Help me debunk this Bush tool's take on Kay's report

[Barrett808]

Here's what the guy wrote a co-worker, who's a high-school chum. There's plenty here to go after, but I'd like to hear the DU take.

I'll take this opportunity to send around what I think about the WMD question that you refer to in light of what we've learned since the war. It's worth reading David Kay's report in full -- all 11 single spaced pages of it. (I think the Times printed it, and in any event it is on the CIA web site.)

What I get out of it is that, on the one hand, there is very strong evidence that (1) Saddam wanted to have WMD and took active steps, continuing right up to this spring, to insure that he had technical and production capabilities such that he could have chemical and biological weapons in operationally useful quantities and the means to deliver them very quickly after he decided that having them would be useful, (2) that he was very anxious to have a similar option for nuclear weapons, and (3) that he and his agents took extraordinary precautions to conceal and destroy evidence about the whole subject (which, of course, suggests they had something pretty important and damaging to conceal). Kay's report, however, also shows, on the other hand, that (1) Saddam probably did not actually have very many operationally useful B or C weapons on hand last spring, and (2) that he was only at the start of reconstituting the nuclear weapons program he had had in 1990-91.

Personally, I think in retrospect, and I thought before the war, that such programs coupled with such intent were enough to justify the attack -- with a ruthless dictator with Saddam's record of international aggression, once you are sure he wants WMD and is working actively on programs so he can get them, you are wholly justified to strike early, rather than wait until he has the weapons and striking becomes vastly more difficult. However, I can understand that if you thought that only actual possession of a deliverable arsenal would justify an attack, that standard was not met -- and even more so if you thought that only an "imminent" prospect of actual use of the weapons would justify an attack. (Whether, and to what degree if at all, the Administration deliberately overstated the case is a much more complicated issue.)

I should also add that the story is by no means over. It is theoretically possible that the evidence of programs is somehow false, since it mostly depends on what people told the investigators, not physical evidence. But it is also possible we will eventually find, not only physical evidence of programs, but actual stockpiles. From what I know of clandestine programs, we are by no means necessarily at the end of learning what he was up to. As Kay points out, a significant stock of actual weapons would not take up more than an infinitesimal share of Iraq's total weapons storage. Similarly, only a very small number of technicians and officers would have to be involved in actual production, given the sufficient base of knowledge, technology, and production capability that he clearly had. So I think we need to go on looking, frustrating as it seems.

Tomorrow early I fly out to the training base for the commissioning ceremony for the first battalion of the new Iraqi army. I hope goes smoothly; it is a big step toward putting Iraqis back in charge of their own destiny.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. Here is an easy one

Programs do not consitute IMMINENT DANGER,

Condy Rice imagery of nukes over a US City was used, where
are them nukes, and I mean operational and with the capacity
to reach saith American City

[FloridaPat]

2. I have a lot of intentions. I have an intention to become

a million, live in a mansion, and retire now and not later. Does that make me rich?

[rfranklin]

3. These are the same Iraqis that were shooting at our military...

a few months ago. We liberated them from themselves, and now we're rearming them. Makes sense, doesn't it?

[rfranklin]

4. Kim Il Jung wants and probably has WMDs...

Pakistan, the country that financed much of the 9/11 operation, has WMDs.

Israel, under an unstable, out-of-control right wing loony, has WMDs.

Thousands of WMDs are floating around the former territories of the Soviet Union.

Yep, I guess we better go after those who have no WMDs but may have thought about them.

[alcuno]

5. This guy is advocating INSPECTIONS.

They have already spent 300,000,000 dollars "looking" for these weapons that were obviously of no threat to the US and intend to spend another 600,000,000 dollars on the continued charade.

UN inspectors were costing about 60,000,000 dollars per year and we didn't have to kill thousands of people, take over an Islamic country, insult and humiliate our allies, and cost American taxpayers +160,000,000,000 dollars and growing.

Saddam wanted WMD's. This is news? Who thought that he didn't? He was "very anxious" for nuclear weapons. We can't find thousands of tons of nerve agents, chem and bio WEAPONS, and a "reconstituted nuclear program," but we can find out that Saddam was "very anxious?"

Don't bother with this guy. He is a waste of time and MY MONEY.

On Edit: Go find out what David Kay was saying "pre-war." He wasn't talking about programs then. Why is he now gifted with credibility when he was so horribly wrong.

[gratuitous]

6. Very curious

I'm taking the text of your friend's missive at its face. Keep in mind that I do not grant credence to any of it, but let's follow some of his unspoken logic, okay?

Apparently, all during the 1990s, Saddam allowed his weapons programs to lie fallow. He didn't try to procure any additional materials or restart any programs that were ended by the Gulf War. In fact, as late as April 2001, Colin Powell categorically stated that Iraq's attack capabilities were nil. (This last point isn't in the missive, but I'll interpolate for the purpose of contrast.)

Now, sometime in the two years between Powell's pronouncement and Bush's invasion, something obviously changed, and Iraq became a threat. Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Condolleezza Rice and George Bush all stated in no uncertain terms that Iraq was an imminent threat to the security of the U.S. Administration figures even named places where they knew weapons were cached.

The unspoken question is "Why did Saddam suddenly think he could restart his weapons program?" (That is, if the friend's account is true, which I do not concede.)

Saddam obviously thought he could do it and get away with it. Only a couple of things had changed in America between the 1990s and the first couple of years of the new millennium: A Republican was in the White House, and Republicans controlled the government. Saddam didn't try any monkey business all through the 1990s, but apparently, as soon as he got a good look at the new administration, he figured this was a good time to re-arm himself.

How very odd. What had Saddam seen of the Bush administration that persuaded him such a reckless course of action was feasible? And are there other enemies of America watching Iraq who are making calculations to avoid whatever mistakes Saddam made?

[Barrett808]

8. I like this tack

But he would probably not concede that Saddam was keeping the weapons programs fallow. There is an assumption that after inspectors were withdrawn prior to Desert Fox, Saddam felt free to restart programs after 1998. In spite of the crippling sanctions regime, which many people seem to forget nowadays.

[many a good man]

7. Kay's Report Proves War Not Justified

Saddam's strategy has now become clear. Destroy WMDs and active programs for their manufacture in order to end international sanctions. State you are clean and hope inspectors return. However, leave enough doubt so your enemies (domestic and foreign) still fear you. Inspectors find compliance and lift economic sanctions. After sanctions are lifted re-start covert arms programs (under watchful eye of international institutions).

Of course, he miscalculated again and the US/UK invaded. His backup plan was to hide out, disrupt the occupation, hope for the slim chance he might be able to return to power amid the chaos.

Granted, if his original plan succeeded, the world would be stuck containing him and watching over him. Which, by the way, had been successful. The fact remains Iraq had no ability to defend itself; even less ability to attack its neighbors.

International intelligence agencies agreed Iraq was not an active player in international terrorism and posed no threat to the region. That's why they were opposed to war. It is preposterous to think he posed any threat to the US or England. This was an unjustified war; with no imminent threat it should be seen as a war of aggression, which is defined as a crime against humanity.

Real international leadership would have been to strengthen international institutions and lead a world effort to stop the spread of unconventional weapons. Unite the world in the fight against terrorism and proliferation.

Instead we got this PNAC nightmare of Imperial America showing the world that Uncle Sam has the biggest dick on the planet. Whump! Uncle Sam whips it out right on the table for the whole world to see. Now we must pay for the broken dishes and America's esteem is shattered. Let's not waste another $600 million looking for weapons that aren't there.

[trotsky]

12. LMAO at your last paragraph, TandP

That's the funniest and most apropos description of the events in Iraq I've read. Funny and sad all at the same time...

[Barrett808]

9. Just read Kay's statement, recommend everybody do the same

Quite underwhelming, Kay is speculating well beyond the data, imho. Curious to know what others think.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

[Martin Eden]

10. 10 war justifications debunked

Purported justifications for war:

1)Iraq was in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions.
The US/UK invasion was in defiance -- not at the behest -- of the UN.

2)Iraq was a direct threat to the US/UK.
Iraq did not have the military capability to attack either country.

3)Iraq would give WMD to terrorists to use against us.
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden were mortal enemies. Our own CIA determined Saddam would not give WMD to terrorists, unless he were attacked and had nothing left to lose. Hussein was a secular tyrant (as opposed to an Islamic jihadist) which is why we supported him in his war against Iran. WMD were not used in the first Gulf war, or given to terrorists in the 12 years since.

4)Iraq was a threat to its neighbors.
Iraq's neighbors unanimously opposed the war, with the exception of Israel, which has the finest military in the region and a nuclear deterrent. Hussein invaded Kuwait after we assured him the US takes no position on Arab vs. Arab conflicts.

5)Iraq retained the scientific capability to produce WMD and was intending to manufacture weapons to use against us.
Invading a soverign nation that neither attacked nor threatened us, on the basis of perceived intent in some future scenario, is not justified by international law or any moral precept.

6)Toppling Hussein's regime will make us safer in the long run.
It's hard to predict the future. Currently, our military is badly overextended and unprepared for another major engagement, the cost of the war and occupation is adding to huge deficits that will hurt our economy in the long run, and we have provoked a worldwide surge in anti-Americanism and recruitment for terror organizations. There is no guarantee when we leave Iraq that it won't degenerate into an Islamic and/or terrorist regime. The devil you don't know may be worse than the one we deposed.

7)Toppling Hussein's regime will transform the Middle East into free-market democracies.
Refer to number 6. This part of the PNAC agenda isn't working out any better than their planning for postwar Iraq.

8)We liberated the Iraqi people and are bringing them democracy.
The war was sold to the American people as self-defense, not as an act of altruistism. Our own democracy of informed consent was subverted, and the motivations behind this war were not to benefit the Iraqi people.

9)Controlling Iraq's oil will keep energy prices low, secure a resource vital to our economy, and offset the impact of huge deficits and trade imbalances by keeping oil transactions in petro dollars rather than euros.
This remains to be seen, but even if these benefits are realized it does not justify launching a war to seize someone else's resources. The hundreds of billions of dollars we're spending on this venture would be better invested in alternative energy technologies and conservation. An economy based on the accelerated burning of finite resources is unsustainable.

The conquest of Iraq is the first step in the establishment of Pax Americana.
Dream on, you deluded neoconservative PNAC destroyers of true American ideals.

[Barrett808]

11. Now we need to see these points appear in a prosecution case

Blair first, then the PNAC cabal.

[Barrett808]

13. Check out the latest post from this guy

Another unbelievable post from a Bush tool in Iraq
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=15686