The Art of Camouflage - David Kay comes clean, almost . . .

[DealMonkey]

Oh the irony! Just like an Iraqi scientist, now that Kay is freed from the harsh glare of his cruel masters, he can finally speak his mind and tell it like it is...

The Art of Camouflage David Kay comes clean, almost.
By Fred Kaplan
Posted Monday, Jan. 26, 2004, at 2:41 PM PT

David Kay's remarks over the weekend?that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction before the war and that U.S. intelligence agencies missed the signs that would have told them as much?held few surprises for anyone who'd closely read his official report on the matter last October.

Kay was the CIA's chief weapons inspector until he resigned last week. The difference between his report of last fall and his statements of recent days is that he was still on the Bush administration's payroll when he wrote the former and a free agent when he made the latter. It's the difference between obfuscation and clarity?political allegiance and public candor.

The discrepancy is not so much a comment on David Kay or George W. Bush as a general caution on how to read official reports.

For example, in an interview conducted late Saturday and published in today's New York Times, Kay says, "I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction. We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on."

Iraq's weapons and facilities, he says, had been destroyed in three phases: by allied bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War; by U.N. inspectors in the half-decade after that war; and by President Clinton's 1998 bombing campaign. (Clinton's airstrikes, by now widely forgotten, were even at the time widely dismissed as a political diversion; they took place during the weekend when the House of Representatives voted for impeachment. But according to Kay, they destroyed Iraq's remaining infrastructure for building chemical weapons.) Kay adds that Saddam tried to resuscitate some of these programs, but?due to sanctions, fear of inspections, and lack of resources?he was not able to do so.

Kay made these same points in his report last October, but it was easy to overlook them?in fact, the reader was meant to. Kay didn't exactly lie in the report; the points were there if you looked carefully; but he did his best to camouflage them.

There are tried and true methods to this art of camouflage. The idea is to deploy vague rhetoric and unchallengeable facts that seem menacing at first glance but on close inspection have no significance. The hope is that, if you play this game well enough, nobody will inspect them closely enough to notice.

For instance, Kay began his report by noting that Saddam Hussein's WMD program "spanned more than two decades" and "involved thousands of people and billions of dollars."

You had to read the next several pages to realize that these thousands of people and billions of dollars also "spanned more than two decades"?that, at least since 1991, nowhere near that much money or manpower was involved at any one time. You also have to read on to realize that, whatever the level of endeavor, its results were nil. In short, Kay wasn't lying. But he was setting a diversionary tone, at the top of the report, to please his bosses and give them ammo for sound bites.

Another example: Kay wrote, in a breathless style, that Saddam had set up "a clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service." Buried in the paragraphs to follow was Kay's conclusion that these labs and safehouses didn't produce anything of note. Similarly, the report warned that Saddam "may have engaged" in "research on a possible VX-stabilizer" (italics added), but said nothing about whether he actually developed any such thing or even possessed VX.

My favorite example of Kay's attempt to trump substance with style: Saddam's scientists "began several small and relatively unsophisticated research initiatives ? that could have been useful in developing a weapons-relevant science base for the long-term." This description is so vague, it would accurately describe the act of reading a textbook on nuclear physics.

Kay did his job well. His report did not tell lies. But it puffed up enough smoke to let President Bush proclaim it as a justification for the war. Bush cited, with particular enthusiasm, the bit about Saddam's "clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses"?a phrase containing four words designed to raise the hair of anyone who's ever glanced at a spy novel.

Now that Kay has quit, he can tell the same story?but without the smokescreen.

In the Times interview, Kay does add one dimension to his tale?and it is the newest, most intriguing aspect of them all. In the late 1990s, it seems, Saddam took personal control of Iraq's WMD program. As a result, Iraqi scientists started going to him directly with proposals of fanciful weapons systems, for which Saddam paid them heaps of money. As Kay puts it, the WMD program turned into a "vortex of corruption." Saddam was deluded with fantasies; the scientists pocketed the money and filed phony progress reports on fake weapons systems.

Kay says the CIA's biggest failure lay in missing this internal deception. Though the Times piece doesn't say so, it's quite likely that the CIA itself was deceived, intercepting some of these phony reports and treating them as credulously as Saddam did. In any case, in the Times interview, Kay calls for an overhaul in the way the agency processes intelligence.

It is significant that Kay wrote nothing about the Iraqi scientists' deception campaign?and issued no such call for radical reform of the U.S. intelligence community?in his report last October. The omissions are the ultimate indicators that the report's main goal was to please and protect his employer.

Even now, Kay falls short of making a full break with the Bush administration. He continues to state that Iraq was a danger to the world, worth going to war against, even if not for the same reasons that Bush claimed. He tells the Times, "We know that terrorists were passing through Iraq. And now we know that there was little control over Iraq's weapons capabilities. I think it shows that Iraq was a very dangerous place. The country had the technology, the ability to produce, and there were terrorist groups passing through the country?and no central control."

This is a puzzling sequence of non sequiturs. Terrorists may have been passing through, but Kay?who bases his other conclusions on interviews with many Iraqi scientists and examination of many documents?found nothing that suggests any contact between terrorists and scientists. The disarray of Saddam's rule may have meant there was "little control over Iraq's weapons capabilities," but, as Kay says elsewhere, there was also little in the way of Iraqi weapons. Having "the technology" is not the same thing as having the weapons; "the ability to produce" is not the same thing as producing.

It will be interesting to watch where David Kay goes next. On one level, he's come clean, but on another, he's still playing his old games.

Linked

 

[Moonbeam]

Millions of people can die because of assholes like Kay.

I heard the Iraq is a dangerous place on the radio and nearly laughed myself out of my seat.

 

[chess9]

Moonbeam:

Yes, and he's still obfuscating.

But, why won't our Congressional Representatives and Senators, including three running for President, read the "heavy" stuff? Dean did, and he reads and UNDERSTANDS what he reads on the front page of the N.Y. Times, for instance. Dean has made clear time and time again that the evidence was out in the public domain that SH had been contained and that he had no discernable WMD and was certainly not a threat to the U.S. And that evidence was available more than a year ago.

Here's my problem with Kay. He's now being politically coy. He is blaming the CIA and not the White House, but how does he know which of them is responsible? Well, he does intuit the truth I'm certain, and it isn't just the intelligence agencies. Intelligence agencies hedge their assessments, usually, with more qualifiers than a researcher investigating paranormal phenomena (like Bush having a brain). To square the intelligence assessments with Bush's 2003 SOTU message is impossible. It cannot be done. Kay must know it because almost everyone in the intelligence community knows it.

And that is why our friendly CIA Director still has his job. He is sitting on the truth because he was complicit with Bush in drawing unwarranted conclusions from the intelligence assessments to justify the war. Ergo, both are traitors to our country.

-Robert

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: chess9
Moonbeam:

Yes, and he's still obfuscating.

But, why won't our Congressional Representatives and Senators, including three running for President, read the "heavy" stuff? Dean did, and he reads and UNDERSTANDS what he reads on the front page of the N.Y. Times, for instance. Dean has made clear time and time again that the evidence was out in the public domain that SH had been contained and that he had no discernable WMD and was certainly not a threat to the U.S. And that evidence was available more than a year ago.

Here's my problem with Kay. He's now being politically coy. He is blaming the CIA and not the White House, but how does he know which of them is responsible? Well, he does intuit the truth I'm certain, and it isn't just the intelligence agencies. Intelligence agencies hedge their assessments, usually, with more qualifiers than a researcher investigating paranormal phenomena (like Bush having a brain). To square the intelligence assessments with Bush's 2003 SOTU message is impossible. It cannot be done. Kay must know it because almost everyone in the intelligence community knows it.

And that is why our friendly CIA Director still has his job. He is sitting on the truth because he was complicit with Bush in drawing unwarranted conclusions from the intelligence assessments to justify the war. Ergo, both are traitors to our country.

-Robert

Well for a while there Shrub tried to finger the CIA. He must have gotten some message cause that stopped.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Maybe this is a little self-serving . . . but maybe Dr. Dean reads for details b/c he comes from a discipline where arriving at the correct conclusion may hinge on a single detail or better yet . . . properly synthesizing seemingly disparate pieces of information. In politics, the goal isn't to get it right. The goal is to tell YOUR story. That's why people like Paul O'Neill get the boot in DC.

 

[alchemize]

Once again I refer you all to the best article I've seen on WMD It basically substantiates Kay's post-war viewpoint. It certainly does not support Dean's assertions (Or Chess9's summary thereof):

Dean has made clear time and time again that the evidence was out in the public domain that SH had been contained and that he had no discernable WMD and was certainly not a threat to the U.S.

The article does not discuss the "threat", a very subjective term.

 

[chess9]

Achemize:

And, the 2002 report, which is the at the core of his argument, has proven to be wrong. It was overstated to meet the desires of policy makers I'm sure. I have no doubt that Clinton wanted to be able to justify an invasion of Iraq as well. What politician would take that option off the table if he could have it by simply pressing hard on the Director of the CIA?

The problem here is that intelligence was obviously manipulated by higher ups at the CIA, and most certainly to please the President. We haven't seen the basic field reports behind the assessment, so we cannot say what degree of confidence those who collected the information had in their sources. So we don't know how far they went in "sexing up" the dossier. BUT, anyone who now doubts the dossier was sexed up doesn't understand how Washington works. The Director of the CIA is little more than a puppet of our Presidents. That needs to change.

This has been a disaster for the world's confidence in the CIA's information. The ramifications for this kind of skullduggery are enormous for the agents dealing with other countries and informants.

The best thing to happen would be for the President and the CIA Director to come clean and for everyone to agree to fix our still broken intelligence infrastructure.

Also, the President has signalled he is willing to play hardball with the CIA agents because he has already allowed Rove to out one its agents. I have no doubt that was a calculated move to shut up those in the CIA who know how "creative" the White House and the Director got in support of the 2003 SOTU message.

Just my .00002 Rials worth.

-Robert

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: chess9
Achemize:

And, the 2002 report, which is the at the core of his argument, has proven to be wrong. It was overstated to meet the desires of policy makers I'm sure. I have no doubt that Clinton wanted to be able to justify an invasion of Iraq as well. What politician would take that option off the table if he could have it by simply pressing hard on the Director of the CIA?

The problem here is that intelligence was obviously manipulated by higher ups at the CIA, and most certainly to please the President. We haven't seen the basic field reports behind the assessment, so we cannot say what degree of confidence those who collected the information had in their sources. So we don't know how far they went in "sexing up" the dossier. BUT, anyone who now doubts the dossier was sexed up doesn't understand how Washington works. The Director of the CIA is little more than a puppet of our Presidents. That needs to change.

This has been a disaster for the world's confidence in the CIA's information. The ramifications for this kind of skullduggery are enormous for the agents dealing with other countries and informants.

The best thing to happen would be for the President and the CIA Director to come clean and for everyone to agree to fix our still broken intelligence infrastructure.

Also, the President has signalled he is willing to play hardball with the CIA agents because he has already allowed Rove to out one its agents. I have no doubt that was a calculated move to shut up those in the CIA who know how "creative" the White House and the Director got in support of the 2003 SOTU message.

Just my .00002 Rials worth.

-Robert

I posted these for you in another thread last week. Didn't know if you saw them or not. Some insiders have come forward:

Truthout: Interview: 27-Year CIA Veteran by Will Pitt
AT P&N: An Excellent Article on WMD
AT P&N: CBS 60 Minutes II - The Man Who Knew
AT P&N: CIA Analyst: 'No President has lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably'
AT P&N: And the Spooks DID try to Tell Bush and His Advisors . . .

 

[chess9]

Bow:

I'll take a look at them again, but I saw Powell's arms guy's views already. Thanks.

Here's another very troubling issue. The neo-cons hate the U.N. as do many conservatives. This little problem with Iraq was an opportunity for the neocons, including the author cited above, to push their anti-U.N. agenda. They used the CIA to polish up the assessment in support of their political agenda. This is very naughty stuff to be doing in my view. We are a signatory to the U.N. Charter, which was approved by our Senate, so we are legally and morally obligated to obey that Charter. Our failure to wait for the U.N. to act, if at all, was a monumental foreign policy blunder and a moral outrage.

I am not a pacifist by any means. I supported Bush's war against Al-Quida, and still do. (If the Commandant of the Marine Corps called me today and said we need old men to die in Afghanistan I'd go.) What I don't like is being ROLLED. The neocons have ROLLED most of the nation. We've taken a hot poker up the a** and many of you are saying "Oh, that feels so good!" If you want security, as I do for myself and my family, then we must be able to trust our intelligence agencies. Right now, my confidence in the CIA is exactly ZERO. Every CIA operative who puts his/her life on the line for America should be very angry. I can't wait for the books to start pouring forth in a few years showing the country and the world how Bush and the neocons manipulated our intelligence. As Bow points out it is now coming out in dribs and drabs. But the block buster stuff won't be out for a few years I fear.

Robert

 

[DT4K]

No large stockpiles, but there were clearly ongoing WMD programs and research with the intent of developing chemical and biological agents. Kay has also stated that there were clear violations of the UN resolutions and a clear attempt to conceal these programs.


But on Sunday, Kay reiterated his conclusion that Saddam had "a large number of WMD program-related activities." And, he said, Iraq's leaders had intended to continue those activities.

"There were scientists and engineers working on developing weapons or weapons concepts that they had not moved into actual production," Kay said. "But in some areas, for example producing mustard gas, they knew all the answers, they had done it in the past, and it was a relatively simple thing to go from where they were to starting to produce it."

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.

Asked whether President Bush (news - web sites) owed the nation an explanation for the gap between his warnings and Kay's findings, Kay said: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president, rather than the president owing the American people."

"We've shared in the classified report about two dozen major cases of where Iraq hid equipment or engaged in prohibited activities that were not permitted under the U.N. resolution," Kay said.

Kay did not reveal any bombshells about the deposed regime's weapons program but said he had enough evidence to show that Saddam had been violating U.N. disarmament resolutions up until as recently as this year, including by having very substantial chemical and biological weapons plans.

"At this point, we have found substantial evidence of an intent of senior-level Iraqi officials, including Saddam, to continue production at some future point in time of weapons of mass destruction."

"In addition to intent, we have found a large body of continuing activities and equipment that were not declared to the U.N. inspectors when they returned in November of last year," Kay

Kay said Iraq's nuclear weapons program appears to have been the least developed program uncovered so far, but the country did have bombs that could fly as far as 1,000 kilometers, much further than the 93-kilometer limit the U.N. had imposed on the country.

Kay also stated that the Iraq Survey Group had discovered:

5) "Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons."

6) "New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."

 

[Moonbeam]

You are right, Chess. The truth will out and the blind suckers that support Bush now will be in to some new lie still denying their past like so many chumps that continue to say we were right to be in Viet Nam.

 

[chess9]

Shanti:

Whose side of this argument are you on?

Sheezh.... If all of that, including the dozens of inexact and weasel words, isn't troubling to you then when your doctor tells you you're going to die and you say of what and he just shrugs his shoulders, I'm sure you'll be feeling quite sanguine.

-Robert

 

[chess9]

Bow:

Yes, I had read all but one (9/903). Kudos to you for keeping this alive and keeping us up to date.

-Robert

 

[GoPackGo]

So it sounds like the Saddam regime was doing many things towards the goal of WMD.

So I for one would like these questions answered:

What was trucked into syria?
How long does it take to make chemical weapons when you know how to make them and have the equipment to do it?
Was Saddam still in violation of UN Resolution?
Didn't I read somewhere/sometime that some Ricin from Iraq was interecepted in the UK?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
So it sounds like the Saddam regime was doing many things towards the goal of WMD.

So I for one would like these questions answered:

What was trucked into syria?
How long does it take to make chemical weapons when you know how to make them and have the equipment to do it?
Was Saddam still in violation of UN Resolution?
Didn't I read somewhere/sometime that some Ricin from Iraq was interecepted in the UK?

Sounds like was the whole intention while actually saying the opposite. Try to get up to speed here.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
So it sounds like the Saddam regime was doing many things towards the goal of WMD.

So I for one would like these questions answered:

What was trucked into syria?
How long does it take to make chemical weapons when you know how to make them and have the equipment to do it?
Was Saddam still in violation of UN Resolution?
Didn't I read somewhere/sometime that some Ricin from Iraq was interecepted in the UK?

Sounds like was the whole intention while actually saying the opposite. Try to get up to speed here.

Don't attack me for wanting to have questions answered...I dont expect you oh glorious moonbeam to answer them. I expect the president to answer them....I want the truth. Not left wing or right wing spin.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: chess9
Shanti:

Whose side of this argument are you on?

Sheezh.... If all of that, including the dozens of inexact and weasel words, isn't troubling to you then when your doctor tells you you're going to die and you say of what and he just shrugs his shoulders, I'm sure you'll be feeling quite sanguine.

-Robert

What do you mean?

I don't find it that surprising that we thought there were stockpiles of weapons.
It sounds like even Saddam thought they had stockpiles. And if he didn't know that his scientists were exaggerating their progress in the WMD programs that Kay himself said were active and hidden from U.N. inspectors, then how in the hell were we supposed to know this. The intelligence may have been flawed in terms of actual weapon stocks, but Kay's comments indicate that we were exactly right about the continuing violation of UN resolutions and the continuing intent to develop new WMD's.

Yes, we were all misled, but we were misled by the Iraqi's, not the president.
The fact remains that every other country's intelligence service had come to the same conclusions and so had Bill Clinton.
So Bush may be guilty of selective hearing and a misguided faith in the accuracy of our intelligence, but I still see no evidence that he intentionally misled or lied to us.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: chess9
Shanti:

Whose side of this argument are you on?

Sheezh.... If all of that, including the dozens of inexact and weasel words, isn't troubling to you then when your doctor tells you you're going to die and you say of what and he just shrugs his shoulders, I'm sure you'll be feeling quite sanguine.

-Robert

What do you mean?

I don't find it that surprising that we thought there were stockpiles of weapons.
It sounds like even Saddam thought they had stockpiles. And if he didn't know that his scientists were exaggerating their progress in the WMD programs that Kay himself said were active and hidden from U.N. inspectors, then how in the hell were we supposed to know this. The intelligence may have been flawed in terms of actual weapon stocks, but Kay's comments indicate that we were exactly right about the continuing violation of UN resolutions and the continuing intent to develop new WMD's.

Yes, we were all misled, but we were misled by the Iraqi's, not the president.
The fact remains that every other country's intelligence service had come to the same conclusions and so had Bill Clinton.
So Bush may be guilty of selective hearing and a misguided faith in the accuracy of our intelligence, but I still see no evidence that he intentionally misled or lied to us.

Sure he did. You don't start a war and kill thousands of people because you think you know. It's just incredible with all the information we have, and PNAC itself, that people can't see that Bush was going to war with Iraq from day and was only short an excuse. The puzzle should be to look at ourselves and ask why we're so dense. Why can't we think or see? The answer's pretty easy.

 

[DT4K]

The intelligence that indicated Iraq was a threat was not made up by Bush as you like to pretend. Many other countries reached the same conclusions based on their own intelligence sources.
And Kay's reports indicate that Iraq was indeed still very involved with active bio and chem weapons research that they kept hidden from the U.N.

So we were wrong about the stockpiles and right about Saddam's intentions and the danger he posed. So the threat wasn't immediately imminent. It would have become imminent if we hadn't put an end to his WMD programs by going in.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Shanti
The intelligence that indicated Iraq was a threat was not made up by Bush as you like to pretend.

True. It was made up by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Many other countries reached the same conclusions based on their own intelligence sources.

Which is why we had inspectors back on the ground in Iraq to determine what was still accurate and what was to old and moldy to consider. Furthermore, the fact that many countries believed Iraq still had some WMD capabilities is a far cry from the "massive stockpiles" Bush and his minions insisted were in Iraq.

And Kay's reports indicate that Iraq was indeed still very involved with active bio and chem weapons research that they kept hidden from the U.N.

NO, it did NOT. It indicated Iraq had a few remaining fragments of programs and materials that might be applied to WMD-related activities some day. It did NOT indicate Iraq had ANY active bio or chem weapons research.

No, it didn't.

So we were wrong about the stockpiles

True

and right about Saddam's intentions

Duh. Saddam wanted his weapons back some day. Big surprise. I'll bet Castro does too, but we aren't preparing to invade Cuba.

and the danger he posed.

None

So the threat wasn't immediately imminent. It would have become imminent if we hadn't put an end to his WMD programs by going in.

No, it wouldn't. We already put an end to Iraq's WMD programs thanks to the 1991 war, the sanctions and inspections, and, to put the final nail in the coffin, Clinton's 1998 bombing raids. We were told this before the war, by multiple sources, but chose not to listen because Bush wanted a war.

 

[DT4K]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Shanti
The intelligence that indicated Iraq was a threat was not made up by Bush as you like to pretend.

True. It was made up by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Really?
I didn't know they were in charge during the Clinton administration.

Many other countries reached the same conclusions based on their own intelligence sources.

Which is why we had inspectors back on the ground in Iraq to determine what was still accurate and what was to old and moldy to consider. Furthermore, the fact that many countries believed Iraq still had some WMD capabilities is a far cry from the "massive stockpiles" Bush and his minions insisted were in Iraq.

Do you honestly believe that the inspectors were being told the truth by Saddam? Kay indicated that Saddam had continued to violate the sanctions and had been hiding equipment from the inspectors. So how are they going to help if everything is being hidden from them?

And Kay's reports indicate that Iraq was indeed still very involved with active bio and chem weapons research that they kept hidden from the U.N.

NO, it did NOT. It indicated Iraq had a few remaining fragments of programs and materials that might be applied to WMD-related activities some day. It did NOT indicate Iraq had ANY active bio or chem weapons research.

No, it didn't.

Really?
Kay also stated that the Iraq Survey Group had discovered:

5) "Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons."

6) "New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."

 

[Moonbeam]

Bush wanted war. That's the beginning and end of it. Now he should be tried for war crimes and mass murder.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Shanti

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Shanti
The intelligence that indicated Iraq was a threat was not made up by Bush as you like to pretend.

True. It was made up by Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Really?
I didn't know they were in charge during the Clinton administration.

Nor am I talking about the five-year-old, Clinton-era intelligence. I am talking about the new claims about the "massive stockpiles" and the aluminum tubes and all the other stuff we've already refuted here a hundred times.

Many other countries reached the same conclusions based on their own intelligence sources.

Which is why we had inspectors back on the ground in Iraq to determine what was still accurate and what was to old and moldy to consider. Furthermore, the fact that many countries believed Iraq still had some WMD capabilities is a far cry from the "massive stockpiles" Bush and his minions insisted were in Iraq.

Do you honestly believe that the inspectors were being told the truth by Saddam? Kay indicated that Saddam had continued to violate the sanctions and had been hiding equipment from the inspectors. So how are they going to help if everything is being hidden from them?

All in all, it looks like Iraq's claims were more accurate than the Bush administration's, a simple fact the Bushies conveniently ignore.

Kay was directed to make a mountain out of a molehill. He did his best to do so without actually lying.

And Kay's reports indicate that Iraq was indeed still very involved with active bio and chem weapons research that they kept hidden from the U.N.

NO, it did NOT. It indicated Iraq had a few remaining fragments of programs and materials that might be applied to WMD-related activities some day. It did NOT indicate Iraq had ANY active bio or chem weapons research.

No, it didn't.

Really?
Kay also stated that the Iraq Survey Group had discovered:

5) "Reference strains of biological organisms concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can be used to produce biological weapons."

6) "New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN."

I went over this in a thread several weeks ago and you prompty disappeared. It would be nice if you paid attention so you don't pop up again in a month repeating the same disinformation.

Re. #5, Kay's team was given a single, twenty year old "vial of live C. botulinum Okra B." bacteria -- not toxin -- obtained from a U.S. lab in the early 1980's. It was one of several assorted vials kept in an Iraq scientist's refrigerator for many years. This particular strain of the botulinum bacteria is a less-virulent strain that has never been successfully weaponized. It's good for Botox, not bioterrorism.

Re. #6, note the word "applicable". None of these were useful as biological weapons agents. Some of the research techniques might be useful in bio-weapons research. Like so much of the innuendo in Kay's report, however, he found no evidence of actual proscribed research.

 

[Bowfinger]

Just to beat my own drum a little, while looking for my quote for Shanti (above), I found this thread: Blix Skeptical that Iraq has WMDs.

Here is what I said on December 14:

You said, "kay's preliminary findings alone proved saddam maintained clandestine wmd programs". Sorry, they're not there. Your statement is FALSE. You can spin 'til the sun goes cold, but your statement is FALSE.

Look at Kay's quote above. Did he say they found WMDs? No. Did he say the (sic) found WMD programs? No. He said they found "WMD-related program activities". I know you wish it said more, but it just, flat-out doesn't.

The truth was there all along for anyone who read his report closely. Unfortunately, too many people who claimed they read it really relied on others' spin about what it said.


Edit: I hate finding a typo six weeks later

 

[Gaard]

Shanti - So Bush may be guilty of selective hearing and a misguided faith in the accuracy of our intelligence, but I still see no evidence that he intentionally misled or lied to us.

You readily admit that Bush may be guilty of selective hearing in the first part of your statement, yet you say you don't see any evidence of intentional misleading?