Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: David Kay resigns as WMD search chief

  1. #1
    [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040123/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._usa_weapons_dc[/url]

    Looks like the massive cache people claim will eventually be unearthed just took a serious hit today.

    Oh wait, they all moved to Syria and the war was really for liberation and "oil, that lifeblood of democracy" ( © Spirit of Weeb, Jetsinsider.com, 2004).

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    I sure hope 5-ever doesn't hear about this. He'll be so disappointed.

  3. #3
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,251
    I'd say the words of Mr. Kay's interim report should not be overlooked. Here's an excerpt, unscrubbed by biased (by either side) media:

    [quote][b]
    What have we found and what have we not found in the
    first 3 months of our work?

    We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program
    activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq
    concealed from the United Nations during the
    inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of
    these deliberate concealment efforts have come about
    both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and
    officials concerning information they deliberately
    withheld and through physical evidence of equipment
    and activities that ISG has discovered that should have
    been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few
    examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I
    will elaborate on later:

    A clandestine network of laboratories and
    safehouses within the Iraqi Intelligence Service
    that contained equipment subject to UN
    monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW
    research.

    A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in
    human testing of BW agents, that Iraqi officials
    working to prepare for UN inspections were
    explicitly ordered not to declare to the UN.

    Reference strains of biological organisms
    concealed in a scientist's home, one of which can
    be used to produce biological weapons.

    New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella
    and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF),
    and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were
    not declared to the UN.

    Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists'
    homes, that would have been useful in resuming
    uranium enrichment by centrifuge and
    electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS).

    A line of UAVs not fully declared at an undeclared
    production facility and an admission that they had
    tested one of their declared UAVs out to a range
    of 500 km, 350 km beyond the permissible limit.

    Continuing covert capability to manufacture fuel
    propellant useful only for prohibited SCUD variant
    missiles, a capability that was maintained at least
    until the end of 2001 and that cooperating Iraqi
    scientists have said they were told to conceal
    from the UN.

    Plans and advanced design work for new
    long-range missiles with ranges up to at least
    1000 km - well beyond the 150 km range limit
    imposed by the UN. Missiles of a 1000 km range
    would have allowed Iraq to threaten targets
    through out the Middle East, including Ankara,
    Cairo, and Abu Dhabi.

    Clandestine attempts between late-1999 and
    2002 to obtain from North Korea technology
    related to 1,300 km range ballistic missiles
    --probably the No Dong -- 300 km range anti-ship
    cruise missiles, and other prohibited military
    equipment.

    In addition to the discovery of extensive concealment
    efforts, we have been faced with a systematic
    sanitization of documentary and computer evidence in a
    wide range of offices, laboratories, and companies
    suspected of WMD work. The pattern of these efforts to
    erase evidence - hard drives destroyed, specific files
    burned, equipment cleaned of all traces of use - are
    ones of deliberate, rather than random, acts. For
    example,

    On 10 July 2003 an ISG team exploited the
    Revolutionary Command Council (RCC)
    Headquarters in Baghdad. The basement of the
    main building contained an archive of documents
    situated on well-organized rows of metal
    shelving. The basement suffered no fire damage
    despite the total destruction of the upper floors
    from coalition air strikes. Upon arrival the
    exploitation team encountered small piles of ash
    where individual documents or binders of
    documents were intentionally destroyed.
    Computer hard drives had been deliberately destroyed. Computers would have had
    financial value to a random looter; their destruction, rather than removal for resale or
    reuse, indicates a targeted effort to prevent Coalition forces from gaining access to their
    contents.

    All IIS laboratories visited by IIS exploitation teams have been clearly sanitized, including
    removal of much equipment, shredding and burning of documents, and even the removal
    of nameplates from office doors.

    Although much of the deliberate destruction and sanitization of documents and records
    probably occurred during the height of OIF combat operations, indications of significant
    continuing destruction efforts have been found after the end of major combat operations,
    including entry in May 2003 of the locked gated vaults of the Ba'ath party intelligence
    building in Baghdad and highly selective destruction of computer hard drives and data
    storage equipment along with the burning of a small number of specific binders that
    appear to have contained financial and intelligence records, and in July 2003 a site
    exploitation team at the Abu Ghurayb Prison found one pile of the smoldering ashes from
    documents that was still warm to the touch. [/b][/quote]

    [url=http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html]Kay's complete report[/url]

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Jet Set Junta[/i]@Jan 23 2004, 09:44 PM
    [b] [url=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040123/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_dc]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._usa_weapons_dc[/url]

    Looks like the massive cache people claim will eventually be unearthed just took a serious hit today.

    Oh wait, they all moved to Syria and the war was really for liberation and "oil, that lifeblood of democracy" ( Spirit of Weeb, Jetsinsider.com, 2004). [/b][/quote]
    Yes...this was all about oil; that's why oil prices haven't moved an inch since MArch right?

  5. #5
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Jan 23 2004, 10:21 PM
    [b] Yes...this was all about oil; that's why oil prices haven't moved an inch since MArch right? [/b][/quote]
    cause its not about OIL in 2004 its about OIL in 2014 and 2024.... China's got an intense appetite for the stuff and we had to beat them to the punch.

    this war was about Bush settling family business and setting up the carlyle group for energy related dividends for the next quarter century

    you can believe that or you can believe that bull**** about WMD and bringing democracy to Iraqis (who we won't let vote by the way)

    <_<

  6. #6
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti+Jan 24 2004, 02:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (bitonti @ Jan 24 2004, 02:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Come Back to NY[/i]@Jan 23 2004, 10:21 PM
    [b] Yes...this was all about oil; that&#39;s why oil prices haven&#39;t moved an inch since MArch right? [/b][/quote]
    cause its not about OIL in 2004 its about OIL in 2014 and 2024.... China&#39;s got an intense appetite for the stuff and we had to beat them to the punch.

    this war was about Bush settling family business and setting up the carlyle group for energy related dividends for the next quarter century

    you can believe that or you can believe that bull**** about WMD and bringing democracy to Iraqis (who we won&#39;t let vote by the way)

    <_< [/b][/quote]
    oh...soo GWB was putting policy in place now so it will effect us in 20-years when he may no longer be on this earth?

    Positve thinking and good theory&#33; <_<

  7. #7
    get it straight its not policy that will help the nation its policy that will help his and his buddy&#39;s investment portfolios

    what&#39;s so hard to understand he&#39;s a OIL man who&#39;s family grew rich on OIL.

    Iraqi OIL is not only plentiful its cheaper to extract than any other source in the world.

    its laughable how you bring up your OIL bill... like any savings are gonna be passed on the consumer? haha what a joke.

    ---

    [b]shakin[/b] the interim report means nothing compared to the final report and you know it. <_<

  8. #8
    its not just Kay its also Powell ...

    [url=http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/world/7788887.htm]http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/n...rld/7788887.htm[/url]

    [quote][b]Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged Saturday that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein may not have had the massive weapons stockpiles that the Bush administration claimed before it went to war to topple his regime.

    While making clear he believes the war was justified nonetheless, Powell said that if caches of chemical and biological arms are not found, the reasons for the error must be determined.

    The secretary of state&#39;s remarks, made to reporters as he flew to this nation in the Caucasus, appeared to be the farthest any top U.S. official has gone in publicly acknowledging questions about the case President Bush made against Iraq before last March&#39;s invasion.
    [/b][/quote]

    [quote][b]"The open question is how many stocks they had, if any, and if they had any, where did they go. And if they didn&#39;t have any, then why wasn&#39;t that known beforehand?" [/b][/quote]

    contrast that with what the white house is saying

    [quote][b]"Yes, we believe he had them, and yes we believe they will be found," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Friday. "We believe the truth will come out."
    [/b][/quote]

    <_< :blink:

  9. #9
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,408
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 24 2004, 03:54 PM
    [b] get it straight its not policy that will help the nation its policy that will help his and his buddy&#39;s investment portfolios

    what&#39;s so hard to understand he&#39;s a OIL man who&#39;s family grew rich on OIL.

    Iraqi OIL is not only plentiful its cheaper to extract than any other source in the world.

    its laughable how you bring up your OIL bill... like any savings are gonna be passed on the consumer? haha what a joke.

    ---

    [b]shakin[/b] the interim report means nothing compared to the final report and you know it. <_< [/b][/quote]
    yes...I guess we call this "forward thinking" <_<

  10. #10
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    State Location Here
    Posts
    8,251
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 24 2004, 03:54 PM
    [b]
    [b]shakin[/b] the interim report means nothing compared to the final report and you know it. <_< [/b][/quote]
    Damn straight bit. So I guess you can concede how ridiculous you and a few others on this board sound on the matter then.

    But then again, libs have a way with never being willing to accept anything as "final" until it jibes with their agenda (see 2000 Fla. election results).

  11. #11
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    It doesn&#39;t matter what was found or what wasn&#39;t.

    If the US uncovered 1000 nukes pointed at NYC with Saddam and Osama&#39;s signature on them, the libs would spin it some other way: "[i]Maybe Rumsfeld gave them to him in the 80&#39;s when they shook hands&#33;[/i]" or "[i]Colin Powell said 2000 existed and only 1000 were found, so he lied&#33;[/i]"

    You guys made the fuss about WMDs, made them the centerpiece. The President didn&#39;t.

    Not one of you would change your opinion about the war or Bush even if tomorrow they dug up a bomb that could destroy the planet.

    Make it the centerpiece of your outrage. Stew in your anger for another year, and then hopefully you&#39;ll stew in it four more. Just like us conservatives did between 1992 and 2000.

    If we are not attacked again by November, the President will be reelected. The majority of Americans feel safer with him running the show and the economy is on the uptick.

    Game, set, match.

  12. #12
    weeb

    how convenient that all of a sudden the WMD doesn&#39;t matter - it was the defining issue that brought this nation to war...

    but now? doesn&#39;t matter.

    whatever <_< can&#39;t say we didn&#39;t see that coming.

    by the way im not Angry

    the men who died for no reason,

    their families will have the rest of their lives to stew in anger

    5 died today alone

    game, set, match???

    weeb what the wrong with you why don&#39;t you take a long hard look in the mirror

    these men are dying for NO REASON. NONE.

    but hey why listen to ugly reason when you can just stay in your little world where everything Bush says or does is gospel truth

    good luck with that <_<

  13. #13
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 24 2004, 07:35 PM
    [b] weeb

    how convenient that all of a sudden the WMD doesn&#39;t matter - it was the defining issue that brought this nation to war...

    but now? doesn&#39;t matter.

    whatever <_< can&#39;t say we didn&#39;t see that coming.

    by the way im not Angry

    the men who died for no reason,

    their families will have the rest of their lives to stew in anger

    5 died today alone

    game, set, match???

    weeb what the wrong with you why don&#39;t you take a long hard look in the mirror

    these men are dying for NO REASON. NONE.

    but hey why listen to ugly reason when you can just stay in your little world where everything Bush says or does is gospel truth

    good luck with that <_< [/b][/quote]
    I didn&#39;t say they did and neither did President Bush.

    You don&#39;t know they don&#39;t exist. They could be buried in the desert. They could be in Syria. Everyone, liberals included, thought they did. They had them in &#39;91. Even if you destroy the weapons, the knowledge, experience and capital to build them was still there. You think the knowledge just disappeared too?

    For crying out loud, [u]even Libya has them[/u]. So a pissant country like Libya has them, but Iraq didn&#39;t. Come on, use your brain. We couldn&#39;t even find the Unabomber or the Abortion Clinic bomber [b]for years[/b] IN OUR OWN OPEN SOCIETY. [b]He haven&#39;t found the source of the anthrax attacks here yet. I guess that didn&#39;t exist either and we should stop wasting resources finding out the truth.[/b]

    The President didn&#39;t want to give Saddam a chance to get so powerful with WMDs that attacking him would&#39;ve caused greater causalties. I don&#39;t know why you guys find it so hard to believe that Saddam and Osama had a mutual enemy they both hated far greater than they may have hated each other. And if it wasn&#39;t Al Queda, it may have been one of a hundred other groups, or one we aren&#39;t even aware of yet.

    Men are not dying for no reason as you say. And if we had let the liberal solution play itself out, more men would have died.

    It&#39;s your opinion, and your entitled to it. Lack of concrete evidence does not equal truth and you know it&#33; The guy had 12 years and 12 months to remove evidence and kill the people he needed to to keep the secrets.

    The difference between us is that you take the word of Saddam over both Bill Clinton and George Bush and that&#39;s just sad. As much as I hate Clinton, if he had shown the same set of balls to Saddam as he did to Monica, all this would be for naught. And like what he did unilaterally in Eastern Europe, he would have have my support for that.

  14. #14
    WMD was a bullsh-t issue from the get go. Pakistan and N Korea are PACKING nuclear powers... but we are worried about Botox in Iraq?

    i call bullsh-t

  15. #15
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    I am not ducking this thread - I have opinions on it which I will state at length once I have some time. I am super-busy at work these days and haven&#39;t had much time to babble on JI.


    I don&#39;t even disagree with some of the thrust of what detractors are saying, however I think Andrew Sullivan has some sensible thoughts on the issue.

    Anyway, I&#39;ll be back (if anyone cares)

  16. #16
    Rookie
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NE PA
    Posts
    969
    I have a question if Bush loses and Kerry for arguments sake wins as the new pres would you offer an apology to the world for invading Iraq based on bogus info or would you ignore it and stay the course? If so would it help or hurt the U.S.&#39; image to do either?

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]I have a question if Bush loses and Kerry for arguments sake wins as the new pres would you offer an apology to the world for invading Iraq based on bogus info or would you ignore it and stay the course? If so would it help or hurt the U.S.&#39; image to do either? [/b][/quote]

    I would hope he would publically apologize and I think we could possibly gain back some International respect.

  18. #18
    I don&#39;t like the idea of "apologizing" to anyone, and it only plays right into the hands of rabid right-wingers and their theses on liberal "guilt" and "america-hating". What&#39;s done is done; we&#39;re over there, we got rid of a nasty dictator even though we spent way too much money, American lives, and bull**** from our leadership to do it. Kucinich has made noises that he&#39;d go this route, and it&#39;s one of the reasons I prefer Dean or Clark to him as candidates -- that and his ridiculous faces on TV and sub-1% polling.

    The proper &#39;exit strategy&#39; is simply to give the country over to the Iraqis ASAP as the propaganda peddlers want you to believe we will, let THEM decide what companies from Halliburton to whatever jackass French oil company gets contracts on the oil, and keep the UN or some diplomatic alliance on their asses to ensure that terrorism is not supported by the new regime -- the way we supposedly do with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan, Libya, Syria, et al without actually invading their soil and spending &#036;200 billion to end their dictatorships.

    I don&#39;t think America needs to apologize to anyone for getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but I do think that more diplomacy and less thinly-veiled divying of spoils for Bush&#39;s Buddies in corporate America is going to be needed to get the rest of the world back in our corner. Despite the contempt modern-day right wingers have for every single society in the world outside ours, we can&#39;t win any "war on terrorism" with all of them hating us. Nor do we need to kiss anybody&#39;s ass -- it&#39;s called "leading by example" and "being diplomatic", something I haven&#39;t seen from the Bush Administration since day one. Reagan and Daddy were humble foreign ass-kissers compared to Dubya.

  19. #19
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    [quote][b]I don&#39;t like the idea of "apologizing" to anyone[/b][/quote]

    Look at my signature, do you think Bill O&#39;Reilly should apologize?

  20. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Jan 26 2004, 02:06 PM
    [b] [quote][b]I don&#39;t like the idea of "apologizing" to anyone[/b][/quote]

    Look at my signature, do you think Bill O&#39;Reilly should apologize? [/b][/quote]
    Do you think [b]O&#39;Really?[/b] will live up to that?

    I don&#39;t, somehow he&#39;ll weasel out of it.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us