Weapons of mass destruction do not exist in Iraq and it is "delusional" to think they will be found, says former chief US weapons inspector David Kay.
Mr Kay told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that British and American leaders should simply apologise and admit that they were wrong.
He said Saddam Hussein had intended to reconstitute his weapons programme at some point and had acted illegally.
However, there were no actual WMD stockpiles, he said.
Mr Kay led the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq until he stepped down as head of the Iraq Survey Group in January.
He said at the time that he did not believe there had been large-scale production of chemical or biological weapons in Iraq since the end of the first Gulf War in 1991.
'No stockpiles'
In his latest comments, Mr Kay referred to the UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair, by name.
"Anyone out there holding - as I gather Prime Minister Blair has recently said - the prospect that, in fact, the Iraq Survey Group is going to unmask actual weapons of mass destruction, are really delusional," he said.
"There is nothing there. There is a programme there. There was an intention of Saddam Hussein at some point to reconstitute it.
"There were clearly illegal activities, clear violations of UN Security Council resolutions. We have accumulated that evidence and really have accumulated that evidence to a considerable degree four months ago.
"There are not actual stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction."
Mr Kay repeated his previous assertions that the US-led coalition had been mistaken in its assumption that Saddam Hussein had possessed the banned weapons.
"We simply got it wrong," he said. "Iraq was a dangerous country, Saddam was an evil man and we are better off without him and all of that. But we were wrong in our estimation."
I’m afraid I have to agree with Mr Kay here the intensity of Blair’s belief that he is right is frightening, the guy seems to think he's on some kind of messianic mission and that he’ll be proved right in the end.
Plekhanov wrote:
I’m afraid I have to agree with Mr Kay here the intensity of Blair’s belief that he is right is frightening, the guy seems to think he's on some kind of messianic mission and that he’ll be proved right in the end.
I think he just doesn't want to admit defeat, look what happened when he changed his mind on having a referendum, people started moaning about him being weak and indecisive. If he sticks to his line he can simply keep putting it off but if he comes out and admits he was wrong it has a good chance of damaging him politically.
TheDarkling wrote:I think he just doesn't want to admit defeat, look what happened when he changed his mind on having a referendum, people started moaning about him being weak and indecisive.
I’m not at sure just how much that damaged him, sure it allowed people to take a few cheap swipes at him and highlighted the extent to which he’s under Murdoch’s thumb but it at least allowed the issue EU constitution to fall down the agenda and took a major plank of the Tories platform away from them.
If he sticks to his line he can simply keep putting it off but if he comes out and admits he was wrong it has a good chance of damaging him politically.
Blair’s refusal to accept reality is damaging him politically, a belief in the existence of WMD before the war was excusable it isn’t anymore; I think this damages him more than an admission of fallibility. “Putting it off” means that people will keep on asking him the question until they get a reasonable answer it means he can’t move on and makes WMD more of a live issue than they would be otherwise.
Plekhanov wrote:
I’m not at sure just how much that damaged him, sure it allowed people to take a few cheap swipes at him and highlighted the extent to which he’s under Murdoch’s thumb but it at least allowed the issue EU constitution to fall down the agenda and took a major plank of the Tories platform away from them.
Yes which is why he did it however he was ridiculed and admitting defeat on WMD issue will bring him no positive benefits so there is little point in doing so.
Blair’s refusal to accept reality is damaging him politically, a belief in the existence of WMD before the war was excusable it isn’t anymore; I think this damages him more than an admission of fallibility. “Putting it off” means that people will keep on asking him the question until they get a reasonable answer it means he can’t move on and makes WMD more of a live issue than they would be otherwise.
The Tories won't touch the WMD issue because they were also pro war and protest vot... I mean Lib Dems are something of a non factor. It has already begun to fade into the background and raising it up again as an issue is something Blair would be ill advised to do.
Plekhanov wrote:
Blair’s refusal to accept reality is damaging him politically, a belief in the existence of WMD before the war was excusable it isn’t anymore; I think this damages him more than an admission of fallibility. “Putting it off” means that people will keep on asking him the question until they get a reasonable answer it means he can’t move on and makes WMD more of a live issue than they would be otherwise.
The problem is that if he does admit he was wrong, it will be denounced by all the tabloids.
It's simply a matter of which would be worse.
1) Sticking to his guns and hoping it will just pass (which to be fair it mostly has).
2) Admit defeat, get front page news on the tabloids about his "humiliating climbdown", and then hope that it blows over, which is not guaranteed.
The fuss over the lack of WMD's has decreased a lot from what it was, I don't think he wants to bring it back into full focus.
David Kay is right. Iraq did not have any WMD by the time the Iraq war started. If they did have WMD they would have used them to defend against American troops.
I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.
evilcat4000 wrote:David Kay is right. Iraq did not have any WMD by the time the Iraq war started. If they did have WMD they would have used them to defend against American troops.
Devil's Advocate: a chemical attack on US troops could potentially lead to retaliation with nuclear weapons. Assuming the claims about "ready to launch in 45 minutes" were true, that would still create a powerful disincentive to use.
evilcat4000 wrote:David Kay is right. Iraq did not have any WMD by the time the Iraq war started. If they did have WMD they would have used them to defend against American troops.
Devil's Advocate: a chemical attack on US troops could potentially lead to retaliation with nuclear weapons. Assuming the claims about "ready to launch in 45 minutes" were true, that would still create a powerful disincentive to use.
Saddam knew Iraq was going to lose anyway and he will be either captured or killed so why should he care ? From a dictators point of view he would seek to inflict maximum amount of damage on the invaders before he was gone.
I have to tell you something everything I wrote above is a lie.
evilcat4000 wrote:Saddam knew Iraq was going to lose anyway and he will be either captured or killed so why should he care ? From a dictators point of view he would seek to inflict maximum amount of damage on the invaders before he was gone.
He knew there was no way to prevail in the short term, but that doesn't preclude him either a) hiding until things cool down and he can escape to a safe haven outside of Iraq or b) believing that once the US withdraws, he can re-emerge and challenge the new government. I'd tend to suspect the former was the plan, although some stories I've seen where he still calls himself the President of Iraq make me wonder if he's not megalomaniacal enough for the latter. In any event, either plan would become much more difficult if poison gas was used against our troops.
evilcat4000 wrote:David Kay is right. Iraq did not have any WMD by the time the Iraq war started. If they did have WMD they would have used them to defend against American troops.
Devil's Advocate: a chemical attack on US troops could potentially lead to retaliation with nuclear weapons. Assuming the claims about "ready to launch in 45 minutes" were true, that would still create a powerful disincentive to use.
Saddam knew Iraq was going to lose anyway and he will be either captured or killed so why should he care ? From a dictators point of view he would seek to inflict maximum amount of damage on the invaders before he was gone.
If he actually used weapons of mass destruction, that would have vindicated the coalition's invasion and legitimised it in the eyes of the UN, probably the only card in Saddam's hand was that when it came to trial, then he could quite happily sit there and say 'where are my weapons of mass destruction' - if he'd used them, then he might as well have just shot himself on the spot. IMO, anyway.
"...a fountain of mirth, issuing forth from the penis of a cupid..." ~ Dalton / Winner of the 'Frank Hipper Most Horrific Drag EVAR' award - 2004 / The artist formerly known as The_Lumberjack.
Evil Brit Conspiracy: Token Moose Obsessed Kebab Munching Semi Geordie
Plekhanov wrote:
I’m afraid I have to agree with Mr Kay here the intensity of Blair’s belief that he is right is frightening, the guy seems to think he's on some kind of messianic mission and that he’ll be proved right in the end.
What the heck are you talking about? Didn't Blair admit there were no WMDs a long time ago. "History will forgive us.." ring a bell?
Plekhanov wrote:I’m afraid I have to agree with Mr Kay here the intensity of Blair’s belief that he is right is frightening, the guy seems to think he's on some kind of messianic mission and that he’ll be proved right in the end.
What the heck are you talking about? Didn't Blair admit there were no WMDs a long time ago. "History will forgive us.." ring a bell?
Does the immediately following
A man utterly convinced he's right in the face of all the evidence wrote:If our critics are wrong, if we are right as I believe with every fibre of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership; that is something history will not forgive.
Son of the Suns wrote:What the heck are you talking about? Didn't Blair admit there were no WMDs a long time ago. "History will forgive us.." ring a bell?
Nope, not in the least. When and where did he say it and in what context?
Son of the Suns wrote:What the heck are you talking about? Didn't Blair admit there were no WMDs a long time ago. "History will forgive us.." ring a bell?
Nope, not in the least. When and where did he say it and in what context?
Plenkhanov just posted it above.
Η ζωή, η ζωή εδω τελειώνει!
"Science is one cold-hearted bitch with a 14" strap-on" - Masuka 'Dexter'
"Angela is not the woman you think she is Gabriel, she's done terrible things"
"So have I, and I'm going to do them all to you." - Sylar to Arthur 'Heroes'
Son of the Suns wrote:What the heck are you talking about? Didn't Blair admit there were no WMDs a long time ago. "History will forgive us.." ring a bell?
Nope, not in the least. When and where did he say it and in what context?
It's from Blair's speach to the US Congress July 2003 here's a link to the entire speach if you really want to read it. It's a long speach though so you probably don't here's the bit Son of the Suns was refering to (my emphasis)
Blair wrote:The risk is that terrorism and states developing weapons of mass destruction come together. And when people say, 'That risk is fanciful,' I say we know the Taliban supported al-Qaeda. We know Iraq under Saddam gave haven to and supported terrorists. We know there are states in the Middle East now actively funding and helping people, who regard it as God's will in the act of suicide to take as many innocent lives with them on their way to God's judgment.
Some of these states are desperately trying to acquire nuclear weapons. We know that companies and individuals with expertise sell it to the highest bidder, and we know that at least one state, North Korea, lets its people starve while spending billions of dollars on developing nuclear weapons and exporting the technology abroad.
This isn't fantasy, it is 21st-century reality, and it confronts us now. Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive.
But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive.
Now he doesn’t really explicitly talk about Iraq and WMD but the “history will forgive us” bit was generally interpreted as being on that issue. Note he say’s “IF we are wrong” not we were wrong, I read his comments as “there’s a possibility we were wrong about Saddam having WMD, but I know I’m right” not as an admission that there no WMD.
Now July 2003 was a long time ago and a lot has happened since then and Blair’s made a lot more speeches but as far as I’m aware he’s still sticking to the “if we were wrong… but I think I’m right” line which was why David Kay said he is delusional.
evilcat4000 wrote:
Saddam knew Iraq was going to lose anyway and he will be either captured or killed so why should he care ? From a dictators point of view he would seek to inflict maximum amount of damage on the invaders before he was gone.
Dude, Saddam's not Hitler. He may think he is, but he isn't. He ran and hid.
Andrew J. wrote:What the heck are you talking about? Didn't Blair admit there were no WMDs a long time ago. "History will forgive us..." ring a bell?...Blair's speach to the US Congress July 2003...
I remember that speech. But I also remember that in that speech he was still saying that Saddam had WMDs, as Bush was. I think his "History will forgive us..." line is merely a way of saying, "the ends justify the means." Churchill used the same rhetoric during WWII. And Blair, Imo, thinks he's Churchill.
But he won't say anything now because he simply told the lie too much and now he's in too deep. He has to keep lying to save face. Actually, he should just stop saying the word WMD entirely. Yes, WMD should become as taboo as incest.
