Kay: "Iraq had no WMD"

Status
Not open for further replies.
From sprintman:
quote:

Just looking at the latest US poll results and Kerry is 3 points in front of Bush if an election was to be held today.

Please site the source or link to this poll.

I know you could care less about who gets in as long as it isn't Bush, but let's examine the vermin before we crown him in January. The election is in November for those of you outside the USA.
 
Front page of the Worldwide section of the Australian (the national newspaper). Poll Surprise: Kerry would skittle Bush from Roy Eccleston Washington correspondent in New hampshire. Bush in front of all bar Kerry. Huge article but a statement from Kerry stands out "And if Bush wants national security to be the central issue of this campaign, I have three words for him that I know he understands: Bring it on." Poll was done by Newsweek in the wake of State of the Union Address and showed Kerry would be a surprise winner. Heaps more but I'm no typist.
 
quote:

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
I guess if they are found, some will insist it was a plant job.

There is no stopping what people will think. Again, why would someone endure the embarrassment of failure, if it was known in advance that there were no WMDs? It just makes more sense to ensure the result you want at the very beginning and take no chances.

If it was faulty intelligence, the pieces fit. Our intelligence has been known to fail and be incompetent. JMO


Groucho, I like your logic.

Another piece that I'm not reconciled with is the "incomplete" dossier that Iraq provided before the war, detailing where the WMD went over the previous 10 years.

The links I've got show that the U.S took it before it was generally given to the rest of the U.N, and gutted it to the tune of 8,000 of the 12,000 original pages before rating it for general consumption.

crappy link http://www.cardcounter.com/nonBJ.pl?noframes;read=784.
 
Anybody that claims they knew what Saddam had before the war needs to quit smoking that kind of stuff. I think one of the strongest arguments that he got rid of anything he may have had is that none of it was used in or after the war. If there was much available, some nut would have gone ahead and used it.

On the other hand, I am not sure we should have chanced not invading. The most likely scenario I see is that when he realized Bush was serious, he shipped everything he had out of the country, planning to reclaim it after his guerilla war ran us out. Scary how close it came to working.
 
quote:

Originally posted by labman:
Anybody that claims they knew what Saddam had before the war needs to quit smoking that kind of stuff.

So you think Bush smoked a bit before the war?

quote:


The most likely scenario I see is that when he realized Bush was serious, he shipped everything he had out of the country, planning to reclaim it after his guerilla war ran us out. Scary how close it came to working.

That scenario is more than a little hard to accept. There aledgedly was enough stuff that keeping an operation like that secret until now is highly unlikely.
 
Anybody that claims they knew what Saddam had before the war needs to quit smoking that kind of stuff. I think one of the strongest arguments that he got rid of anything he may have had is that none of it was used in or after the war. If there was much available, some nut would have gone ahead and used it.

On the other hand, I am not sure we should have chanced not invading. The most likely scenario I see is that when he realized Bush was serious, he shipped everything he had out of the country, planning to reclaim it after his guerilla war ran us out. Scary how close it came to working.
 
My point has always been that Saddam needed to go, as with any despotic ruler. I supported the U.S. intervention in Croatia to stop the ethic cleansing. The U.S. entered that one honestly. I may have supported Baby Bush's Irag invasion if he had been honest about it's purpose and intention. When you send other peoples parents, spouses and children to die for a cause make sure you're honest about the cause. In Bush's case it was first and foremost to complete Daddy's war, and win a congressional election for the Republicans. Not a cause the American people would have supported a war for. The spin has always been changing as to the reason. First it was he HAD WMD and was an IMMINENT THREAT to this country, then it was he was a cruel dictator who killed his own people, now it's he was thinking about WMD, next I guess it will be he was fantasizing about WMD. Is Iraq better off without Saddam, absolutely, is the American public better off, I think not.
 
Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2004 10:58 a.m. EST
Kay: Bush Was Right to Attack Iraq

Critics of the Bush administration have seized on Iraq weapons hunter David Kay's pronouncement over the weekend that Baghdad didn't have any WMDs immediately before the U.S. attacked last March.

But Tuesday morning Kay gave President Bush a full-fledged endorsement on his decision to go to war.

In an interview with NBC's "Today Show," Kay told host Matt Lauer that the U.S. decision to attack was "absolutely prudent."

"In fact," said Kay, "I think at the end of the inspection process, we'll paint a picture of Iraq that was far more dangerous than even we thought it was before the war."

Kay described Iraq's government as "a system collapsing."

"It was a country that had the capability in weapons of mass destruction areas, and ... terrorists, like ants to honey, were going after it."

Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein "was putting more money into his nuclear program, he was pushing ahead his long-range missile program as hard as he could," Kay said.

Although Baghdad wasn't successful, Kay said Iraq "had the intent to acquire these weapons," adding that Saddam had "invested huge amounts of money" to do so.

The chief weapons hunter also debunked the notion that the White House pressured U.S. intelligence to exaggerate the Iraq threat.

"The tendency to say, well, it must have been pressure from the White House is absolutely wrong," he told "Today."
 
quote:

Originally posted by SSlube:
Tuesday, Jan. 27, 2004 10:58 a.m. EST
Kay: Bush Was Right to Attack Iraq


Kay is just the latest disappointment for the anti-US liberals. First you had O'Neill go on the Today show and say he would vote for Bush because he is better than the democrats, and now Kay goes on the same show and says the war was necessary.

Dark days for the bedwetters, and the words "O'Neill" and "Kay" are now permanently erased from their Bush bashing vocabulary.

Who will they line up behind next? LOL. I can't wait till they get some of their own ideas.

Keith.
 
Saddam Hussein wanted us to think he had WMDs. It fits the pattern of intimidation he’s used before. Bush thought he had WMDs but he went in a kicked his arse anyway. I say congratulations.

It’s a good thing Saddam didn’t have a nuclear weapon or we’d be in the same boat as with N. Korea. We’d be sucking up to him and sending him free food while he made us look like fools.
 
quote:

Originally posted by Shannow:
sbc350gearhead,
I think that this concept of pre-emptive strikes, that is retaliating before the first blow occurs leaves the way open for this kind of error.

Then you are relying solely on intelligence that someone is planning to do something....gets messy, and mistakes will be made.


No offense shannow, but a couple of years ago, we found out what doing nothing gets us. The powers that be, knew that osama was a serious threat, but waited for the trigger to be pulled. Now, the majority of americans fully support chopping off the arm of anyone drawing a gun.
 
Apparently a lot od his scientists were giving him the runaround.

I understand he bought a lot of SLICK 50 for his tanks.

lol.gif
 
quote:

Originally posted by Mystic:

Somehow I just can't see the administration deliberately lying to the American people-stretching the truth maybe, but not flat out lying. And intelligent people would know they would be caught in a lie.


Who says the administration thinks America is made up of intelligent people? Give em the big lie and if too many people start to question the lie then fall back on plan B. Blame it on faulty intelligence.

Worked when Sadam first started massing his troops at the Kuwaiti border. The CIA was totally taken by suprise the day the troops invaded? Not likely. But that was what was put out on the media. Funny how the gold commodity traders knew something was up in the 3 days preceeding the invasion. The volume of gold being traded tripled during those 3 days yet the price didn't fluctuate up or down. Funny how no media outlet mentioned the highly unusual trading. I know. I was tracking gold back then and was perplexed at the activity but more so at the lack of info anywhere in the media to explain it.
 
quote:

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
Apparently a lot od his scientists were giving him the runaround.

I understand he bought a lot of SLICK 50 for his tanks.

lol.gif


I think the story about his scientists giving him the run around is exagerated. If you screwed with Uncle Sadam, you got an unsatisfactory rating on your perfomance appraisal and it was delivered out of a pistol barrel.
 
quote:

Originally posted by XS650:

quote:

Originally posted by GROUCHO MARX:
Apparently a lot od his scientists were giving him the runaround.

I understand he bought a lot of SLICK 50 for his tanks.

lol.gif


I think the story about his scientists giving him the run around is exagerated. If you screwed with Uncle Sadam, you got an unsatisfactory rating on your perfomance appraisal and it was delivered out of a pistol barrel.


Performance rating? Not that complex, it was more: Hi, bang, push body into hole.

Dan
 
quote:

No offense shannow, but a couple of years ago, we found out what doing nothing gets us. The powers that be, knew that osama was a serious threat, but waited for the trigger to be pulled. Now, the majority of americans fully support chopping off the arm of anyone drawing a gun.

this includes bush jr. too
 
quote:

Originally posted by Dan4510:

quote:

I think the story about his scientists giving him the run around is exagerated. If you screwed with Uncle Sadam, you got an unsatisfactory rating on your perfomance appraisal and it was delivered out of a pistol barrel.
Performance rating? Not that complex, it was more: Hi, bang, push body into hole.

Dan [/QB]

If nothing else, Sadam's performance appraisal process was efficient. He wasn't bothered with having to pay severence pay either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom