Wednesday, December 07, 2005

David Kay lied, people died?

In an effort to put an end to this 'Bush lied, people died' noise that for some reason, will not die itself, I present to you today, the tale of one David Kay, former Senior U.S. Weapons inspector. As the article states, in January of 2004, Mr. Kay told the US Congress that we were 'almost all wrong' in the belief that Saddam Hussein had WMDs in Iraq.

Strangely, however, six months prior, Mr. Kay stated, in a public interview with Tom Brokaw, that he was positive that Saddam Hussein had stashes of banned weapons in Iraq.

So, Mr. Kay, which is it? Who supplied the President, Congress, and anyone else who asked with the intelligence about Saddam's weapons programs? Was the intelligence faulty? If it was, WHO'S FAULT IS IT? The guy who presented the evidence to the American people as a basis for a war, or the guy who said the intelligence was good, and a basis to go to war?

Kay lied, now the lefties will cry?


patsbrother said...

I suppose I should be reassured that it is not just my brother and the left that can come up with inane lines of reasoning.

First, may I commend you on your source material: newsmax, it's third link entitled "Jokes", appears to be a pinnacle of sound journalism.

Second, in his July 2003 interview with Tom Brokraw, Kay avers that he was convinced - by paper materials and other as then unread materials. He pointedly remarks that what has convinced him would not pass muster in convincing others:

Brokaw: "But there’s no doubt in your mind, I gather, that in fact there was a program and it was substantial."

Kay: "I’ve already seen enough to convince me, but that’s not the standard. I’ve got to have enough evidence to convince everyone of that."

Brokaw: "How long is that going to take?..."

Kay: "I think in six months from now, we’ll have a considerable amount of evidence, and we’ll be starting to reveal that evidence. Will we get to the bottom of the program? It took them over twelve years to build this program. This is a tough country to work in. They hid a lot. I think we’ll probably still be finding stuff well beyond six months. I think we will have a substantial body of evidence before six months."

Brokaw: "By the fall, will we have credible evidence [regarding] weapons of mass destruction...?"

Kay: "We’ve got over a thousand people here who are working here very hard; because that’s the only way any of us will go home."

I will admit that is all msnbc had left of the interview on its site. The full interview appears to have lapsed. However, what we can gather from this short discourse is this: as he did not refute Brokaw's implicatin that Kay did not then have credible evidence of a weapons program suggests Kay merely subjectively believed there were weapons programs and that the proof was out there. Further, he and his team appeared determined to follow that proof.

That six months later all he had to say to Congress was we were "almost all wrong" would suggest that proof led to an investigative dead end. That an administration official was man enough to admit the hard facts are counter to what he formerly beleived is refreshing.

All of this comment leads to this, which I suppose I did not need so much setup to say:

True, Mr. Kay believed Saddam had WMDs and spoke openly about this belief. In July 2003. But the war began in March 2003. Holding such a man responsible for faulty pre-war intelligence seems a bit too tall an order, doesn't it?

Mr. Kay got to inspect Iraq after the fall of Saddam's regime. Inspections made before the war were overseen by a man named Hans Blix, who seemed pretty convinced, and in retrospect it seems justifiably so, there were no WMDs nor programs to make them.

While I will not jump on the bandwagon of averring Bush lied, I do not need to justify my reticence with faulty information of my own. Perhaps you should have scrolled down to find the purpose of your newsmax article was not to vindicate President Bush, per se, but to question the mysterious government silence regarding Mr. Kay's convincing evidence (insane conspiracy theorists rejoice!).

Patrick Armstrong said...

How history repeats itself.

And here I was copying and pasting our earlier discussion of this very same topic. I figured I didn't need to re-make comments I already made that were shockingly similar in subject matter.

Here's that link to July 11.

To paraphrase:

"because the justification for war just keeps changing. When the justification changes, the left changes what is wrong with it in order to address the issues at hand.

The right never actually justified the war in Iraq, which is why arguing against their justifications is so unnerving. They can always look at us and say "We didn't say that!"

They never actually made their case. We just went in and that's that. They hinted at WMD's, but we didn't find (m)any. They hinted at a 9/11 connection, but can't really give us that line of conversation. They said, 'mission accomplished' a good while back. Everything they say is both true and untrue at the same time, and when someone calls them on it, they just change the subject and show us a picture of the Ten Commandments."

"OK smartass. You want justifications, you get justifications.

We are in Iraq, because from all plausible intelligence, it appears that Saddam Hussein at least had a hand in financing the 9/11 attacks… because we have found more than one TERRORIST training camp way out in the desert…We are in Iraq to remove a vicious dictator from power. Saddam Hussein had every intention of restarting his NBC(nuclear, biological, chemical) weapons programs….We are now in Iraq to help rebuild a once great country…That enough?"

(Insert Cartman voice)
[Seriously…you guys don’t know s***. Are you both drunk? You both sound drunk. I don't like drinking. I should kick you both in the nutz. Patrick is just like, totally wrong and stupid, and SAWB, dude. Just, like, whoa. That is just, like, total bull****. Only I know what Patrick was really asking, even though it was stupid, I] understood he was asking for those mythic, nebulous justifications for going to war that should have been explained in explicit detail prior to March 2003. [No kitty, dats MY pot pie...]"
- Sprout

But I guess this is just a case of history repeating itself.


patsbrother said...

Wow! After rereading the comments to the post you linked to, I realize I really am the sane, cogent memeber of the group.

That always helps during finals. Thanks, paT!