we've ever had.

SO OUR SOLDIERS COULD RISK THEIR LIVES IN IRAQ SO DICK CHENEY COULD GIVE HALLIBURTON A FAT CONTRACT TO EXTRACT IRAQ OIL;

Already been shown the Haliburton already held contracts with the government to cover emergency situations such as this.

MEANWHILE THE REST OF THE WORLD HATES OUR GUTS

Yet they still buy our products, ship their products to us, absorb our culture, take vacations here, ask for our money, and ask for our protection.

AND TERRORISTS KEEP ATTACKING US OVER THERE.

Better over there than over here. We've taken the fight to the terrorists instead of them bringing it to us ('93 WTC bombing, USS Cole, Embassies in Africa, 9/11 attacks....)

Get. A. Clue.

Already have one. Would you like to borrow it?

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Queasy

Originally posted by: flavio
So Queasy, you're saying it's ok for Bush to lie to the public so that he can go to war because a couple other people thought we should keep an eye on him? How's that work in your head?

No, I'm saying that previous administrations and current Bush administration detractors were saying nothing different back then than what Bush and Co. have been saying since they have been in office. The only difference is that Bush ACTED on those words and the Hilarys, Kennedys, and Gores of the Democrat party are not in the White House.

The difference is where others handled the situation without too much trouble Bush LIED, started a war that costs 100 of billions, killed thousands, and made a gigantic mess he still has no idea how to clean up.

 

[BOBDN]

I listened to a report on CNN this morning about the Bush administration delaying the Kay report to give them time to re-write it so it is more favorable to them.

In other words, more lies.

 

[CaptnKirk]

The closest that they have found to WMD so far is Women with Massive Derrieres.

 

[BOBDN]

The NY Times' editorial perspective on the Kay report along with the response of Colin Powell at his meeting with NY Times editors. Yes, that's right. The Secretary of State met with NY Times editors. Looks like Secretary of State Powell holds the Times in much higher esteem than some members of this forum.


The Failure to Find Iraqi Weapons

Published: September 26, 2003

This page did not support the war in Iraq, but it never quarreled with one of its basic premises. Like President Bush, we believed that Saddam Hussein was hiding potentially large quantities of chemical and biological weapons and aggressively pursuing nuclear arms. Like the president, we thought those weapons posed a grave danger to the United States and the rest of the world. Now it appears that premise was wrong. We cannot in hindsight blame the administration for its original conclusions. They were based on the best intelligence available, which had led the Clinton administration before it and the governments of allied nations to reach the same conclusion. But even the best intelligence can turn out to be mistaken, and the likelihood that this was the case in Iraq shows why pre-emptive war, the Bush administration's strategy since 9/11, is so ill conceived as a foundation for security policy. If intelligence and risk assessment are sketchy ? and when are they not? ? using them as the basis for pre-emptive war poses enormous dangers.

A draft of an interim report by David Kay, the American leading the hunt for banned arms in Iraq, says the team has not found any such weapons after nearly four months of intensively searching and interviewing top Iraqi scientists. There is some evidence of chemicals and equipment that could have been put to illicit use. But, to the chagrin of Mr. Bush's top lieutenants, there is nothing more.

It remains remotely possible, of course, that something will be found. But Mr. Kay's draft suggests that the weapons are simply not there. Why Mr. Hussein did not prove that when the United Nations demanded an explanation remains a puzzle. His failure to come clean strengthened the conviction that he had a great deal to hide. His history as a vicious tyrant who had used chemical weapons in war and against his own people lent credence to the fear that he could not be trusted with whatever he was holding and would pose a significant threat.

Before the war, we objected not to the stated goal of disarming Iraq but to the fact that the United States was waging war essentially alone, in defiance of many important allies. We favored using international inspectors to keep Iraq's destructive programs in check while diplomats forged a United Nations effort to force Mr. Hussein to yield his weapons.

The policy of pre-emption that Mr. Bush pursued instead junked an approach that had served this country and the world well for half a century. That policy, simply stated, was that the United States would respond quickly to aggression but would not be the first to attack.

The world changed on Sept. 11, 2001. Terrorist groups like Al Qaeda are dedicated to inflicting maximum harm on this country. Since such groups rely on suicide bombers and are therefore immune to threats of retaliation, the United States is right to attack a terrorist group first in some circumstances. It was certainly justified in its war in Afghanistan, which had become little more than a government-sponsored training camp for Al Qaeda. It is quite another thing, however, to launch a pre-emptive military campaign against a nation that the United States suspects poses a threat.

Americans and others in the world are glad that Mr. Hussein has been removed from power. If Iraq can be turned into a freer and happier country in coming years, it could become a focal point for the evolution of a more peaceful and democratic Middle East. But it was the fear of weapons of mass destruction placed in the hands of enemy terrorists that made doing something about Iraq seem urgent. If it had seemed unlikely that Mr. Hussein had them, we doubt that Congress or the American people would have endorsed the war.

This is clearly an uncomfortable question for the Bush administration. Yesterday, Secretary of State Colin Powell met with Times editors. Asked whether Americans would have supported this war if weapons of mass destruction had not been at issue, Mr. Powell said the question was too hypothetical to answer. Asked if he, personally, would have supported it, he smiled, thrust his hand out and said, "It was good to meet you."

 

[Moonbeam]

Asked if he, personally, would have supported it, he smiled, thrust his hand out and said, "It was good to meet you."
--------------------------
Worthless piece of garbage. God Damn enabling bastard.