Kay not blaming WH but he is blaming Intelligence

[jbooma]

Before any of you go and bash Bush remember France and Germany believed the same Intell as well as Clinton. Now you are allowed back to your scheduled show:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4049012/

MSNBC staff and news service reports

Updated: 6:00 p.m. ET Jan. 28, 2004WASHINGTON - The former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq encouraged Congress on Wednesday to examine the “fundamental false analysis” that led to the conclusion that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, a primary justification by President Bush for the war in Iraq. But he reiterated that he did not believe intelligence analysts were pressured to draw that conclusion.

“We were almost all wrong,” said the inspector, David Kay, noting that intelligence services in France and Germany, both of which opposed the war, also were convinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion.

But Kay told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee that he found no evidence to suggest that the Bush administration influenced the intelligence community to inflate the assessment of Saddam’s arsenal as a pretext to go to war.

“I had innumerable analysts came to me in apology … but not in a single case was the explanation, ‘I was pressured to do this,’” he said.

Misreading said to reflect broader problem

He said the misreading of Saddam’s capabilities, as well as inaccuracies in assessments of the capabilities of governments in Iran and Libya, pointed to a bigger problem in U.S. intelligence gathering and highlighted the difficulty in obtaining solid information about programs that hostile governments took great pains to hide.

Kay is one of a number of U.S. officials who have recently adjusted their positions on Saddam’s weapons capabilities.

As special adviser to CIA Director George Tenet, Kay was chosen last year as leader of the Iraq Survey Group in part because he was convinced that weapons would be found. “My suspicions are that we’ll find in the chemical and biological areas — in fact, I think there may be some surprises coming rather quickly in that area,” he said on CNN in June.

Last week, he altered his stance and said he believed large stocks of weapons were unlikely to be found, blaming faulty intelligence for the misguided assessments.

Kay resigned Friday, saying he was stepping down because resources were being shifted away from the search.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner, R-Va., called the hearing Wednesday to receive Kay’s views directly, even though Kay no longer has an official government position.

Official calls conclusion premature

A U.S. official said Tuesday on condition of anonymity that it was premature to speculate about “why we were wrong” and rejected Kay’s statement that the work in Iraq was 85 percent done.

“Even if we are 85 percent done, what could you have in that 15 percent of information?” the official asked. “The amount of chemical and biological agent that would be required is extremely small in terms of physical footprint. It could be easily hidden.”

While inspectors have been unable to unearth weapons of mass destruction, they have found new evidence that Saddam’s regime quietly destroyed some stockpiles of biological and chemical weapons in the mid-1990s, Kay told The Washington Post in an interview in its Tuesday editions.

Kay said the evidence, which consisted of contemporaneous documents and confirmations from interviews with Iraqis, indicated that Saddam did make efforts to disarm well before Bush began making the case for war.

Democratic presidential contenders have seized on Kay’s conclusion on the absence of banned weapons.

“The administration did cook the books,” former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean told reporters Tuesday. “I think that’s pretty serious.”

Calls for wider investigation

Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., has called for a new investigation by an independent commission or a broadened probe by the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Kay’s resignation and subsequent statements come as many in the Bush administration are subtly changing their assertions about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, including Bush.

In last year’s State of the Union, Bush called Saddam a “dictator who is assembling the world’s most dangerous weapons.” In the State of the Union this month, he spoke of Saddam’s programs, rather than weapons: “Had we failed to act, the dictator’s weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.”

Asked Tuesday about Kay’s assertions, Bush did not say that the banned weapons would eventually be discovered. “We know from years of intelligence — not only our own intelligence services, but other intelligence gathering organizations — that he had weapons — after all, he used them,” the president said.

Intelligence officials say that the probe will take time and that plenty of work lies ahead. Kay and others have blamed looting immediately after the war on the difficulties in painting a picture, but Kay has also said that flawed intelligence from 1998 forward — when U.N. inspectors withdrew from Iraq — contributed to the mistakes.

Last February, Secretary of State Colin Powell told the U.N. Security Council that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction that posed “real and present dangers.”

Last weekend, Powell began to backpedal, saying that the United States thought Saddam had banned weapons but that “we had questions that needed to be answered.”

“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?”

MSNBC.com's Mike Brunker and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

MORE FROM IRAQ AFTER SADDAM

[@DCGoldPants]

My question is this. If the President takes the stance that they didn't exist. What will those who thought its been moved to Syria or wherever think? That's its still there?

[luckydevil]

Why the president continues to defend the intelligence community is baffling( to me anyway). Somebody needs to get fired.

This is a major embarrassment( no matter how you spin it).

[chet06]

The President wanted to invade Iraq and the intelligence community told him whatever he wanted to hear.....it's like a corporation getting a bogus independent consulting or auditing report...the consultants get hired by the corporation and thus have to validate whatever the corporation wants....Isn't this whole thing painfully obvious. The president and/or cabinet probably pressured the intelligence community and that is why the admin can't fry someone for it. If they were so clean then they would have hung someone out to dry like they did to Paul ONeil or Joe Wilson's wife who was a CIA agent that they outed. This is an election year...lets all not be so naiive.

[Talent Wasted at a Desk]

The timing of the issue is paramount. Right now, the Dems dominate the news because of the primary. But as the Prez moves into campaign mode (*full* campaign mode...I guess a politician is always in it at some degree) we ought to see some development. I think an independent investigation will be authorized once the Dem primary concludes...in three weeks? The administration would not want this cloud over it for the whole election.

The Dems are alleging that the administration influenced intel and misled the nation...without substantiation. The conspiracy theories may work in the primary, but in the general election such claims will backfire...primarily because Clinton made the same conclusions Bush did (he just acted differently).

[jbooma]

Originally posted by chet06

The President wanted to invade Iraq and the intelligence community told him whatever he wanted to hear

So Germany and France and Clinton were all in on it too then :doh:

[Sarge]

For what it's worth

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2004-01/29/content_1290558.htm

TOKYO, Jan. 29 (Xinhuanet) -- A top Japanese government official said Thursday Iraq has weapons of mass destruction (WMD), a claim challenging what a former US top weapons inspector said a day before.

There is no evidence to show the weapons of mass destruction donot exist, "on the contrary, it's very likely they are there," said Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuo Fukuda at a press conference.

David Kay, who resigned last week as top US arms inspector after six months on the job, said Wednesday he has found no weapons of mass destruction, even though a number of governments, including the United States, believed they existed.

Fukuda questioned the credibility of Kay opinion, saying he was responsible for the inspection, but is not now.

As a staunch supporter of US-led war in Iraq, Japan has promised 5 billions US dollars in aid for Iraqi reconstruction and pledged to waive the majority part of the 4.1-billion-dollar debt. It also is sending troops there as manpower support for US-led occupation. Enditem

[Ancalagon the Black]

Sarge, you just know that if he had come out against the USA, you would have posted a thread saying, "Can you believe this idiot? We shoulda taken them out in WWII!"

[Sarge]

No, actually I'm having more issues with the adminstration than with this guy. I'm not quite sure what' s up, but I have a sneaking suspicion and "October Surprise" is in store. With the boneheaded things Bush has proposed lately, he better hope he has a few surprises up his sleeve. But back to the October Surprise and why I believe it could happen.

First and foremost, I know what I saw first hand intel-wise a little over a year ago. Trucks moving away from known weapons sites. Loaded. As I have said before, it's not watching the site that is a problem, it's keeping up with the destinations of everyone leaving there. Also, the extent and magnitude that the iraqis went to to deploy satellite surveillence countermeasures was consistant with someone trying to pull a fast one. Unfortunately, I can't go into specific details without having to kill everyone on

the site. Suffice it to say, I can't think of any reason they would go to that trouble without actually having something to hide.

Second, almost the whole time we have had sanctions in place against Iraq, we have had back door communications with saddam. Nothing fancy, but if we had to get a point across, there were ways of getting it delivered. Saddam was told we were coming to get him for real. Why not just let the inspectors see what they wanted to see and get out if he had nothing going on? The fact that some of the UN inspectors were spies really had nothing to do with anything, although that was a fact. If he had wanted to stay in power, all he had to do was open up and we probably would have let him and the French alone to their cozy little deals. But all he did was give the inspectors grief. Do a search. There are plenty of instances of blocking their progress on no notice inspections. Why do that if you know it's gonna lead to an ass kicking? Only the phantom knows, but it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Third, while on the ground, we received credible stories from Kurds and others that were around. Right before hostilities, we were getting reports of trucks headed for syria. Mostly they were attributed to lower ranking assho!es getting out of dodge with their loot, but we'll never know because at the time we did not have the manning to intercept them and check them out. Now I figure they were full of more than loot.

There's just too in my mind that says they had them, despite recent events.

[SEF]

This is why we need a major investigation into this whole thing. I won't hold my breath.

[Kilmer17]

Actually Kay has said repeatedly (along with other inspectors) that nobody influenced the intelligence.

[Ancalagon the Black]

First and foremost, I know what I saw first hand intel-wise a little over a year ago. Trucks moving away from known weapons sites. Loaded.

Why didn't you tell Kay about this and clear things up?

[Sarge]

Originally posted by Ancalagon the Black

Why didn't you tell Kay about this and clear things up?

Because I go by "Sarge", not "General". :cool:

[Ancalagon the Black]

That's right--you work for a living!

[Sarge]

Exactly;)

[Sarge]

Washington Post

January 30, 2004

Pg. 21

Calling Iraq's Bluff

By Charles Krauthammer

Before the great hunt for scapegoats begins, let's look at what David Kay has actually said about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

First, and most trumpeted, he did not find "large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction." He did find, as he reported last October, WMD-related activities, from a very active illegal missile program to research and development ("right up until the end") on weaponizing the deadly poison ricin (the stuff London police found on terrorists last year). He discovered "hundreds of cases" of U.N.-prohibited and illegally concealed activities.

Significant findings, but still a far cry from what the administration had claimed last March. Kay has now offered the most novel and convincing explanation for why U.S. intelligence -- and, for that matter, U.N. inspectors and the intelligence agencies of every country that mattered -- misjudged what Iraq possessed.

It was a combination of Iraqi bluff, deceit and corruption far more bizarre than heretofore suspected. Kay discovered that an increasingly erratic Saddam Hussein had taken over personal direction of WMD programs. But because there was no real oversight, the scientists would go to Hussein, exaggerate or invent their activities, then pocket the funds.

Scientists were bluffing Hussein. Hussein was bluffing the world. The Iraqis were all bluffing each other. Special Republican Guard commanders had no WMDs, but they told investigators that they were sure other guard units did. It was this internal disinformation that the whole outside world missed.

Congress needs to find out why, with all our resources, we had not a clue that this was going on. But Kay makes clear that President Bush was relying on what the intelligence agencies were telling him. Kay contradicts the reckless Democratic charges that Bush cooked the books. "All the analysts I have talked to said they never felt pressured on WMD," says Kay. "Everyone believed that [iraq] had WMD."

That includes the Clinton administration. Kay told The Post he had found evidence that Hussein had quietly destroyed some biological and chemical weapons in the mid-1990s -- but never reported it to the United Nations. Which was why President Bill Clinton in 1998 declared with great alarm and great confidence that Hussein had huge stockpiles of biological and chemical arms -- "and some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

The intelligence failure is quite spectacular, but its history is quite prosaic. When the U.N. inspectors left in 1998, they assumed that the huge stockpiles of unaccounted-for weapons still existed. What other assumption could they make? That Hussein had destroyed them and not reported that to the very agency that could have then vindicated him and gotten sanctions lifted?

Secretary of State Colin Powell correctly makes the case that this very fact -- the concealment of both the weapons and their possible destruction -- clearly justifies the legality of the Iraq war, since the terms of the 1991 cease-fire placed the positive obligation on Iraq to demonstrate its own disarmament. It clearly and repeatedly failed to do that.

But beyond the legal question is the security question. People forget that when the Bush administration came into office, Iraq was a very unstable place. Thousands of Iraqis were dying as a result of sanctions. Containment necessitated the garrisoning of Saudi Arabia with thousands of "infidel" American troops -- in the eyes of many Muslims, a desecration (cited by Osama bin Laden as his No. 1 reason for his 1996 "Declaration of War" on America). The no-fly zones were slow-motion war, and the embargo was costly and dangerous -- the sailors who died on the USS Cole were on embargo duty.

Until Bush got serious, threatened war and massed troops in Kuwait, the U.N. was headed toward loosening and ultimately lifting sanctions, which would have given Hussein carte blanche to regroup and rebuild his WMDs.

Bush reversed that slide with his threat to go to war. But that kind of aggressive posture is impossible to maintain indefinitely. A regime of inspections, embargo, sanctions, no-fly zones and thousands of combat troops in Kuwait was an unstable equilibrium. The United States could have either retreated and allowed Hussein free rein -- or gone to war and removed him. Those were the only two ways to go.

Under the circumstances, and given what every intelligence agency on the planet agreed was going on in Iraq, the president made the right choice, indeed the only choice.

[@DCGoldPants]

Interesting.....looks like what Bush and Clinton "Knew" was pretty damn wrong.

Still don't understand why the White House is so against an Inde. review of what happened. Even McCain is calling for it. If all they did was follow crappy info, what's the harm?

[Kilmer17]

It's all about politics Bufford.

The WH doesnt want an independant review because it wouldnt be an independant review.

Similar to the Kay report, those opposing Bush will take bits and pieces here, threads and morsels there and combine them to paint the worse picture possible. And distribute it in October.

I dont blame Bush for not wanting this to happen.

What I dont get is why he keeps Tenet around. That guy should have been fired long ago.

[@DCGoldPants]

or at least sent to like Kenya as an Ambas. or something.

I don't know Kilmer...in an Election year, the last think Bush needs is to look like he hiding secrets from everybody. That includes his own party.

[Kilmer17]

No, the last thing he needs is to give his opposition something that they can use to paint him negatively.

I want to know what happened as well. And I want ALL heads to roll for it if warranted. I can, however, see why they oppose an "independant" commission.

[@DCGoldPants]

even from his own party?

[Kilmer17]

Yes, even his own party.

[@DCGoldPants]

fair enough. I think there will be one even if he doesn't want it. Fighting it only looks worse.

[OURYEAR#56]

Well atleast Bush Jr can say he got Hussien. Daddy would be proud. Now we just have to allocate some more tax payer money for the additional body bags.

[Kilmer17]

War is hell. I wish we had simply bombed the crap out of the place for weeks, but we choose to limit civilian casualties.

I think you might be right Bufford, but any investigation wouldnt have anything to report by Nov. So I doubt he would fight it then.