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

[revprez]

Veteran inspector Duelfer named to seek Iraq weapons
By Katherine Pfleger, Associated Press, 1/23/2004 18:36

WASHINGTON (AP) The CIA named a new inspector to lead the search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction Friday, choosing a veteran investigator who has expressed recent skepticism that Saddam Hussein possessed banned weapons that posed an immediate threat.

Full story here.

In other news...

Text of interview with David Kay
Fri 23 January, 2004 22:23

Q: What happened to the stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons that everyone expected to be there?

A: "I don't think they existed..."

Full story [url=http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArt ... ction=news]here.

Rev Prez

[Hamel]

Now that they can't rely on Kay, who didn't prove anything in the first place, to justify their invasion, they'll have no other option but to say Saddam needed to go or that the WMDs were smuggled out

[Joe]

A lot of people believed Iraq had WMD before the war - even France, who opposed the war.

[Admiral Valdemar]

A lot of people believed Iraq had WMD before the war - even France, who opposed the war.

Though believing something is true and proving beyond a doubt it is true are two entirely different things. If this was the sole reason for invading Iraq then the excuse wouldn't hole in court, there's simply nothing going for it.

I hear more back-pedalling.

[revprez]

Now that they can't rely on Kay, who didn't prove anything in the first place, to justify their invasion, they'll have no other option but to say Saddam needed to go or that the WMDs were smuggled out

I'll go with No. 2 on that, and apparantly so will Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts according to Reutters.

Rev Prez

[Stormbringer]

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.

[Hamel]

I believe that babies come out of butts, not vaginas.

It's all about having Feith, man!! hehe

[revprez]

Though believing something is true and proving beyond a doubt it is true are two entirely different things. If this was the sole reason for invading Iraq then the excuse wouldn't hole in court, there's simply nothing going for it.

I hear more back-pedalling.

Are you arguing that the US needs to meet a court's evidenciary threshold to act on intelligence?

Rev Prez

[Hamel]

Though believing something is true and proving beyond a doubt it is true are two entirely different things. If this was the sole reason for invading Iraq then the excuse wouldn't hole in court, there's simply nothing going for it.

I hear more back-pedalling.

Are you arguing that the US needs to meet a court's evidenciary threshold to act on intelligence?

Rev Prez

You're asking if the US needs to actually prove its allegations before it takes action? You bet your ass it does.

[Master of Ossus]

You're asking if the US needs to actually prove its allegations before it takes action? You bet your ass it does.

It quite obviously doesn't since it didn't have that evidence and it acted anyway.

[Stormbringer]

You're asking if the US needs to actually prove its allegations before it takes action? You bet your ass it does.

It quite obviously doesn't since it didn't have that evidence and it acted anyway.

True, but we've all seen how well it worked out.

[revprez]

You're asking if the US needs to actually prove its allegations before it takes action? You bet your ass it does.

It quite obviously doesn't since it didn't have that evidence and it acted anyway.

All right, I'll rephrase. Should nations be required to meet a court room's evidentiary threshold to establish a pretext for war?

Rev Prez

[Admiral Valdemar]

Though believing something is true and proving beyond a doubt it is true are two entirely different things. If this was the sole reason for invading Iraq then the excuse wouldn't hole in court, there's simply nothing going for it.

I hear more back-pedalling.

Are you arguing that the US needs to meet a court's evidenciary threshold to act on intelligence?

Rev Prez

Uh, I think it's quite well accepted that you need a reason for invasion, but as they did that anyway it kind of throws the point out of the window, much like the WMD argument.

You'd just think with this being petty much the our de force reason for invading they'd actually have avoided this disaster that has slowly unravelled.

[revprez]

You're asking if the US needs to actually prove its allegations before it takes action? You bet your ass it does.

There's no argument from me that nations must establish some cause, but what's the threshold? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probable cause? Where is the line? After all, one of the possible consequences of not acting on incomplete information is that you will be attacked.

Rev Prez

[revprez]

Uh, I think it's quite well accepted that you need a reason for invasion, but as they did that anyway it kind of throws the point out of the window, much like the WMD argument.

Of course a reason is necessary, but the standard of proof you hold the case for acting has real consequences for a nation's security. Right?

You'd just think with this being petty much the our de force reason for invading they'd actually have avoided this disaster that has slowly unravelled.

Well, there are plenty of things that could've happened in the six months between the NIE's release and the start of the campaign.

Rev Prez

[Stormbringer]

Uh, I think it's quite well accepted that you need a reason for invasion, but as they did that anyway it kind of throws the point out of the window, much like the WMD argument.

And the real question is what constitutes that "reason" and what standards should it meet. Rarely in intelligence can you meet the beyond a shadow of a doubt until after the fact (something a lot of people forget when it comes to hindsight) but what constitutes reasonable?

I'm genuinely curious to know what you consider good reason.

[Admiral Valdemar]

You're asking if the US needs to actually prove its allegations before it takes action? You bet your ass it does.

There's no argument from me that nations must establish some cause, but what's the threshold? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Probable cause? Where is the line? After all, one of the possible consequences of not acting on incomplete information is that you will be attacked.

Rev Prez

I think we can safely rule the being attacked clause from this argument in Iraq's case, but yes, there needs to be some sort of line drawn, where that is I have no idea. It may be better to assess on a case-by-case basis, an opvious cassus belli would be the exception such as invading your territory.

[Hamel]

Am I the only one who thinks that they're using these bullshit threshold excuses as a means of dismissing the fact that the US had no evidence and actually went out of its way to lie?

Even the threshold excuse doesn't fly, because there was no evidence or any indication of Iraq planning any attack on the US. How much crow must you devour before you guys cut the crap?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Uh, I think it's quite well accepted that you need a reason for invasion, but as they did that anyway it kind of throws the point out of the window, much like the WMD argument.

And the real question is what constitutes that "reason" and what standards should it meet. Rarely in intelligence can you meet the beyond a shadow of a doubt until after the fact (something a lot of people forget when it comes to hindsight) but what constitutes reasonable?

I'm genuinely curious to know what you consider good reason.

Well as I said, I genuinely don't know, it's not my job to set limits on when a country should feel the need to take action. But the WMD excuse is no excuse in this case and has been shown time and time again from all the reports I've seen that it simply doesn't hold water as a sole excuse for invasion. No doubt there were other reasons, but the WMD part was the well voiced point that had everyone questioning whether it was good idea to go for it even if it meant shunning the rest of NATO and the UN.

[Stormbringer]

Am I the only one who thinks that they're using these bullshit threshold excuses as a means of dismissing the fact that the US had no evidence and actually went out of its way to lie?

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.

Even the threshold excuse doesn't fly, because there was no evidence or any indication of Iraq planning any attack on the US. How much crow must you devour before you guys cut the crap?

And that point has been argued to death.

[revprez]

I think we can safely rule the being attacked clause from this argument in Iraq's case, but yes, there needs to be some sort of line drawn, where that is I have no idea. It may be better to assess on a case-by-case basis, an opvious cassus belli would be the exception such as invading your territory.

But invasion of our territory today means terror acts like 9/11 or worse. We don't anticipate them coming, there's little to no strategic depth to exploit in order to protect the citizens, and if WMDs entire the equation the cost to our society beyond that of human life will be enormous. Is there no case for going to war preemptively with a lower standard of evidence when the threat is not imminent?

Rev Prez

[Hamel]

Am I the only one who thinks that they're using these bullshit threshold excuses as a means of dismissing the fact that the US had no evidence and actually went out of its way to lie?

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.

These lies were and still are quite deliberate. More so than ever, in fact.

Cheney is still asserting shit that was never proven and the administration backed away from

Cheney Is Adamant on Iraq 'Evidence'
Vice president revives assertions on banned weaponry and links to Al Qaeda that other administration officials have backed away from.
By Greg Miller
Times Staff Writer

January 23, 2004

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney revived two controversial assertions about the war in Iraq on Thursday, declaring there was "overwhelming evidence" that Saddam Hussein had a relationship with Al Qaeda and that two trailers discovered after the war were proof of Iraq's biological weapons programs.

The vice president stood by positions that others in the Bush administration have largely abandoned in recent months, as preliminary analysis of the trailers has been called into question and new evidence — including a document found with Hussein when he was captured — cast doubt on theories that Iraq and Al Qaeda collaborated.

Cheney's comments were seen as stoking the controversy over Iraq as the vice president was embarking on a trip to an economic summit in Switzerland and meetings with European officials, some of them fierce opponents of the war who have been dismissive of U.S. claims about the threat posed by Iraq.

Cheney has consistently espoused the most hawkish views among senior administration officials. His statements Thursday suggest he intends to maintain that tone as he takes a more high-profile role in President Bush's reelection campaign.

"There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Iraqi government," Cheney said in an interview on National Public Radio. "I am very confident that there was an established relationship there."

That assertion appeared at odds with the recent words of other senior administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who said in an interview this month that he had "not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence" of connections between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

Danielle Pletka, an analyst at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, defended Cheney's comments, saying he referred only to a "relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

"Nobody has ever said Saddam directed Al Qaeda in attacks," Pletka said. "But it is clear that had he decided to do so at any point it would have been easy."

Members of Congress and some in the intelligence community said Thursday that Cheney's comments could lead the public to believe there was collaboration between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and that that was not supported by the evidence.

U.S. intelligence officials agree that there was contact between Hussein's agents and Al Qaeda members as far back as a decade ago and that operatives with ties to Al Qaeda had at times found safe haven in Iraq. But no intelligence has surfaced to suggest a deeper relationship, and other information turned up recently has suggested that significant ties were unlikely.

Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who is in custody, has told American interrogators that Al Qaeda rejected the idea of any working relationship with Iraq, which was seen by the terrorist network as a corrupt, secular regime. When Hussein was captured last month, he was found with a document warning his supporters to be wary of working with foreign fighters.

"There's nothing I have seen or read that backs [Cheney] up," said Sen. John D. "Jay" Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, who called Cheney's remarks Thursday "perplexing."

Cheney also argued that the main thrust of the administration's case for war — the claim that Iraq was assembling weapons of mass destruction — had been validated by the discovery of two flatbed trailers outfitted with tanks and other equipment.

"We've found a couple of semi-trailers at this point which we believe were in fact part of [a WMD] program," Cheney said. "I would deem that conclusive evidence, if you will, that he did in fact have programs for weapons of mass destruction."

That view is at odds with the judgment of the government's lead weapons inspector, David Kay, who said in an interim report in October that "we have not yet been able to corroborate the existence of a mobile [biological weapons] production effort."

In a BBC interview that aired Thursday night on public television in the United States, Kay said that is still the case. He said it was "premature and embarrassing" for the CIA to conclude shortly after the vehicles were discovered last year that they were weapons labs. "I wish that news hadn't come out," Kay said, calling the release of the information a "fiasco."

Experts are still in disagreement over the purpose of the vehicles, with some saying they may have been meant for biological weapons production and others saying it was more likely they were meant for making hydrogen.

Cheney is considered the administration official who has the most influence with Bush. His role in assembling the case for war has been controversial.

His numerous trips to CIA headquarters before the war were interpreted by some critics as an effort to pressure agency analysts to adopt hard-line views. In his public appearances, he often cast the alleged threat from Iraq in a harsh light, warning that United Nations inspectors could not be effective and that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program. Kay has since said there was no active nuclear program.

Since the war, as the administration has sought to deflect charges that it exaggerated the Iraqi threat, Cheney has appeared reluctant to give ground. On occasion, this has created public relations problems for the White House.

After Cheney implied in a television interview in September that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush was forced to acknowledge days later that the administration "had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved" in Sept. 11.

The White House had no comment Thursday on Cheney's remarks.

Citing Cheney's latest comments, Democrats on Capitol Hill renewed their calls for an examination of the administration's use of intelligence.

"This is the same problem that existed before the war. Leaders are going beyond what the intelligence community said," said Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.).

The intelligence committees in the House and Senate are nearing completion of reports on intelligence failures in Iraq, but Republican leaders have resisted calls for examinations of claims made by officials in the executive branch.

Cheney insisted the "jury is still out" on whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when the U.S. invaded last year. He said the search for banned arms should continue there.

"It's going to take some additional, considerable period of time in order to look in all the cubbyholes and the ammo dumps and all the places in Iraq where you might expect to find something like that," Cheney said.

Bush has staunchly defended his decision to go to war, but has had to adopt somewhat strained language to characterize the threat he says was posed.

With no weapons of mass destruction yet discovered, Bush in his State of the Union address Tuesday said the United States had evidence of "weapons-of-mass-destruction-related program activities."

[revprez]

I'm genuinely curious to know what you consider good reason.

Let's also outline the Administration's reasoning.

1) The Hussein regime was suspected of maintaining WMD stockpiles during the 1990s and acquiring new weapons by most Western intelligence services.
2) The regime was suspected of dealing with international terrorist organizations like al Qai'da.
3) Iraq refused to comply with UN disarmament resolutions for 12 years, and the regime's intransigence continued after 1441 made clear that Iraq had one last chance.

In the aftermath of 9/11, the Administration proved willing to accept a lower standard of evidence for state sponsorship of terrorism and potential transmission of WMD (i.e., drawing a link between the ricin episode in London, Ansar al-Islam and the Hussein regime) than its critics. Is there any justification for the President's willingness to act decisively on less than certain intelligence?

Rev Prez

[Admiral Valdemar]

But invasion of our territory today means terror acts like 9/11 or worse. We don't anticipate them coming, there's little to no strategic depth to exploit in order to protect the citizens, and if WMDs entire the equation the cost to our society beyond that of human life will be enormous. Is there no case for going to war preemptively with a lower standard of evidence when the threat is not imminent?

Rev Prez

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 do believe the CIA among other intel servives had an idea a major attack on the US was going to take place, but nothing could be done because nothing could be done. It was too vague and unsubstantiated to act upon and so we have the horrid chain of events that led to the loss of many lives and an altered global atmosphere.

Some would criticize the intel services for not doing something and blatantly allowing terrorists to attack with immunity, but that would be wrong since while they have to take every piece of info as serious, they can't just go and make plans off the bat. If they got a message from several sources that said Arabs were going to attack NYC, they couldn't really do much other than boost security or at the most evac the place. If they got it wrong, that's a big problem even if people should be thankful for the countermeasure.

I'm seeing the same applying to this situation, maybe not perfectly, but I like to think we have significant findings before we potentially get into very hot water with no justification to act as a lifeline. Depending on the general workings and attitude of the government, I'd say there would be different ways at looking at this invasion or whole scenario post 9/11 if another US gov't was in place.

[revprez]

Am I the only one who thinks that they're using these bullshit threshold excuses as a means of dismissing the fact that the US had no evidence and actually went out of its way to lie?

I sincerely doubt your the only one. On the other hand, I'm interested in seeing arguments and evidence that the Administration lied.

Even the threshold excuse doesn't fly, because there was no evidence or any indication of Iraq planning any attack on the US. How much crow must you devour before you guys cut the crap?

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