David Kay Replacement Named, Kay Says no post-1991 WMD

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2004-01-23 09:18pm

revprez wrote:Is there any justification for the President's willingness to act decisively on less than certain intelligence?

Keep in mind, the people claiming he acted too soon on less than certain intelligence now are the exact same people claiming that was too slow to act on less than certain intelligence before 9/11.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 09:25pm

Admiral Valdemar wrote:I would agree that the greater the risk the more demanding of action, but it's dangerous ground to start acting purely on hunches or the most basic of intelligence.

I couldn't agree more. However consider this argument. The Bush Administration did not go to war until after:

1) it had made its case before the United Nations that Iraq was a threat after 12 years of not complying with disarmament conventions,

2) a new resolution was secured requiring Iraq to verifiably disarm,

3) Iraq let in the inspectors (thanks to US military pressure) yet refused again to comply, choosing instead to stonewall the inspectors,

4) the Bush Administration tried and failed to secure a second resolution that would authorize force if Iraq didn't immediately comply,

5) the Administration offered Hussein a chance to abdicate and leave the country.

We could argue whether there should've been more steps in there, like whether or not France's attempt to fall back on the initial US proposal for a 1441 "armed inspection regime," but this 'rush to war' definitely offered Iraq plenty of opportunity to avert it.

Rev Prez

Chardok · Post by **Chardok** » 2004-01-23 10:31pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Joe wrote:A lot of people believed Iraq had WMD before the war - even France, who opposed the war.
And I was watching a special on PBS about that last night. Even Hans Blix conceded that there was materials he couldn't account for.

The other interesting note was the debate over the trucks found and the dispute over whether they were hydrogen generators or bioweapons labs. Do to some components removal (before they were found) it can't be proven one way or the other.

That was Frontline. Awesome, awesome show/documentary about current events. They were completely impartial, ANYone who saw it could tell you that. They started out with speeches by Bush to the U.N colin powell, later on showing Kay stating that they are now following a paper trail that MAY lead to proving saddam was INTERESTED in pursuing restarting his WMD program. Nothing more.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-01-23 10:32pm

revprez wrote:With all due respect, there is evidence that Iraq consorted with members of al Qai'da, an organization that attacked us on 9/11. There's evidence that Iraq wasn't being truthful about its prohibited weapons and programs, and that unaccounted for weapons could still be viable. There's evidence that Hussein still desired to acquire more WMD than we suspected he had. There's evidence that places Hussein behind the 1993 attempt to assassinate former President George H. W. Bush. It might not be enough evidence for you, but that's where the threshold arguement comes into place.

Rev Prez

First of all, Hussein and al-Qaeda were enemies, and bin Laden hated Hussein. Naturally his regime would have a few contacts, but as has been pointed out, if they didn't he should have had his intelligence staff fired for their negligence. Besides, the CIA likely has more contacts with al-Qaeda than Iraq ever did.

Secondly, for all their thunder about WMDs before the war, we've come up with a remarkable amount of air and they still refuse to say what super evidence they were basing it off in the first place.

Thirdly, of course Hussein desired WMDs. Every tinpot dictator on the planet has wet dreams about getting a nuclear device, yet we don't invade them because of it.

Finally, it's a fact that Hussein wanted to have President Bush Sr. killed in 1993. It's also a fact that the "attempt" was so laughably pathetic that the CIA not only stopped it, but was completely shocked about how pathetic it was.

Kind of weak justification there.

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2004-01-23 10:35pm

Stormbringer wrote:Actually, we turned out to be wrong. That doesn't mean there wasn't evidence for it nor does bad intelligence equate to deliberate lies.

Correct. However, it is still reasonable to hold those responsible accountable for what turned out to be wrong.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2004-01-23 10:39pm

Joe wrote:
revprez wrote:Is there any justification for the President's willingness to act decisively on less than certain intelligence?
Keep in mind, the people claiming he acted too soon on less than certain intelligence now are the exact same people claiming that was too slow to act on less than certain intelligence before 9/11.

There's a huge gulf of difference between acting on less than certain intelligence when you're defending yourself and acting on less than certain intelligence when you're searching for an excuse to attack another country.

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 11:13pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:First of all, Hussein and al-Qaeda were enemies, and bin Laden hated Hussein.

So were Stalin and Hitler. I know the argument, bin Laden is a Islamist who aims to overthrow Hussein. Hussein is a secularist who distrusts Islamists. Hussein couldn't possibly twist al Qai'da to suit his purposes. Why the thought is completely absurd!

Naturally his regime would have a few contacts, but as has been pointed out, if they didn't he should have had his intelligence staff fired for their negligence. Besides, the CIA likely has more contacts with al-Qaeda than Iraq ever did.

What makes you think that the CIA, who for the past two years has been publically whipped over its very obvious deficiency in placing case officers the Islamic world, has better penetration of al Qai'da than Iraq?

Secondly, for all their thunder about WMDs before the war, we've come up with a remarkable amount of air and they still refuse to say what super evidence they were basing it off in the first place.

What's a proper time scale for WMD discovery?

Thirdly, of course Hussein desired WMDs. Every tinpot dictator on the planet has wet dreams about getting a nuclear device, yet we don't invade them because of it.

We do if they have been warned not to pursue such a course of action and they don't comply.

Finally, it's a fact that Hussein wanted to have President Bush Sr. killed in 1993. It's also a fact that the "attempt" was so laughably pathetic that the CIA not only stopped it, but was completely shocked about how pathetic it was.

What does the failure of the attempt have to do with the fact that Hussein was willing to go for it?

Rev Prez

revprez · Post by **revprez** » 2004-01-23 11:13pm

Howedar wrote:Correct. However, it is still reasonable to hold those responsible accountable for what turned out to be wrong.

And who would those people be?

Rev Prez

Post by **Vympel** » 2004-01-24 12:57am

Stormbringer wrote:
And I was watching a special on PBS about that last night. Even Hans Blix conceded that there was materials he couldn't account for.

This isn't new, he conceded that again and again throughout UNMOVIC's tenure. What he refused to concede was that this meant they existed, and for good reasons. What I find more interesting is his deriding of US intelligence on the matter as complete crap.