Needs to be said about Bush & Iraq

[k2cok]

"quit pointing out the double standards of our friends on the other side of the issue"

Only one problem with this statement and Sox62's link, none of those people are currently president.

Not to mention none of them lied us into a war.

[Krusher]

Originally posted by k2cok
Only one problem with this statement and Sox62's link, none of those people are currently president.

Not to mention none of them lied us into a war.

They said or were saying the same thing that the current administartion said so wtf is your point again?

[Udie]

YOU PEOPLE ARE ARGUING WITH A MORON.  THIS ARGUMENT WILL NEVER BE OVER AS THE MORON WILL NEVER ADMIT ANYTHING CLOSE TO BEING WRONG.  HE HATES BUSH AND THEREFORE THIS WAR IS EVIL,  PERIOD.


Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....

[Holden McGroin]

K2, you have asserted a common logical flaw.

The absence of evidence does not prove anything, and it does not prove GWB lied.  All it can possibly do is bring into question the push for war.

If and/or when weapons are found, you will have to rethink your stance on the honesty of GWB.

You have not shown a provable lie GWB said.  As provable as WJC's famous finger wagging "I did not have...."  

The 16 words in the SOU address which British Intellegence continues to assert as true does not qualify as a lie, as it has not been proven false.

List something....

[Sabre]

Here's Kay's interview with Tony Snow...

Transcript: David Kay on 'FOX News Sunday'
 
Monday, October 06, 2003
 
The following is a transcribed excerpt from FOX News Sunday, Oct. 5, 2003.
 
TONY SNOW, FOX NEWS: Joining us to determine what the Kay report does and does not say is David Kay, the CIA special adviser on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programs and head of the Iraqi Survey Group.

Mr. Kay, welcome.

DAVID KAY, CHIEF IRAQ WEAPONS INSPECTOR: Happy to be with you, Tony.

SNOW: Let's take a quick look at some of the headlines from this week characterizing your report. I want to get your reaction to them.

Here we see The New York Times: "No Illicit Arms." The Washington Post: "No Banned Weapons." The Los Angeles Times: "No Illicit Iraqi Arms." USA Today: "No Illegal Weapons."

Is that what you found?

KAY: Well, we certainly found that — have not yet found illicit arms. But that's not the only thing the report says. In fact, I'm sort of amazed at what was powerful information about both their intent and their actual activities that were not known and were hidden from U.N. inspectors seems not to have made it to the press. This is information that, had it been available last year, would have been headline news.

SNOW: One of the things that you found, for instance, is the Mukhabarat, the secret service, in fact had a vigorous weapons program of its own. Tell us about it.

KAY: Well, we have found right now — and we're still finding them — over two dozen laboratories that were hidden in the Iraqi intelligence service, the Mukhabarat, were not declared to the U.N., had prohibited equipment, and carried on activities that should have been declared.

Now, at the minimum, they kept alive Iraq's capability to produce both biological and chemical weapons. We found assassination tools. So we know that, in fact, they had a prohibited intent to them.

SNOW: You also talk about reference strains of biological agents. What does that mean?

KAY: Well, that's one of the most fascinating stories. An Iraqi scientist in 1993 hid in his own refrigerator reference strains for — active strains, actually would've — were still active when we found them — Botulinum toxin, one of the most toxic elements known.

 
 
He was also asked to hide others, including anthrax. After a couple of days, he turned them back because he said they were too dangerous; he had small children in the house.

This is typical. We now have three cases in which scientists have come forward with equipment, technology, diagrams, documents and, in this case, actual weapons material, reference strains and Botulinum toxin, that they were told to hide and that the U.N. didn't find.

SNOW: You believe that there are similar strains perhaps throughout Iraq right now?

KAY: We're actively searching for at least one more cache of weapons — of strains that we know exists.

SNOW: This is a cache that had been referred to by a scientist. The first bit of information paid off; you're still looking for the second one?

KAY: Exactly.

SNOW: And the second one is a large cache.

KAY: It's much larger. It contains anthrax, and that's one reason we're actively interested in getting it.

SNOW: Now, you also talk about new research on biological capable agents, such as Brucella, Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, Ricin and Naflotoxin (ph).

KAY: That's exactly right, and that's the things I'm surprised no one has paid attention to.

The new strains they're working on, including Congo-Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever, are something that should have been reported to the U.N. In fact, all of the work should have been reported. It was not reported.

This is activities, prohibited activities they've carried on. And this continued right up to 2003 in these four cases, unreported, undiscovered.

SNOW: Unreported and undiscovered.

When you're analyzing how much information was kept from the U.N., how would you characterize it?

KAY: Dozens of cases right now that are significant. The most significant, of course, is in the missile area, where we're talking about activity on four different fronts that would have provided missiles capable of exceeding the U.N. limit of 150 kilometers.

SNOW: All right, I want to get to that in a moment. Before we do that, one final note on Botulinum. The State Department is now calling this discovery in fact the discovery of a weapon of mass destruction. Would you accept that characterization?

KAY: It's not a weapon in the sense of it was ready to be fired. It is absolutely the essential element that only time and a little growth media would have produced large amounts of Botulinum toxin.

SNOW: And you also had a number of scientists coming forward and telling you that there were plans afoot that, if they were given the orders to create chemical or biological weapons, there was a certain timetable in which they would be able to produce them.

KAY: That's correct. We've had very senior scientists — and this is actually a good news story. People don't realize how many Iraqis we now have cooperating with us. That's one reason for my optimism that we'll get to the bottom of the program. But it would have taken them from weeks to months to restart mustard production, and for months to — the maximum estimate is two years on VX production.

SNOW: Now, a lot of these scientists — you talk about one scientist being assassinated the same day he talked to your people.

KAY: Yes.

SNOW: Somebody else was shot six times. They're still subject to considerable intimidation?

KAY: They certainly are, and they report that to us every day. And that's why I guess I have great admiration for those who are talking to us. They're talking to us not for rewards; they're talking to us in the face of active threats against them for collaborating with us.

SNOW: Why can't you protect them?

KAY: Well, you know, we could take everyone out of the country, but realize in Iraq you're talking about extended families. We are taking steps to try to protect them, but we're never perfect at that.

SNOW: Let's talk about the volume of arms. How many arms depots are there in Iraq?

KAY: We've identified 130 ammunition storage points of significant size, some larger than 50 square kilometers. These are sites that contain, the best estimate is, between 600,000 and 650,000 tons of arms. That's about one-third of the entire ammunitions stockpile of the much-larger U.S. military.

SNOW: So that's pretty astonishing for a country of that size and population.

KAY: It's very astonishing when you're on the ground looking at it.

SNOW: You've only been through 10 of those so far. Why so few depots have been examined at this point?

KAY: Well, it's a size issue and going out. For example, we spent 10 days on a very large one about three weeks ago, operating in temperatures that range from 130 — that was a low day — to 150. And literally, you have to go — this one was over 200 square miles. It's damning, in terms of the scale, to have to do that.

SNOW: So you have still 120 of these to examine?

KAY: And we have 26 on a critical list to examine. That's really the number that drives us right now.

SNOW: What do you want to find in those?

KAY: Well, the Iraqis have told us, and we learned in 1991, that they have the habit of storing their chemical munitions right in a mix with these standard conventional armaments. And they also tended not to mark them. So you really have to examine each one, and that's why we're going there looking at them.

(continued)

[Sabre]

(continued from previous post)

SNOW: There were claims before the war by Secretary of State Colin Powell that Iraq had weaponized and ready-to-use chemical weapons. He was very confident about the existence of chemical weapons. You have not yet found actual chemical weapons, correct?

KAY: Tony, it's important to stress the word "yet." We have not only Secretary Powell, we have Iraqi generals telling us that they had them. Unfortunately, they're not able to tell us where they are now. And that's why we're looking so hard.

SNOW: Biological weapons, you have found some strains; you think you're going to find more based on the testimony you've received?

KAY: Based on information leads, we have no reason to believe that we will not find more. But we're searching still.

SNOW: Let me ask you about the veracity of the people who are coming forward. Are they reliable sources? Have they given you information that's paid off, or are you getting a lot of crank information from people?

KAY: Well, they're not all reliable, and I wouldn't expect them to. We have to deal with them much like the way journalists do. I need to separate out what they really know personally from what someone has told them, and then go find the sub-sources who told them that. It's a very time-consuming process.

SNOW: Senator Carl Levin said the other day that there was no evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear weapons program. True or false?

KAY: Well, I think in the nuclear area there's evidence that they were putting small amounts of money and starting rudimentary experiments. But we haven't finished our examination there. On the basis of what we've examined, I think there is evidence that they were interested in restarting their nuclear program, but it was at a very early stage, based on what we have currently found.

SNOW: You also had heard that Saddam Hussein had gotten frustrated with the U.N. weapons inspectors and was simply ready to go ahead, regardless of their presence on his soil.

 

KAY: His senior head of the arms industry has told us that in 2000 he believed that Saddam had simply gotten fed up with the U.N. restrictions and was ready, in the face of them, to start restarting the program.

Now, the one piece of evidence that confirms that is in the missile area, where exactly that's when it restarted.

SNOW: And you also found propellants.

You mentioned that there are four classes. You had cruise missiles. You had the attempt to buy the Nodong missile from North Korea that can have a range of up to 1,300 kilometers, about 800 miles...

KAY: Right.

SNOW: ... and a series of other things. You had rocket propellants, correct?

KAY: Well, the rocket propellants are really an interesting story I'm surprised no one has picked up on. We have Iraqis now telling us that they continued, until 2001 or early 2002, to be capable of mixing and preparing Scud missile fuel.

Scud missile fuel is only useful in Scud missiles, no other class of missiles that Iraq has. And yet Iraq declared that it got rid of all of its Scud missiles in the early 1990s. Why would you continue to produce Scud missile fuel if you didn't have Scuds? We're looking for the Scuds.

SNOW: In speaking to reporters the other day, you also said that you were examining the possible cross-border transportation of arms into Syria, Jordan and Iran. Now, the Jordanian government has said, absolutely not true. Do you still think it's possible that arms could have made their way into Jordan?

KAY: Well, we're still examining what moved where. We have multiple reports from Iraqis of moving material. We do know that documents were taken to Jordan, because we're engaged in negotiations with someone who is in Jordan to recover those documents. I have no personal knowledge that weapons were moved into Jordan.

SNOW: Does this person in Jordan have any official relationship with the government, or is this a private citizen?

KAY: Oh, absolutely no official relationship with the government. He fled there, and he's there solely on his personal basis.

SNOW: How about Syria? I've heard talk of convoys making their way out of Iraq into Syria in the weeks before the war. What have you heard?

KAY: We've heard the same reports. Actually, we have probably more specific evidence on that, on dates, times...

SNOW: I would suspect you know more than I do on that.

KAY: ... and routes taken. The difficulty we have is proving what was in the convoys, and that's where we're stymied right now.

SNOW: You also have reports of a number of nations engaged in illegal trade or dual-use technology trade with Iraq. Why won't you tell us who those countries are?

KAY: Because we're continuing to investigate to find the exact details and to be sure that we have absolute accuracy. Also, because we suspect that these same companies have been engaged with other proliferant regimes, so we want to get to the bottom of this.

And let me say, it's not just dual-use. The equipment that we're after and the information we have relates to things that were clearly illegal to sell to Iraq. This is illegal procurement. It's not something that could have other uses. They shouldn't have had it.

SNOW: Were any American companies involved?

KAY: Not that we've discovered to date.

SNOW: What about the United Nations? There's some talk that the United Nations ought to handle weapons inspection. What do you make of that?

KAY: Well, I certainly — we've used and are using today former U.N. inspectors. But the idea of turning it back over to the U.N. just doesn't hold any credibility.

The U.N. has pulled essentially all of its staff out of Iraq because of two explosions. I've had teams attacked four times in September and four serious injuries. Every one of the people we have on the ground, including myself, is weapons qualified and routinely carries weapons. We operate in a very non-permissive environment.

That's not what the U.N. does. I can't believe that the U.N. — as a U.N. inspector, I never carried a weapon, and we never operated in this type of environment.

SNOW: You've been looking for weapons. Have you found any documentary evidence of ties to Al Qaida or other terrorist groups?

KAY: We have not — with regard to weapons of mass destruction, and that is really the area I operate in, no, we have not.

SNOW: But how about in other weapons? Has anything else come across? Because one of the things you document is a very thorough program of trying to destroy evidence in the wake of the U.S. and British invasion.

KAY: We have discovered documentary evidence that relates to various terrorist connections, and what happens, Tony, when we do that, is we immediately turn it over. I have an FBI rep who's on the Iraq Survey Group. We turn it over to those people whose professional business is investigating those ties.

SNOW: So when you look at the totality of the investigation, in Iraq and in surrounding countries, what would you put the probability of finding weapons of mass destruction?

KAY: I simply don't know. I have tried to conduct a work program that guarantees us that if they are there, we will find them. Rather than estimate — I don't want to estimate. I want to have proof, and that's what we're driving toward that conclusion.

SNOW: All right, David Kay, thanks for joining us today.

KAY: Thank you, Tony, very much.

 
It is amazing that, while some mainstream news source made passing mention of "evidence of WMD programs", all had headlines that read (paraphrased numerous ways) "No WMD found in IRAQ!" as if that was the important info, or indeed that this was a final report, rather than a progress report.

Given the stuff Kay's teams have come up with so far -- and with far more agressive (and armed) methods than anything the UN could have or would have tried, does anyone really in their hearts believe Hussien would have refrained from rebuilding his stockpiles after the UN gave him a passing grade?  Indeed, does anyone actually beleive even another few years of UN inspections would have been able to uncover a fraction of what Kay's team has, or certified honestly that Iraq had come clean?

I see alot of you Bush-bashers calling him a liar and worse, but what of this evidence?  When confronted with a reality that doesn't fit you predetermined mantra, can you come up with nothing better than to call names and post political cartoons?  You make me sad.

[Udie]

^ Personal attacks and cartoons, but definitely NOTHING of any substance what so ever.  This weekend was a jolt I needed to remember how vile the left is and that they will go to NO end to win victory to get their power back.   LA Times..... Greyout Davis - watched part of an interview with him yesterday.  At the beginning of the interview he said he would comment on the LA Times story about Swartz.  By the end of the interview all he was talking about were the allogations against the Swartz.  They offer nothing but venom.....


[edit]

 Oops forgot to add.... Thanks for posting that interview Sabre,  I saw it yesterday morning on TV when I woke up.  Amazing the contrast of what was actually in the report to the headlines the report recieved.  How typical of the left.....

Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....

[Toad]

David Kay told Congress last week that his survey team had not found nuclear, biological or chemical weapons so far. But he argued against drawing conclusions, saying he expects to provide a full picture on Iraq's weapons programs in six months to nine months.

Well, I think I'll give the guy actually doing the job a chance to do it.

How about you, K2?

Oh, silly me... sorry.

[k2cok]

Originally posted by Udie
YOU PEOPLE ARE ARGUING WITH A MORON.  THIS ARGUMENT WILL NEVER BE OVER AS THE MORON WILL NEVER ADMIT ANYTHING CLOSE TO BEING WRONG.  HE HATES BUSH AND THEREFORE THIS WAR IS EVIL,  PERIOD.


Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....
Mr. Head meet Mr. Wall.....

Another graduate of the Grunherz School of Debate I see.    

When have I ever said I hate Bush?

Your mistaking my holding him accountable for his words and deeds for hatred, but feel free to continue your "personal attacks" against me.

AKIron, I suppose I could be PC and use the words coming from Republican and Democrats in the Congress alike that Bush "misrepresented the evidence for war" but that is intellectually dishonest.

I prefer it unvarnished, Bush lied.

Fast forward another 6-9 months Toad, will you be willing to give Kay more time then?

You've already fudged from your original posistion. (the 10Bears wager)

[Sabre]

K2, I'm still waiting to hear in what way he lied?  What were his actual words that have since been unequivically proven to be deliberately false?  The cartoon was fiction, political satire.  Do you actually believe it represents real life?  Please be specific.  Thanks.  And when all those democrats in the above post said all those horrible things about Saddam, where they lying then or lying now?  (True, maybe they aren't President now, but most want to be.)  And finally, what about this report by Kay?  Do you believe he's making all that up?  If so, where's your proof?

[Toad]

K2, Please do try to keep up, OK?

Reread the wager thread.

I initially wanted more than 90 days which is what 10Bears required before he'd wager the family fortune. I have ANOTHER wager with Nash that runs 180 days and is almost at that point.

But if you READ those threads, I said I might lose on the time issue but I was fairly confident of them finding WMD. I lost on the time issue to 10Bears. According to KAY, I'll probably lose on the time issue to Nash.

I'm still comfortable with the "Saddam had WMD" at this point. Kay sounds like he thinks they'll find something too. However, he's pretty clearly delineated the difficulties they face in the search.

You know, those parts of his unclassified text that the news doesn't want to report and that some BBS posters don't seem to be able to bring themselves to read.

As to Kay, I guess I'm adult enough to realize it'd be best to see what he has to say in six to eight months and then decide.

Rather than just pitch a tantrum right now when, according to the guy actually on the scene doing the work. (As opposed to BBS commentators that "know" everything about everything anyway)he needs 6 to 9 more months for a realistic appraisal. The work seems well started but far from complete.

Unless of course one is on a Jihad.

[Preon1]

Originally posted by Sabre
What were his actual words that have since been unequivically proven to be deliberately false?

Sadly, I don't think you're going to get a quote, source, and time reference...  if K could produce that, he'd have done it already.

Didn't read the unclassified report myself until this afternoon.  Pretty astonishing stuff.

[k2cok]

It doesn't take much effort to expose Bush's lies.

Sabre, let's go back to Bush's SOTU - which was really a "Please Don't Ask Me About the State of the Union While I Distract You With War" Address

It's exasperating to see the length with which this administration will peddle hearsay and innuendo as fact, presenting information to support its claims that the sheeple/dumb americans won't think twice about checking for reliability.

There were many credibility holes in the speech -- taking credit for putting money in our pockets through a tax cut (actually, the Democrats sponsored the $300 checks), Homeland Security (and, again, the Democrats created the idea, which Bush and Co. HATED until the public screamed for it), safer airports (um, federal airport baggage checkers was another idea from the Democrats), and an education bill (which everyone says is under-funded and, therefore, useless) -- but the most egregious factual liberties were taken during the warmongering section of the speech.


Bush played loose with the facts to win support for a unwarranted and ill-conceived war.

Bush says he's "moved on" and that the "case is closed" with regards to the infamous "sixteen words" in his SOTU.

The CIA assumed tepid responsibility for not insisting Bush remove the sixteen words about British evidence of Hussein's alleged attempts to purchase uranium from Africa.

Fine. What about these 71 from the same speech?

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."

To date, not a single UAV has been found, or drop of CBWs, or any munitions capable of delivering the alleged weapons.

Is the CIA responsible for those words as well?

What about these 26, also from the same speech?

"Evidence from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects terrorists, including members of Al Qaida."

To date, not a shred of evidence connecting Hussein with Al Qaida or any other known terrorist organizations (besides certain Palestinian groups who represent no direct threat to the US) have been revealed.

And then there are these 20:

"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."

The IAEA as well as dozens of leading scientists declared said tubes unsuitable for nuclear weapons production -- months before the war.

Here's what Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency said:

"We believe the tubes were destined for the conventional rocket program," ElBaradei said. He said the tubes could be modified for uranium enrichment, but the process would be expensive, time-consuming and detectable."

Fine. Bush must take responsibility for the rest his words, all 117 of which were lies.

Lies that have resulted in the deaths of over three hundred American GIs, and the wounding of at least 1,200.

[Toad]

Originally posted by k2cok

It doesn't take much effort to expose Bush's lies...

...To date, not a single UAV has been found, or drop of CBWs, or any munitions capable of delivering the alleged weapons.

But probably even less to find this from Kay's unclassified report:

Iraq was continuing to develop a variety of UAV platforms and maintained two UAV programs that were working in parallel, one at Ibn Fernas and one at al-Rashid Air Force Base.

Ibn Fernas worked on the development of smaller, more traditional types of UAVs in addition to the conversion of manned aircraft into UAVs.

This program was not declared to the UN until the 2002 CAFCD in which Iraq declared the RPV-20, RPV-30 and Pigeon RPV systems to the UN.

All these systems had declared ranges of less than 150km. Several Iraqi officials stated that the RPV-20 flew over 500km on autopilot in 2002, contradicting Iraq's declaration on the system's range.

The al-Rashid group was developing a competing line of UAVs. This program was never fully declared to the UN and is the subject of on-going work by ISG.

Additional work is also focusing on the payloads and intended use for these UAVs. Surveillance and use as decoys are uses mentioned by some of those interviewed. Given Iraq's interest before the Gulf War in attempting to convert a MIG-21 into an unmanned aerial vehicle to carry spray tanks capable of dispensing chemical or biological agents, attention is being paid to whether any of the newer generation of UAVs were intended to have a similar purpose.

This remains an open question.

ISG has discovered evidence of two primary cruise missile programs. The first appears to have been successfully implemented, whereas the second had not yet reached maturity at the time of OIF.

The first involved upgrades to the HY-2 coastal-defense cruise missile. ISG has developed multiple sources of testimony, which is corroborated in part by a captured document, that Iraq undertook a program aimed at increasing the HY-2's range and permitting its use as a land-attack missile.

These efforts extended the HY-2's range from its original 100km to 150-180km. Ten modified missiles were delivered to the military prior to OIF and two of these were fired from Umm Qasr during OIF -- one was shot down and one hit Kuwait.

The second program, called the Jenin, was a much more ambitious effort to convert the HY-2 into a 1000km range land-attack cruise missile.

The Jenin concept was presented to Saddam on 23 November 2001 and received what cooperative sources called an "unusually quick response" in little more than a week.

The essence of the concept was to take an HY-2, strip it of its liquid rocket engine, and put in its place a turbine engine from a Russian helicopter -- the TV-2-117 or TV3-117 from a Mi-8 or Mi-17helicopter. To prevent discovery by the UN, Iraq halted engine development and testing and disassembled the test stand in late 2002 before the design criteria had been met.

[Gadfly]

Ko2**** will never be convinced, don't waste your time.  Personally, you should fly your own little flag, not the U.S. one, because I do not sense this distress you speak of.  I look at your avatar as pretty sorry, but par for (your) course.