David Kay to Bush: Admit there were no WMD in Iraq

Even weapons inspector David Kay is calling on Dubya Bush to come clean with the American people that they were wrong about Iraq's WMD.

That'll be the day. The Bush administration continues to lie through their teeth - even though the truth is right there staring us all in the face. He is killing U.S. credibility around the world. (anyone remember the little boy who cried wolf?)

When a true threat comes up in the future, no leader in their right mind will believe anything Bush says. That, to me, is an issue of grave national security.



Admit WMD mistake, survey chief tells Bush

Julian Borger in Washington

Wednesday March 3, 2004 "The Guardian " David Kay, the man who led the CIA's postwar effort to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, has called on the Bush administration to "come clean with the American people" and admit it was wrong about the existence of the weapons.
In an interview with the Guardian, Mr Kay said the administration's reluctance to make that admission was delaying essential reforms of US intelligence agencies, and further undermining its credibility at home and abroad.
www.informationclearinghouse.info...

Your hilarious ECK, love ya.
Sure David Kay wants Bush to "admit" that there are or were no WMD in Iraq....
He wants to Bush to proclaim that they were moved out or sold to other countries.....just as Mr. Kay has claimed and proclaimed.






regards
seekerof

When we're not picking and choosing what Kay said, he also thought that Iraq/Saddam was even a bigger threat than we imagined. (but that bit of info doesn't fit everyones agenda )

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Bob88]

Seekerof, at some point you're going to have to face the facts. You were lied to on a grand scale. Otherwise you're living in complete denial. You're much smarter than that.

I would have to say the jury is still out, the excerpt below is from Kays report to the senate.

"For example, there are approximately 130 known Iraqi Ammunition Storage Points (ASP), many of which exceed 50 square miles in size and hold an estimated 600,000 tons of artillery shells, rockets, aviation bombs and other ordinance. Of these 130 ASPs, approximately 120 still remain unexamined."

And,

In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment efforts, we have been faced with a systematic sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to erase evidence -- hard drives destroyed, specific files burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use -- are ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts.

This statement is especially provocative to me, if there was no WMD or WMD was'nt carted off and hidden somewhere why all the effort to hide the trail?

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, Phoenix. However, I remain convinced the vast majority of WMD Saddam once had was destroyed by the mid-to-late 90's. I also am convinced that Saddam bluffed like mad MOFO to keep his enemies and neighbors completely in the dark. It was a very wily strategy that worked.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Seekerof, at some point you're going to have to face the facts. You were lied to on a grand scale. Otherwise you're living in complete denial. You're much smarter than that.

I second that. Seekerof, can you still not see the lies?

Yeah..one day I'm going to have to face the facts? "Facts" as in what ECK?
Saddam had WMD?
Saddam was working with Al-Qaeda?
Saddam was a bad, bad man?
Saddam killed millions of his own people?
Saddam bribed and influenced, with oil and money, those heads of nations who opposed the war on Iraq?
That the Arab nations/council has found that Saddam was at fault for the UN sanctions that hampered the influx of food and medical aid to the people of Iraq?
That you and others have YET still CONFIRM, through judicial review, that Bush "lied" on that supposed "grand scale"?

On top of that, to question and bring my "intelligence" into this is a low blow....perhaps you would have been better off just coming out and calling me "ignorant" or something, maybe?

...."Complete denial"....
Keep grabbing those supposed "back-breaking" articles of yours from the likes of informationclearinghouse, truthout, propagandamatrix, and such and be assurded, I will continue to exhibit the characteristics of "denial"....


Any type of legit "non-denial" research done by informationclearinghouse on the information within this article you present would have caused them to scrap it before the author started typing it.
But as I have mentioned to you already...agendas are agendas, aren't they?
As with Mr. Ritter, Mr. Kay's words of the current past would and will reflect otherwise ECK....your posting a half-truth propaganda article, simple as that...you know it, I know it. It amounts to nothing more than rabid spew. Bet.



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 4-3-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yeah..one day I'm going to have to face the facts? "Facts" as in what ECK?
Saddam had WMD?
Saddam was working with Al-Qaeda?
Saddam was a bad, bad man?

No one has to argue over the fact that saddam was evil and it's a good thing that he is not in charge of Iraq. However this doesn't mean that suddenly we can accept that that is the reason we Bush and Blair went to war, it wasn't. They banged in and on about the 'imminent threat' he posed. He had no WMD's. He had no army. So we have to ask what the real reasons for the war were. . .

Come on Seekerof, you're argument for Bush has been thoroughly debunked time and again - even now in the mainstream media. But if you wish to continue believing the big lie, that is your choice. No offense. Maybe one of these days you'll see things in a different light. That would be great, because many people follow you.

Originally posted by earthtone

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yeah..one day I'm going to have to face the facts? "Facts" as in what ECK?
Saddam had WMD?
Saddam was working with Al-Qaeda?
Saddam was a bad, bad man?

No one has to argue over the fact that saddam was evil and it's a good thing that he is not in charge of Iraq. However this doesn't mean that suddenly we can accept that that is the reason we Bush and Blair went to war, it wasn't. They banged in and on about the 'imminent threat' he posed. He had no WMD's. He had no army. So we have to ask what the real reasons for the war were. . .

He had no army? Then who were we fighting there the second time? The Iraqi Boy Scouts?

"Immenent threat"...hmm........

Question to you "oh benevolent ones":

Please explain how the governments of this world determine what is and is not considered and "immenent threat"?

Do you or any of your "sources" or friends work for any government department that can shed light on how the US or any other government determines and defines another nation as "immenent threat"?

Can you explain that process of determination for us?


The case is still out on whether Mr "NiceGuy" Hussein had WMD or not. Just in case you hadn't forgotten, Mr. Hussein's WMD were documented and used for intelligence purposes by a multitude of nations and organizations, including the DEFUNCT UN!

But since you believe otherwise, address this question given by Phoenix:

"This statement is especially provocative to me, if there was no WMD or WMD was'nt carted off and hidden somewhere why all the effort to hide the trail?"

Iraq had an Army, and to say he didn't is false and misleading and the word "no" is not used in the correct manner. Mutilple 'search' engines will verify this.

And let me guess....the "real reasons for the war" were, ummm, OIL? When I goto fill up today and pay my almost $2 dollars a gallon....I'll remember that reason being used for going to war....each and every time!
Three dollar projections by the end of this year, but lets here for that Iraqi OIL that is supposedly benefiting us?!



regards
seekerof

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Come on Seekerof, you're argument for Bush has been thoroughly debunked time and again - even now in the mainstream media. But if you wish to continue believing the big lie, that is your choice. No offense. Maybe one of these days you'll see things in a different light. That would be great, because many people follow you.

The day that the judicial system of this nation or this world determines likewise, will be the day that I change my view on Saddam and Iraq...and not a day sooner.


regards
seekerof

This is an interview with Scott Ritter on the WMd issue. I know you don't like Ritter, Seekerof; but, in this former soldier's opinion, his word is most solid. And you'd be hardpressed to find a more knowledgeable person on Iraq.

In the wide ranging and hard hitting press conference, Ritter described and denounced major media's role in deceiving the American people into war. Ahmed Chalabi concocted lies that US neoconservatives used to justify war, such as claims that Iraq was involved with 9/11. The New York Times and PBS's Frontline misinformed the American people. Ritter showed how neo-conservatives tried to use war to implement the pre-war Project for the New American Century. He describes in detail how The New York Times relied on Chalabi, ignored evidence to the contrary and failed its responsibility to corroborate Chalabi's claims. Now, even Chalabi admits he was lying in order to topple Iraqi regime. "The CIA's number one objective in Iraq was never disarmament, it was always the elimination of Saddam Hussein."
www.traprockpeace.org...

There's no argument here that Saddam wasn't pure evil. On the other issues, we can simply agree to disagree.

Best regards to you,
EastCoastKid

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Even weapons inspector David Kay is calling on Dubya Bush to come clean with the American people that they were wrong about Iraq's WMD.

That'll be the day. The Bush administration continues to lie through their teeth - even though the truth is right there staring us all in the face. He is killing U.S. credibility around the world. (anyone remember the little boy who cried wolf?)

The Bush administration is a liar, plain and simple, and if they even did find WMD, they would say, "Made in U.S.A."

The Bush administration is a liar, plain and simple, and if they even did find WMD, they would say, "Made in U.S.A."

Can you prove that?

Originally posted by IMMORTAL

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Even weapons inspector David Kay is calling on Dubya Bush to come clean with the American people that they were wrong about Iraq's WMD.

That'll be the day. The Bush administration continues to lie through their teeth - even though the truth is right there staring us all in the face. He is killing U.S. credibility around the world. (anyone remember the little boy who cried wolf?)

The Bush administration is a liar, plain and simple, and if they even did find WMD, they would say, "Made in U.S.A."

Excellent point, Immortal. But don't forget Made in Britain, France and Germany. (just to be fair.)

again, if we want to consider everything Kay said, rather than pick out the parts that fit an agenda, or opinion, Kay stated his report vindicated Bush, since the intel pointed to Iraq having these WMD's. ECK, even you just stated that you remain convinced the vast majority of WMD Saddam once had was destroyed by the mid-to-late 90's. So, even you had thought at some point Iraq had WMD. But, how did you come to that conclusion? I mean, according to the Kay report, you, as well as the intel, thought they had weapons - timeline notwithstanding, and their is no intel to suggest they were destroyed. Kay went on to talk about how the analysts constantly said "we thought there iraq had WMD's (no intel on the contrary)" and they were never, ever asked to 'sex up' the intelligence estimates.

Originally posted by COOL HAND

The Bush administration is a liar, plain and simple, and if they even did find WMD, they would say, "Made in U.S.A."

Can you prove that?

Where have you been, in grade school?