Tractor Forum banner

1 - 20 of 76 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,039 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Kay Says Iraq Likely Had No Banned Arms...along with Powell

ever get the feeling you have been violated & misled ?

The original link didnt work long so its now Copy & Paste:

Ducati996


Kay Says Iraq Likely Had No Banned Arms
Sun Jan 25, 11:47 AM



The former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq said Sunday he believes Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. David Kay said the challenge for the United States now is to figure out why intelligence indicated that the Iraqi president did have them.

"We led this search to find the truth, not to find the weapons. The fact that we found so far the weapons do not exist, we've got to deal with that difference and understand why," Kay said Sunday on the National Public Radio program "Weekend Edition."

Asked whether he feels President Bush owes the American people an apology for starting the war on the basis of apparently flawed intelligence, Kay said: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people.

"You have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration. It is not a political `got you' issue. It is a serious issue of how you could come to the conclusion that is not matched by the future."

"It's not a political issue. Its an issue of the capabilities of one's intelligence service to collect valid, truthful information."

Since Kay's resignation Friday as the top U.S. weapons investigator in Iraq, Kay has said Iraq had no large-scale weapons production program during the 1990s, after it lost the 1991 Persian Gulf War, and no large numbers of mass destruction weapons were available for "imminent action."

Still, "that is not the same thing as saying it was not a serious, imminent threat," he said Sunday. "That is a political judgment," he said, "not a technical judgment."

Kay's declaration that weapons of mass destruction did not exist before the war puts him in direct contradiction with the official Bush administration position. On Saturday, President Bush's spokesman said the administration stood by its assertions that Iraq had banned weapons when U.S. and British forces invaded last March. The spokesman, Scott McClellan, said it was only a matter of time before inspectors find them.

Secretary of State Colin Powell, in contrast, held out the possibility Saturday that prewar Iraq may not have possessed such weapons. "The answer to that question is, we don't know yet," Powell told reporters on a trip to Georgia. He said U.S. officials had believed Saddam had weapons prewar but had unanswered questions: "What was it?" he asked. "One hundred tons, 500 tons or zero tons? Was it so many liters of anthrax, 10 times that amount or nothing?"

Kay said he believes the American public and politicians now have to grapple with the question of whether the Iraqi dictator posed an imminent threat. Given the reality on the ground, as opposed to estimates, some may reach different conclusions than they did before the war, he said.

"I must say I actually think Iraq - what we learned during the inspections - made Iraq a more dangerous place potentially than in fact we thought it was even before the war," Kay added.

Kay came home from Iraq in December and never returned to Baghdad to continue inspections as head of the Iraq Survey Group, sent by the CIA to track down Saddam's weapons of mass destruction.

CIA Director George Tenet replaced him Friday with Charles Duelfer, the No. 2 weapons inspector for the United Nations for about seven years.

Kay said he left the position because resources were being shifted from the search for Iraq's weapons stockpiles to counterterrorism and troop protection in Iraq.

Duelfer said Friday he has been assured he will have the appropriate resources.

Kay said he now is going to turn his attention to weapons proliferation issues and the recent lessons learned.

In addition to Iraq, he pointed out, the United States has been surprised this year by nuclear programs in Libya and Iran.

"The Iranian program was not found either by the international inspection agencies or by domestic intelligence services. It was Iranian defectors, Iranian opposition groups outside of Iran that brought it to the world's attention," Kay told NPR.

In Libya, he said, the surprise has been the connections to Pakistan and Malaysia, where he said it appears plants were producing parts.

"It is in many ways the biggest surprise of all, and it was missed," Kay said. "We need to understand our capabilities and what needs to be done to make the nation better."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
674 Posts
Iraq did have chemical weapons because he gassed his own people with them. I don't see how they keep saying they never had them. I've seen one of their scientists on Television who escaped Iraq i think around 1994 or 95 say they he knows they had them because he worked on them. My guess is they are in Syria or they are destroyed. They may still come up with some though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
396 Posts
Lets not forget, we KNOW Saddam had WMD. Of course he used them against Northern Iraq in 1988. The question is, where are they now. Did he destroy them? Are they hidden in Syria or in the deserts around Baghdad? Sometimes we are quick to forget history.


The picture is said to have been taken in the aftermath of Saddam's attack using chemical weapons and cluster bombs on the Kurdish city of Halabja (population estimated at 70,000) on March 17, 1988. Halabja is located about 150 miles northeast of Baghdad and 8-10 miles from the Iranian border. The attack, said to have involved mustard gas, nerve agent and possibly cyanide, killed an estimated 5,000 of the town's inhabitants. The attack on Halabja took place amidst the infamous al-Anfal campaign, in which Saddam brutally repressed yet another of the Kurdish revolts during the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam is also said to have used chemical weapons in attacking up to 24 villages in Kurdish areas in April 1987
<img src=http://www.kdp.pp.se/bad0080.jpg>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,173 Posts
Saddam WAS Bad

yeah he was bad... almost as bad as what the north koreans government does, or almost as bad as the chinese gov does, or as bad as whats happening in africa.. We can not police every country.. nor do we have the right to... We also know that sadaam was saying to stay away from al quaeda...

Man now im agreeing with ducati... Im in trouble...

But seriously, i want osama.. who cares about sadaam he was not that much of a threat.. the true threat is osama.


But Ducati; i still vote W stays... I think he did it out of respect for his father and to show the middle east that we are not just 'paper tigers'
 

·
Tractor Lover
Joined
·
4,461 Posts
Whatever happened to those ships that Iraq sent out to sea. I see there is no mention of them in the news anymore. That's probably where the bad stuff is hidden.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,039 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Hey Simple,

I'm affraid its looking like it was only to correct his fathers mistake...
It was such a weak argument to go in, now it looks even worse...
i always wanted us to have a presence in the Middle east, we just didnt need all of the extra baggage, and deficit busting, tax payer bailout....not to mention our boys being picked off...

How could they not see this coming?

Its ok to agree with Ducati !! I just see things for what they truly
are...:)

If he just grabbed the oil only, established a large base, set up a coupe de ta (spelling?) and harassed both Iran & Syria with flights, troop movements, operations....you get the idea, i dont want to give away to much of my plan...anything but taking over a country... :( because they dont care, why should we?


Ducati
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,173 Posts
personally, id have rather seen the 100,000 troops in afghanistan... then after we got osama we could have moved over to iraq....for round 2


I thought Bush Sr wanted to get saddam.. but was talked out of going ll the way....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,039 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
If he did it then at least we would have had world support..meaning less troops for us to commit..
That was the time to do it no doubt....and it might have
stopped the birth of Al queida ( spelling?) and Osama
because we wouldnt need to be in Saudi Arabia ( this i know might be a stretch- but its a hypothetical scenerio)

We all knew when it was announced that we would not march to baghdad it was a mistake then....never let your enemies live for another day....famous quote by ?

Ducati
 

·
Tractor Lover
Joined
·
4,461 Posts
Originally posted by simple_john
personally, id have rather seen the 100,000 troops in afghanistan... then after we got osama we could have moved over to iraq....for round 2


I thought Bush Sr wanted to get saddam.. but was talked out of going ll the way....
He wasn't talked out of it. Congress forbade it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,039 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Argee,

I hate to disagree with you but George Sr had free run to tackle baghdad. He used the UN resolution as an excuse, even Gen. S
was puzzled as to why not....
The little surrender under the tent was premature to say the least..congress had nothing to do with it..


Ducati
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,372 Posts
Yes GB Sr should have finished the job and stormin Norman was ready to do it, but at the time they didn't for whatever reason. For over 10 years after that not one country or the United Nations would step up and tell ol Sadam enough is enough. GW did step up and say it loud and proud! WMD are there, he had all that time to dig hole to put them in. We have never found Jimmy Hoffa either! Lead follow or get out of the way!:usa:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Originally posted by ducati996
Kay Says Iraq Likely Had No Banned Arms...along with Powell

ever get the feeling you have been violated & misled ?

The original link didnt work long so its now Copy & Paste:

Ducati996

Hey, Duc... you're just a fountain of information. If you've been around for a while, you will recognize some of these things leading up to our current situation. Were you as upset then, or do you just have a hard on for our current President?

-----------------------
Subject: SO WHO LIED???

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest securitythreat we face." -Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." S -Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has . chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." -Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that .. Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001!

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." -Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real andgrave threat to our security." -Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep. - Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has alsogiven aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation . And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

SO NOW WHY ARE THEY SAYING PRESIDENT BUSH LIED, THAT THERE NEVER WERE ANY WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND HE TOOK US TO WAR FOR HIS OIL BUDDIES???
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
978 Posts
Gentlemen, I can tell you that as a Air Force Reversist, Who was on Active Duty in Saudi Arabia during Desert Storm in 1991 many of the pilots were highly angered by the actions of G. H. W. Bush in stopping further action against Saddam, when we stopped. We had him by the BAL^& and nothing between the border and Baghdad. I am still angered by the traitor that W's dad was. I realize it was political decision but that does not really wash for me. To this day I have always felt that W's decision to go in and finish what his poppa started is nothing more then revenge.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
626 Posts
I worked for Halliburton in the 80's for a few years.I know how that company operates.They might be from Duncan Oklahoma but they have close ties to the Bush bunch and the rest of the crooked oil tycoons from Texas and thru out the world.Hard to believe so many Americans are so dence not to know exactly what that Iraq conflict is really all about.Notice I say conflict not war.Thats the real differance between a war and a conflict I guess.War is not preventable Conflict is for a cause to line some crooked politicians pockets.In this case it boils down to oil.Better sell the gas guzzlers and get small cars.Because things are going to change for the worse before election time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Originally posted by johndeere
I worked for Halliburton in the 80's for a few years.I know how that company operates.They might be from Duncan Oklahoma but they have close ties to the Bush bunch and the rest of the crooked oil tycoons from Texas and thru out the world.Hard to believe so many Americans are so dence not to know exactly what that Iraq conflict is really all about.Notice I say conflict not war.Thats the real differance between a war and a conflict I guess.War is not preventable Conflict is for a cause to line some crooked politicians pockets.In this case it boils down to oil.Better sell the gas guzzlers and get small cars.Because things are going to change for the worse before election time.
Wow! I had no idea you were so high up in the company to know all this inside stuff. How about spilling the beans about the "Bush bunch" and the rest of the "crooked oil tycoons". Many of us without an inside track like yours are beginning to feel left out.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
626 Posts
Not meant to sound like I was high up to know.But it does not take a fool to figure it out.Most think that is just a small time co.They are larger then most can imagine.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
183 Posts
Originally posted by johndeere
Not meant to sound like I was high up to know.But it does not take a fool to figure it out.Most think that is just a small time co.They are larger then most can imagine.
Of course they are a large company. That doesn't explain how you know the "inside stuff". Please explain for those of us who don't know.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
800 Posts
Agree

Good point gwill. I worked for Halliburton through the 90's and just left last year. I was somewhat high in the organization...even meet with Chaney.

I'm afraid I don't have near the information that johndeere has, and I don't think I'm a fool either.

johndeere must have been pretty high then. Don't let him fool ya.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,592 Posts
The way it's done

I don't care much for Bush and I did not care much for his father ,but don't get me wrong I did not like Clinton too much either.What bothers me most is the constant political damage control they all do.And that California guy Waxman I think is a danger to us all.
I have come to agree that what we are doing in Iraq needed to be done.Just not used to the bravado and the if you don't like it screw you way it was done.Imbedded jounalists are a bad idea.They get wined and dined ,live the life ,and seem to lose thier objectivity.What I would like to see is a decisive exit plan.It seems we were real good about deposing Sadam but not to good about excising ourselves.Get the U.N. involved in setting up the government.A novel Idea use the damn oil to pay for the whole mess.We are never going to be able to be able to establish a democratic government that will stop these people from hating and killing each other and our troops.
To add to my list of politicians I don't much care for,any that are running for president in 2004.
 
1 - 20 of 76 Posts
Top