Ex-Arms Hunter Says Iraq Had No Banned Stockpiles

[Donutboy 0]

Ex-Arms Hunter Says Iraq Had No Banned Stockpiles

Sat January 24, 2004 04:18 AM ET

By Tabassum Zakaria

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former chief U.S. weapons hunter David Kay has concluded Iraq did not have stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons, which could embarrass President Bush abroad and offer ammunition to his election-year Democratic rivals at home.

Undercutting the White House's public rationale for the war on Iraq, Kay told Reuters by telephone shortly after stepping down from his post Friday that he had concluded there were no such stockpiles to be found.

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

"I think we have found probably 85 percent of what we're going to find," said Kay, who returned from Iraq in December and told the CIA that he would not be going back.

"I think the best evidence is that they did not resume large-scale production and that's what we're really talking about," Kay said.

In his annual State of the Union address Tuesday, Bush again insisted that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had actively pursued dangerous weapons programs right up to the start of the U.S.-led invasion in March.

"Had we failed to act," Bush said, "the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day."

The United Nations' top nuclear watchdog said Saturday he was not surprised at Kay's conclusion. "I am not surprised about this," International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei told Reuters on the sidelines of the Davos World Economic Forum annual meeting.

"We said already before the war, that there was no evidence of this, so this is really not a surprise."

Kay's statements were certain to reopen debate in the United States -- particularly among the field of Democratic candidates vying for the right to take on Bush in November -- about the administration's motives for launching the war.

Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, who had ridden an anti-war current to the front of the Democratic pack before falling back in recent days, could get a much-needed boost from Kay's conclusions.

And it was certain to focus renewed attention on the war, which critics say was fought to secure control of Iraq's vast oil riches and relieve Arab pressure on U.S. ally Israel.

In London, where Prime Minister Tony Blair is a steadfast Bush ally in the war despite its unpopularity among British voters, Kay's admission of defeat on the weapons front marked a potential setback.

Blair's office issued a statement shrugging off his comments. "It is important people are patient and we let the Iraq Survey Group do its work," a spokesman said. "There is still more work to be done and we await the findings of that. But our position is unchanged."

Friday, the White House stood firm. "We remain confident that the Iraq Survey Group will uncover the truth about Saddam Hussein's regime, the regime's weapons of destruction programs," spokesman Scott McClellan said.

The CIA announced that former U.N. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, who has expressed his own doubts that unconventional weapons would be found, would succeed Kay as Washington's chief arms hunter.

Duelfer, 51, a former deputy executive chairman of the U.N. Special Commission that was responsible for dismantling Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, previously expressed doubts that unconventional weapons would be found.

But after his new job was announced, Duelfer said he was keeping an open mind and his past comments had been made from the sidelines without benefit of seeing the most current U.S. intelligence reports. "This was a spectator sport for me," he told reporters on a conference call.

[rexbo 104]

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

So, not only was this WMD 'conspiracy' pulled over on us by Bush, but by Clinton also. You know, Clinton has never come out and publicy denounced the removal of Saddam like the other leaders in the Democratic party, so obviously they were in this together, and all Bush did was take the lie perpetrated by the Clinton administration and continue it into his administration. Or, maybe Bush just assumed that Clinton and all the WMD intelligence that came before was true. Regardless, to claim the Bush lied about Saddam's WMD program in 2002, and that Clinton was not lying in 1998 is ridicolous.

It seems like while impeaching Clinton for lying under oath, the Republicans should have also impeached him for lying about Saddam's WMD program too.

[Donutboy 0]

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

So, not only was this WMD 'conspiracy' pulled over on us by Bush, but by Clinton also. You know, Clinton has never come out and publicy denounced the removal of Saddam like the other leaders in the Democratic party, so obviously they were in this together, and all Bush did was take the lie perpetrated by the Clinton administration and continue it into his administration. Or, maybe Bush just assumed that Clinton and all the WMD intelligence that came before was true. Regardless, to claim the Bush lied about Saddam's WMD program in 2002, and that Clinton was not lying in 1998 is ridicolous.

It seems like while impeaching Clinton for lying under oath, the Republicans should have also impeached him for lying about Saddam's WMD program too.

Clinton didn't build a case for war using information that he both knew was false (The enriched uranium claim/Saddam Hussein - Al Queda link) and that the United nations and our own intelligence community questioned(WMDs).

[rexbo 104]

Clinton didn't build a case for war using information that he both knew was false (The enriched uranium claim/Saddam Hussein - Al Queda link) and that the United nations and our own intelligence community questioned(WMDs).

No, Clinton just used his false information on Saddam's WMD to deflect attention away from his Lewinsky scandal.

Which is worse, Clinton using false intelligence about Saddam's WMD to attack Iraq in hope of turning the nation's attention away from his crime of perjury, or Bush using false intelligence to attack and remove Saddam so that his brutal reign would end; the mass graves would cease being filled every night, and there would finally be hope for establishing the first democratic Arab nation in the heart of the Middle East? If one 'lied', they both did, and I personally have much more respect for Bush's motives than Clinton's.

[Tigermike 3,711]

Clinton didn't build a case for war using information that he both knew was false (The enriched uranium claim/Saddam Hussein - Al Queda link) and that the United nations and our own intelligence community questioned(WMDs).

No, Clinton just used his false information on Saddam's WMD to deflect attention away from his Lewinsky scandal.

Which is worse, Clinton using false intelligence about Saddam's WMD to attack Iraq in hope of turning the nation's attention away from his crime of perjury, or Bush using false intelligence to attack and remove Saddam so that his brutal reign would end; the mass graves would cease being filled every night, and there would finally be hope for establishing the first democratic Arab nation in the heart of the Middle East? If one 'lied', they both did, and I personally have much more respect for Bush's motives than Clinton's.

I know what his answer will be. bla bla bla lives lost bla bla bla the rest of the world bla bla bla the UN bla bla bla

One thing is FACT at this point. The Iraqi people now have the chance to live their lives FREE! What they do with the opportunity no one knows now, but they do have that opportunity.

[Tiger Al 0]

No, Clinton just used his false information on Saddam's WMD to deflect attention away from his Lewinsky scandal.

Which is worse, Clinton using false intelligence about Saddam's WMD to attack Iraq in hope of turning the nation's attention away from his crime of perjury, or Bush using false intelligence to attack and remove Saddam so that his brutal reign would end; the mass graves would cease being filled every night, and there would finally be hope for establishing the first democratic Arab nation in the heart of the Middle East? If one 'lied', they both did, and I personally have much more respect for Bush's motives than Clinton's.

There you go again...if you want to hate Clinton, that's fine. If you want to tie EVERYTHING he did or didn't do to Monica Lewinski, that's fine, too. But, at least let some semblence of the truth be present.

The air attacks were on a factory in Afghanistan where al Qaeda was purportedly using it to develop chemicals. Had nothing to do with Hussein. You really, really haven't given this much thought, have you?

[rexbo 104]

There you go again...if you want to hate Clinton, that's fine. If you want to tie EVERYTHING he did or didn't do to Monica Lewinski, that's fine, too. But, at least let some semblence of the truth be present.

The air attacks were on a factory in Afghanistan where al Qaeda was purportedly using it to develop chemicals. Had nothing to do with Hussein. You really, really haven't given this much thought, have you?

I don't have to give it much 'thought', it is history. On December 16, 1998 Britain and the United States launched four days of airstrikes against Iraq. On December 19, 1998 the House voted to impeach Clinton on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.

The criticism in the press at that time was very widespread in criticizing the timing of his attack on Iraq.

World media troubled by Clinton's timing in airstrikes

Despite denials by Washington, suspicions were rife that the attacks were launched partly to divert attention from Clinton's threatened impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Here is a link to Clinton's speech if you would like to read Clinton's 'lies' on Saddam's non-existant WMD program.

Clinton: Iraq has abused its last chance

[War Eagle 96 10]

Which is worse, Clinton using false intelligence about Saddam's WMD to attack Iraq in hope of turning the nation's attention away from his crime of perjury, or Bush using false intelligence to attack and remove Saddam so that his brutal reign would end; the mass graves would cease being filled every night, and there would finally be hope for establishing the first democratic Arab nation in the heart of the Middle East? If one 'lied', they both did, and I personally have much more respect for Bush's motives than Clinton's.

[Donutboy 0]

Clinton didn't build a case for war using information that he both knew was false (The enriched uranium claim/Saddam Hussein - Al Queda link) and that the United nations and our own intelligence community questioned(WMDs).

No, Clinton just used his false information on Saddam's WMD to deflect attention away from his Lewinsky scandal.

Which is worse, Clinton using false intelligence about Saddam's WMD to attack Iraq in hope of turning the nation's attention away from his crime of perjury, or Bush using false intelligence to attack and remove Saddam so that his brutal reign would end; the mass graves would cease being filled every night, and there would finally be hope for establishing the first democratic Arab nation in the heart of the Middle East? If one 'lied', they both did, and I personally have much more respect for Bush's motives than Clinton's.

The only thing we did in Iraq during the Clinton administration was enforce the no-fly zone. If you have any other information that I have forgotten, please enlighten us. Even if your allegations were true....

Which is worse, Clinton using Iraq to divert attention away from Monica Lewinski, or Bush using lies about Iraq to kill hundreds of American soldiers, maim thousands more for life, cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars...... Hmmm, tough question!!

BTW, the humanitarian reason only surfaced after the lies before the war became apparent. I can give you hundreds of links to the pre-war reasons for invading Iraq but there are none for humanitarian reasons PRIOR to the war. Remember the "imminent threat" statement in last year's State of the Union? Remember the Saddam - Al Queda link that they now admit never was? Remember the "enriched uranium purchase plan" in the 2003 State of the Union? Remember how we were told they could mobilize those thousands of WMDs in 45 minutes and use them on our allies and on us. Remember the tons of biological and chemical weapons claim? Yes, republicans want to rewrite history and declare that the war was fought for humanitarian reasons, but the fact remains that that is simply another lie. The mass graves are the results of Hussein using poison gas (furnished by his friends in the Reagan-Bush White House) on the Kurds during the Reagan-Bush years and again in 1991 to suppress the Shiite uprising that we promoted but gave no support to and disavowed knowledge of after the fact.

[rexbo 104]

The only thing we did in Iraq during the Clinton administration was enforce the no-fly zone. If you have any other information that I have forgotten, please enlighten us. Even if your allegations were true...

Allegations, are you kidding me? Are you that clueless? Your credibility is gone. This is not ancient history I am bringing up, it was just over 5 years ago. Here is another link, since you didn't try the ones above.

U.S., Britain bombard Iraq

BTW, the humanitarian reason only surfaced after the lies before the war became apparent.

BTW, the scope of the massacre of the Jews was not discovered until near the end of WWII, and was never given by Roosevelt or Churchill as the reason that Hitler needed to be defeated in the late 1930's. Does that mean defeating Germany and ending the slaughter was not a good thing too?

[Donutboy 0]

The only thing we did in Iraq during the Clinton administration was enforce the no-fly zone. If you have any other information that I have forgotten, please enlighten us. Even if your allegations were true...

Allegations, are you kidding me? Are you that clueless? Your credibility is gone. This is not ancient history I am bringing up, it was just over 5 years ago. Here is another link, since you didn't try the ones above.

U.S., Britain bombard Iraq

BTW, the humanitarian reason only surfaced after the lies before the war became apparent.

BTW, the scope of the massacre of the Jews was not discovered until near the end of WWII, and was never given by Roosevelt or Churchill as the reason that Hitler needed to be defeated in the late 1930's. Does that mean defeating Germany and ending the slaughter was not a good thing too?

Please explain to me how bombing in December of 1998 was a Clinton-led diversionary tactic from the Monica Lewinski impeachment trials that started in December of 1999!! I'd love to say that you got me there, but I don't see how you make the connection.

The poisoning of his own people was NOT discovered years after the fact, as you claimed. It was done right out in the open for the world to witness. Donald Rumsfield, in a transcript, told the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein to disregard what we said in public about the attrocity, that we still wanted to do business with them.

[Tigermike 3,711]

Which is worse, Clinton using Iraq to divert attention away from Monica Lewinski, or Bush using lies about Iraq to kill hundreds of American soldiers, maim thousands more for life, cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars...... Hmmm, tough question!!

A lie is a lie. We all know Clinton lied. It appears President Bush made decisions on faulty information. Unlike Howard Dean and Wes Clark who have been caught in more lies than President Bush and President Clinton put together. If the lies of Dr Dean and Wes Clark were piled atop each other there would be not need of a space shuttle, we could drive on the road bed of lies.

[Tiger Al 0]

Which is worse, Clinton using Iraq to divert attention away from Monica Lewinski, or Bush using lies about Iraq to kill hundreds of American soldiers, maim thousands more for life, cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars...... Hmmm, tough question!!

A lie is a lie. We all know Clinton lied. It appears President Bush made decisions on faulty information. Unlike Howard Dean and Wes Clark who have been caught in more lies than President Bush and President Clinton put together. If the lies of Dr Dean and Wes Clark were piled atop each other there would be not need of a space shuttle, we could drive on the road bed of lies.

Attempting to divert!!! Go to the penalty box.

[Tigermike 3,711]

Which is worse, Clinton using Iraq to divert attention away from Monica Lewinski, or Bush using lies about Iraq to kill hundreds of American soldiers, maim thousands more for life, cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars...... Hmmm, tough question!!

A lie is a lie. We all know Clinton lied. It appears President Bush made decisions on faulty information. Unlike Howard Dean and Wes Clark who have been caught in more lies than President Bush and President Clinton put together. If the lies of Dr Dean and Wes Clark were piled atop each other there would be not need of a space shuttle, we could drive on the road bed of lies.

Attempting to divert!!! Go to the penalty box.

No diversion, the truth hurts doesn't Al?

[rexbo 104]

Please explain to me how bombing in December of 1998 was a Clinton-led diversionary tactic from the Monica Lewinski impeachment trials that started in December of 1999!! I'd love to say that you got me there, but I don't see how you make the connection.

OMG, that's 2 you have missed, again, this is not MY allegation, not MY connection. This is history, the attacks on Iraq were made on the eve of the House of Representatives voting on Clinton's impeachment. Were you asleep during the Clinton administration???!! The link is there, go read it, it is not from Fox News, it is from CNN. But, just to save you the effort of clicking your mouse, here are some quotes from the CNN article. BTW, Clinton did not have too much multilateral or UN support for these attacks, but you probably don't remember that part of history either.

Despite denials by Washington, suspicions were rife that the attacks were launched partly to divert attention from Clinton's threatened impeachment over the Monica Lewinsky affair.

"On the eve of a vote as significant (as the House of Representatives impeachment decision), Clinton should not have gone ahead with the attack," wrote Spain's leading daily, El Pais.

The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung asked: "Was it a despairing effort to save his own neck in a way that imitates fiction?"

Critics of the U.S.-British raids were merciless about the perceived "Monica factor" -- accusing Clinton of using military might in the Middle East to counter a sex-and- perjury scandal.

It is the most murderous fellation in history," France's center-left Liberation said in a crude reference to Clinton's affair with Lewinsky, a former White House intern.

The three permanent members of the Council who opposed the use of force this week -- Russia, China and France -- were tartly criticized by Berlingske Tidende