Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ex-U.S. Arms Hunter Kay Says No Stockpiles in Iraq
Drudge Report ^ | 1-23-04 | Reuters

Posted on 01/23/2004 12:01:47 PM PST by MamaLucci

Ex-U.S. Arms Hunter Kay Says No Stockpiles in Iraq

Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - David Kay, who stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for weapons of mass destruction, said on Friday he does not believe there were any large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq

"I don't think they existed," Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War (news - web sites) and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.

Kay said he believes most of what is going to be found in the search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has been found and that the hunt will become more difficult once America turns over governing the country to the Iraqis.

The United States went to war against Baghdad last year citing a threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. No actual banned arms have been found.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: appeasers; davidkay; hateamericafirst; iraqiwmds; pacifism; wmdeadenders
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 next last
To: HenryLeeII
Mixing it up with that goofball are we, HL?  I read his ramblings earlier, the meds seem not to have kicked in today either.  Nice to have something you can count on, isn't it? 
 
John Gault once told me that we shouldn't have a military and that citizens could do a much better job with their own loosely organized militias.
 
I asked him how that was workin' out in Liberia.  To his credit, he did have a response, but I really couldn't understand it.

Owl_Eagle

" WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH"


121 posted on 01/29/2004 10:55:44 AM PST by South Hawthorne ("24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
Do you really think the United States should 'nuke' Pakistan?


122 posted on 01/29/2004 10:59:26 AM PST by JohnGalt ("...but both sides know who the real enemy is, and, my friends, it is us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Sorry, I'm not taking the bait.  I've seen far too many "conversations" with you swirl into a dark abyss of non-sensical static.

Owl_Eagle

" WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
DIVERSITY IS STRENGTH"


123 posted on 01/29/2004 11:02:18 AM PST by South Hawthorne ("24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? I think not.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
Are you a Christian?
124 posted on 01/29/2004 11:04:44 AM PST by JohnGalt ("...but both sides know who the real enemy is, and, my friends, it is us.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt; Owl_Eagle
Owl, do you mind if I tell JohnGalt about your flesh-eating virgin-sacrificing Druidical activities before the altar of the gods called Jaworski, Vermeil, and Montgomery?
125 posted on 01/29/2004 11:25:11 AM PST by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
There were no WMDs in Iraq

Weapons inspectors documented them in '98 (and before), and even the pro-appeasement Rats admitted he had them and that Iraq was therefore a national security threat. So the only real question is what happened to the them. There are three main choices:

1) Saddam destroyed them after '98 (when the inspectors left). This is laughable, of course -- a power-mad dictator willingly giving up his most potent weapons is unprecedented. And anyway, if he had done so, then why didn't he show us documented proof of their destruction as was required by resolution 1441?

2) Saddam, believing that he would be surviving this run-in with the U.S. just as he has surivived every other one, spirited the weapons to a third party (probably the Ba'athists in Syria) for safekeeping until after the war.

3) The weapons are very well-hidden within Iraq. WMD's are very easy to hide -- it's not like hiding planes, tanks, or missiles. Enough bio/chem weapons to kill countless people can be hidden in a very small space, and Iraq isn't a small country.

126 posted on 01/29/2004 11:34:39 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle
Mixing it up with that goofball are we, HL? I read his ramblings earlier, the meds seem not to have kicked in today either. Nice to have something you can count on, isn't it? John Gault once told me that we shouldn't have a military and that citizens could do a much better job with their own loosely organized militias. I asked him how that was workin' out in Liberia. To his credit, he did have a response, but I really couldn't understand it.

Call me crazy, but the inner-workings of the "touched" fascinate me. Hey, by the way, when we dissolve the military, can I have control of the ICBMs, or does someone else already have dibs. I'd like to store them in hollow-out volcanoes and have a crew of henchmen wearing orange blast-protection suits, while employing alluring female assassins to thwart my enemies while I sit in my command chair with my pet cat.

127 posted on 01/29/2004 11:36:04 AM PST by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
Allowing Pakistan to possess nukes could quite possibly end up being the worst mistake we've ever made. ....Very shortsighted of us.
128 posted on 01/29/2004 11:38:41 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
What does that post have to do with anything?
129 posted on 01/29/2004 11:40:25 AM PST by JohnGalt (The Iraq Hawk: An Appeaser to Real Invaders, Caution: Easily Frightened, Not Good With Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
It answered your moronic comment that there were no WMD's in Iraq.
130 posted on 01/29/2004 11:43:48 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

Comment #131 Removed by Moderator

To: Mr. Mojo
Point 3, which we will call the tin-foil theory addressed that point, but the other 2 points were about the UN (odd, this being a conservative web site and all) and then you posted something about Pakistan being a real threat.

Are you a serious thinker amongst your kind?
132 posted on 01/29/2004 11:46:10 AM PST by JohnGalt (The Iraq Hawk: An Appeaser to Real Invaders, Caution: Easily Frightened, Not Good With Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: ThatsAllFolks2; JohnGalt
I've got a dental appointment to go to, but rest assured, I'll get back to your replies...
133 posted on 01/29/2004 11:53:59 AM PST by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: JohnGalt
It's a "tinfoil theory" that easy-to-hide weapons haven't yet been found in a large country given years to hide them? lol.....you're a bigger moron than I had previously thought. When they're finally found, are you going to mimic the leftists - as is your wont - and claim that "Bush must've planted them?" Or will you attempt to divert attention away from it by concentrating on how we found them -- by "illegally" venturing into Syria, or by twisted a few arms ("human rights abuses")?
134 posted on 01/29/2004 11:56:01 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

Comment #135 Removed by Moderator

To: Mr. Mojo
What is funny is watching the last of the WMDead Enders wrap the tin foil consistently tighter around their own heads...that is why we keep poking and prodding you.

Watching the WMDead Enders split with their fellow Iraq Hawks yesterday, was truly priceless.
136 posted on 01/29/2004 12:00:57 PM PST by JohnGalt (The Iraq Hawk: An Appeaser to Real Invaders, Caution: Easily Frightened, Not Good With Money)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Owl_Eagle; JohnGalt
Please pardon my butting into your conversation here but regarding your criticism of johngalt's take on the militia I would like to make an observation. The founders knew that a navy was essential to our defense and to protect our shipping. They also understood that standing armies are a temptation to rulers. If they have them they want to use them and that was a threat to liberty. In fact Madlene Albright once asked "what's the point of have the world's most powerful military if you don't use it?" thus proving the founders point.

The fact is in the late 19th century our leaders were not content to be a large, powerful but peaceful, prosperous and free nation. No, that was not good enough for them. They wanted to be a great power in the European sense. We grabbed Hawaii, started a war with Spain expressly in order to grab her territories so we could have far flung posts from which to project power. We have been meddling in others affairs and involved in great wars ever since all at the cost of several million American casualties and tens of millions of foreigners lives not to mention the vast amounts of tax dollars squandered in the process with only escalation in sight. The draft, high taxation, tightened policing, the surveillance state all come at the expense of freedom and all come from an aggressive, meddling foreign policy devised by those who live to use the great power they have their hands on.

Please see this article which nicely summarizes the beginnings of the military indutrial complex showing how the pursuit of money and power drives our foreign policy and has costs us dearly in blood and treasure.

Finally if we were only concerned with our states' borders and didn't have far flung holdings and entangling alliances our nation could be secured by a small or even temporary army.

137 posted on 01/29/2004 3:50:54 PM PST by u-89 (war is peace, slavery is freedom, shut up and salute)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: HenryLeeII; Landru; FBD
A lot of good posts throughout this thread my young FRiend. Sounds like you have gone toe-to-toe with JohnGalt before.
138 posted on 01/29/2004 7:50:51 PM PST by sultan88 ("But after I've been cryin' all night, the sun is cold and the new day seems old")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: ThatsAllFolks2
HL: I've got a dental appointment to go to, but rest assured, I'll get back to your replies...

ThatsAllFolks2: Under the delightful influence of nitrous oxide, I imagine.

Unfortuanetly no nitrous oxide...I was being "molded" for a flat-plane splint in order to prevent my grinding and chewing - no doubt aggravated by some of the outrages I read about here on FR ;>)...

139 posted on 01/30/2004 12:46:25 PM PST by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: ThatsAllFolks2
You asked for multiple examples of President Bush saying the threat from Iraq was not imminent, so here goes. Please take the time to read them, being mindful of the time and context in which they were made, and keeping in mind that not only did previous U.S. administrations believe that Hussein had WMD, but so did the U.N. and the intelligence agencies of France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and numerous others.

You can quibble with some of these quotes if you like; however, taken as a whole, they show the president’s rationale for war. I would also ask that you read Charles Krauthammer’s excellent op-ed piece from today’s Washington Post entitled “Calling Iraq’s Bluff,” which is posted here at FR.

“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.”
[President Bush’s Oval Office address, March 19, 2003, as U.S.-led campaign begins in Iraq]

Yes, we will meet the threat now before it is imminent, so we don’t have to experience another 9/11 or worse.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?"
[President Bush’s State of the Union address, January 28, 2003]

Note that the president did not answer “some” by saying the threat is imminent.

“Intelligence from multiple sources shows that Iraq is continuing efforts to deceive inspectors by moving weapons of mass destruction material around the country to avoid detection.”
[White House press release, March 6, 2003]

A thread throughout the debate preceding the Iraq campaign was that other countries and the U.N. also believed that Hussein had WMD, not just the Bush administration. Of course, opponents of Hussein’s ouster minimize this. Also, WMD “material” would include production equipment, reference strains, delivery systems, etc., not only the actual BW or CW agents.

“In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

“In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolutions 686 and 687, demanded that Iraq return all prisoners from Kuwait and other lands. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke its promise. Last year the Secretary General's high-level coordinator for this issue reported that Kuwait, Saudi, Indian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Bahraini, and Omani nationals remain unaccounted for -- more than 600 people. One American pilot is among them.

“In 1991, the U.N. Security Council, through Resolution 687, demanded that Iraq renounce all involvement with terrorism, and permit no terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq. Iraq's regime agreed. It broke this promise. In violation of Security Council Resolution 1373, Iraq continues to shelter and support terrorist organizations that direct violence against Iran, Israel, and Western governments. Iraqi dissidents abroad are targeted for murder. In 1993, Iraq attempted to assassinate the Emir of Kuwait and a former American President.

“In 1991, the Iraqi regime agreed to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections. Iraq has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

“From 1991 to 1995, the Iraqi regime said it had no biological weapons. After a senior official in its weapons program defected and exposed this lie, the regime admitted to producing tens of thousands of liters of anthrax and other deadly biological agents for use with Scud warheads, aerial bombs, and aircraft spray tanks. U.N. inspectors believe Iraq has produced two to four times the amount of biological agents it declared, and has failed to account for more than three metric tons of material that could be used to produce biological weapons. Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.

“United Nations' inspections also revealed that Iraq likely maintains stockpiles of VX, mustard and other chemical agents, and that the regime is rebuilding and expanding facilities capable of producing chemical weapons.

“And in 1995, after four years of deception, Iraq finally admitted it had a crash nuclear weapons program prior to the Gulf War. We know now, were it not for that war, the regime in Iraq would likely have possessed a nuclear weapon no later than 1993.

“Iraq also possesses a force of Scud-type missiles with ranges beyond the 150 kilometers permitted by the U.N. Work at testing and production facilities shows that Iraq is building more long-range missiles that it can inflict mass death throughout the region.

We know that Saddam Hussein pursued weapons of mass murder even when inspectors were in his country. Are we to assume that he stopped when they left? The history, the logic, and the facts lead to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger…But Saddam Hussein has defied all these efforts [sanctions, oil-for-food program, Coalition air strikes] and continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. The first time we may be completely certain he has a -- nuclear weapons is when, God forbids, he uses one. We owe it to all our citizens to do everything in our power to prevent that day from coming.”
[President Bush’s address to the United Nations, September 12, 2002]

Notice the use of the word ‘gathering’ in the last paragraph. A ‘gathering’ danger is not an imminent danger, but rather one that is forming, much like the proverbial ‘gathering storm.’ Also, the reason I highlighted certain passages above is to show that possession of actual WMD agents was not the sole purpose for the administration’s efforts to remove Hussein. His regime was in violation of nearly every major tenet of the 1991 cease-fire accords, and as Mr. Krauthammer pointed out astutely in his article I mentioned above, the U.N. was losing its resolve to maintain sanctions that prevented Iraq from further expanding its WMD research and production programs.

“The threat comes from Iraq. It arises directly from the Iraqi regime's own actions -- its history of aggression, and its drive toward an arsenal of terror. Eleven years ago, as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War, the Iraqi regime was required to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, to cease all development of such weapons, and to stop all support for terrorist groups. The Iraqi regime has violated all of those obligations. It possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. It has given shelter and support to terrorism, and practices terror against its own people.”
[Speech by President Bush, Cincinnati, October 7, 2002]

Here is the text from the Cincinnati speech you cited. Note that the president mentions a “drive toward an arsenal of terror,” and again, not possession of actual WMD agents or an imminent threat.

Taken as a whole, these statements show that President Bush was not presenting a case for war based on an “imminent” threat, or even based solely on an alleged Iraqi possession of stockpiles of WMD agents.

Sure, his administration like its predecessors, and the U.N. and the intelligence services of most countries involved in the debate, believed that Hussein did possess such weapons, and only time will tell if there is validity to such beliefs given the size and scope of the land mass and weapons caches to be searched. However, the WMD research and production facilities that have been discovered, along with the ballistic missile and unmanned aerial vehicle programs that have also been confirmed, and the numerous violations of the 1991 cease-fire agreements, were also presented as reasons for the necessity of Hussein’s removal before the threat he represented became imminent, so we would not “have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.” Thank you for your time.

140 posted on 01/30/2004 1:01:37 PM PST by HenryLeeII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson