Re: WMD
- From: Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2006 10:09:12 -0700
Joe Avalon wrote:
Islander wrote:
E (Bet) Anthony wrote:
Islander wrote:
Joe Avalon wrote:
Jose wrote:
E (Bet) Anthony wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf
Saddam lies when he told the UN inspectors he had destroyed all his WMD. How many tons are still unaccounted for? **
**
Dr. David Key testified at a House hearing on Thursday that close to 500 degraded chemical munitions found in Iraq, and revealed last week, constitute weapons of mass destruction.
Rep. Curt Weldon asked, "So is it safe to say, based on your assessment of chemical weapon munitions, that the fact that we have found them and that the generals are telling us they expect to find more -- in classified session they're going to tell us approximately how many they expect to find -- that we still have, under that definition, WMD in Iraq today?"
"You certainly still have chemical munitions," Kay responded.
Key was also asked his opinion on going to war against Iraq and he said,"I think the decision to go to war against Iraq was the decision I would have taken."
Yesterdays hearing is currently airing on C-Span.
You might want to put Kay's comments in context. The entire script of the testimony is at http://tinyurl.com/eujph
In particular, Kay stated:
It really should not be a surprise to anyone that chemical munitions produced in Iraq between 1980 and roughly 1991 have been found there during the course of Iraq -- Operation Iraqi Freedom. Such rounds continue to be found throughout the period that the UN was in Iraq from 1991 until it was kicked out in 1998; they were even found during Dr. Blix's brief period of return prior to the onslaught of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
...
Well, unfortunately, they became scattered throughout that vast armory that was Iraq. And so in the late 1990s, and in the period after 2003, in general they have been found as onesies and twosies, and small numbers, scattered among conventional weapons.
...
When I took over the Iraq Survey Group in 2003 my attention was not focused on pre-1991 chemical weapons that Iraq had, although I testified repeatedly, including the first testimony I gave after taking the job, that I fully expected that we would find chemical rounds from the 1980s in Iraq. I knew that they were continuing to be found right up to the time of the war, and there was no reason to doubt there.
...
We all knew that in Iraq we were going to find chemical weapons produced prior to 1991.
----------------
In what follows there is extensive testimony as to why he was not concerned about these old munitions, how they quickly degraded or were otherwise of minimal danger relative to the vast quantities of munitions that were inadequately protected following the invasion.
When asked if he would have gone to war based on what he knew he stated:
MR. KAY: I've said, sir, that I think the decision to go to war against Iraq was the decision I would have taken. I would have hoped, I would have planned better for victory.
Overall, it is clear that Kay was much more concerned about the stockpiles of conventional weapons and explosives that were left to be picked over by Iraqis who would use them later against us.
Kay clearly doesn't think that there were any WMDs produced after the gulf war I and that Saddam was simply bluffing in order to retain power:
MR. KAY: My personal thought is that Saddam's forces were subject to the same deception and rule of Saddam as the rest of the world was. That is, he tried to convince his troops that he had these capabilities, until the point where it came to use them. That is, when we interviewed -- and we interviewed all the general officers, commanding units in the circle around Baghdad -- they all said I don't have it, but the unit on my right or left has it. And we talked to them and they said well, we don't have it, but we understand the right or left. And as you probably know, because it's now come out in the open, Saddam had a general council of his generals as they were preparing for the defense of Baghdad, and they asked him where are the weapons of mass destruction? Can we use them? And he said I got rid of them all. I don't have them.
Bottom line - Kay said, "I think the decision to go to war against Iraq was the decision I would have taken."
That says it all!
<G>
But, not for the reasons given by this administration. He wasn't asked why he would decide to go to war, but it is clear from his testimony that he knew that Saddam did not have stockpiles of WMDs.
Here is the question Kay was asked:
"Dr. Kay, in light of your last statement when the gentleman from Missouri was asking you about the existence of weapons of mass destruction and the expectancy versus what we found when we got there, and your answer that you still found Iraq to be a very dangerous place -- dangerous to American security. Having gone and done the survey, how would you have voted?"
Why do you think Kay's decision to go to war was not based on WMD?
I would say his reasons were the same as this administrations. Iraq was a vortex of corruption filled with people who were capable to make WMD, who knew all the secrets, who were in that vortex of corruption willing to sell their skills to the highest bidder. The threat in Iraq was terrorism.
The reason given us for going to war was not that Saddam might develop WMDs, but that he HAD vast stockpiles of WMDs. He did not and Kay knew that he did not.
Are we going to maintain a doctrine of attacking everyone who might threaten us in the future? I hope not.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: The Birth Tax
- Next by Date: Re: The New York Times at War With America
- Previous by thread: Re: WMD
- Next by thread: Re: WMD
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
