Kay on Today: "It Was Absolutely Prudent to Go to War Against Saddam" (Remarkable New Info)

The Today Show

[YaYa123]

I'm remembering.....I don't think he named Tenet by name. Good thinking girl...that omission with Clinton might be significant. But really, the impression I got was Bush was being totally genuine and all encompassing ....it didn't have the sound of parsing one might get from Clinton.

[Kaslin]

See this great opinion piece here from the New York Post

SADDAM'S MISSING WEAPONS

January 27, 2004 -- Don't be taken in by all the hot air following David Kay's statement Friday that he didn't think any weapons of mass destruction currently exist in Iraq.

After all, Kay's last report confirmed that Iraq had WMD programs, if not weapons. And he now says some weapons may have been moved to Syria.

Kay believes Saddam was trying to boost his WMD programs starting in 2000, but was deceived by his own scientists. In what Kay calls a "vortex of corruption," scientists seem to have stolen the regime's nuke money.

Contrary to the hysterical anti-Bush rants, Kay insists the failure to find WMD stocks suggests not a conspiracy to go to war but yet another huge intelligence failure. That the CIA is in need of massive overhaul has been clear since 1994, when it turned out Aldrich Ames, a top counterintelligence officer, had been working for the Russians for over a decade. Then came 9/11 - the most catastrophic U.S. intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor.

Amazingly, no heads have rolled - not even Director George Tenet's.

Yes, other intelligence services, including Great Britain's, were similarly wrong on Iraq. But in an age of terrorism and WMDs, America can't do with anything less than the best intelligence.

Still, even if Iraq's WMD program was much smaller and less threatening than thought, that hardly undermines the justification for war. The facts?

* Iraq was in violation of multiple U.N. resolutions concerning weapons programs: It failed, for instance, to declare WMD programs and to account for WMD stocks; it also maintained missiles with ranges in excess of U.N. limits.

* President Bush never said there was imminent danger of an Iraqi WMD strike, only that America must act before then.

* Saddam was a clear threat to America's interests even without WMDs: He gave sanctuary to terrorists like Abu Nidal and started two disastrous wars against his neighbors.

* Saddam wasn't just an ordinary Arab dictator, but a genocidal mass-murderer.

* He'd already used poison gas to murder Kurds and during the Iran-Iraq war.

As British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said yesterday, more evidence may yet emerge. If he had no weapons or active WMD programs, then "what on earth explains why Saddam Hussein, . . . months after he was given an ultimatum to come clean, refused to cooperate fully?"

Saddam must have had something to hide - besides mass graves

[Jorge]

..clear he was that Saddam *was* a threat - this is NOT HOW THE NY TIMES IS REPORTING IT!

I heard NBC News on the radio report this afternoon that *President Bush STILL insists that Saddam was a threat IN SPITE of Kay report that there were no WMDs in Iraq*.

I heard this right after Rush read some of the excerpts from the Kay interview, and was disgusted at the clear anti-Bush bias in the NBC report.

[Vets_Husband_and_Wife]

Wow!

Glad I didn't miss this!!

I just re-posted the Tony Snow interview on FR the other day!

This is an amazing interview. Bookmarked!! Thanks!

[PhilDragoo]

For on every issue down the line, Kay forcefully made the case that the Bush administration acted in good faith, that Saddam was indeed a threat, and that war against him was absolutely justified.

Howard Doom and Hanoi John Skerry are still out in the backyard eating worms.

[PGalt]

Interesting...thanks for that!

[GretchenEE]

bump for later reading

[Mo1]

PRESIDENT KWASNIEWSKI: Because it might be interesting for American journalists. Many months before Iraqi action, I met predecessor of Hans Blix in Warsaw. I invited him to my palace, and we discussed about mass destruction weapons, Iraq and everything. And he told me very important thing, that Saddam has these weapons or is ready to produce these weapons. Because to have such impression that he has mass destruction weapons is a part of his doctrine to keep own power in Iraq and to be strong in the region.

So I think that it's very difficult today to judge how it was when he had -- when he decided to continue this project of mass destruction weapons. But that was information of predecessor of Mr. Blix in Warsaw, that absolutely Iraq is ready to produce if it's necessary, to keep the power of -- and the dictatorship of Saddam and to play such important role in the region.

Interesting information about Blix .. Thanks for posting this TexKat

[texasflower]

He was funding terrorists. That is a national security matter.

[billbears]

Oh okay, now we're changing the scope. WMD argument no longer works so we'll take a different tact. The Saudis sponsored, and still sponsor if reports are to be believed, terrorists. You remember the Saudis don't you? They're called a US 'ally'. Are you calling for a destruction of Saudi Arabia now?

[texasflower]

I'm not changing the scope of anything. The support, funding and training of terrorists has been known for quite awhile.

Your nasty comments about the Saudi's are nothing more than trying to pick a fight with me.

Won't work.

[TexKat]

Interesting information about Blix .. Thanks for posting this TexKat

Yes that got my attention, and also the attention of President Bush when the President of Poland stated it.

[billbears]

No, my point is that the Saudis supported terrorists and they're called an ally. So the argument that 'we went to war to stop Saddam supporting them terrorists too!!' just won't work. Either the WMDs are there, in which case the argument for war may possibly be used, or they weren't, in which case the argument for war falls flat on its face

[Mo1]

Yes that got my attention, and also the attention of President Bush when the President of Poland stated it.

Reminds me of that time Putin came to the US and made his comment to the press about information he had

[Burkeman1]

Ditto. Save your feelings. I offer you mine.

Lauer: "So scientists lied to Saddam, they told him they could develop WMDs, took huge sums of money and didn't deliver?"

Kay: "Right. There was widespread corruption, lots of money wasted. People were concerned about the money, not about working."

I have a hard time believing this. Sadaam was "lied" too? What would happen if Sadaam found out he was being lied too? These people doing the lying would have been tortured and killed. Being somewhat a student of terror regimes- I know such terror leaders are lied too all the time by subordinates and henchman but it is usually badmouthing and gossip about their percieved peers in order to garner favor of the Leader. Stalin was never lied to about anything of import like his nuke program, how the WWII was going, the economy. In fact such a liar about WMD's under Sadaam would expose himself to denounciation as a liar by a rival- of which there are no shortages of in totalitarian governments.

This doesn't ring true to me.

[Burkeman1]

Perhaps Kay is an evil neocon.

Actually I am waiting for Kay to be denouned as a "Leftie scum", "Fifth columnist", or "Traitor" by you guys soon (if not already).

[billbears]

Actually already seen it. Something to the effect of accusing him of having 'French' blood in his veins or something to that effect. The attacks on Kay will worsen as it settles in that 'doesn't exist' actually means 'doesn't exist'

[Burkeman1]

Oh- mention the French and the FRidiots go wild! Don't mention that they lost in WWI more than we have lost in all of wars combined! Gee- them Frenchies are "Cowards" are they not? And don't mention that the "Cowardly French" lost 120,000 men in six weeks against the Germans when they invaded in WWII. Tell me when we lost the same amount in just six weeks?

The French are cowards are they American blowhards? Nearly every family has a plaque or stone that remembers their loved ones in France who died in battle!

Does Richard Pearl have even a member of his familyt that has served this country? What about Wolfowitz? No? How about Michael Kelly's poor family? At least he died in Iraq in a motor vehichle accident? What about David Frum from National Review?

[r-q-tek86]

ping