Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
He Said, They Said
Now that the Economy is getting bold and noisy enough that the Democrats spin wont work there anymore, the talk has begun again to blame Bush for Iraq. After all, there were no WMDs, right?
Rather than rehash the value of the Sarin gas shells found in Iraq, or the small arsenal of Sarin and Mustard gas found by Polish troops , or the Chemical bomb found in Jordan [ which is not being called a WMD, despite its ability to have killed 20,000 people ] , or the biolabs we found buried in Iraq , I thought it might be interesting to read from an expert.
David Kay, whose words have been quoted by many a Bush-hater to suggest the President lied, has actually said quite a bit which shows the President was right.
From an interview with the London Telegraph :
David Kay, the former head of the coalition's hunt for Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, yesterday claimed that part of Saddam Hussein's secret weapons programme was hidden in Syria.
In an exclusive interview with The Telegraph, Dr Kay, who last week resigned as head of the Iraq Survey Group, said that he had uncovered evidence that unspecified materials had been moved to Syria shortly before last year's war to overthrow Saddam.
From the MacNeil/Lehrer Report :
Kay said Well, I think, first of all, because that were the estimates -- not just the estimates by the CIA or the Defense Intelligence Agency, we were going in against the background in which the U.N. had spoken of large numbers of missing material that could have been weaponized. There were intelligence reports from the British, the French, the Germans and even the Russians which painted a picture of Iraq armed with weapons of mass destruction.
And in an interview with Matt Lauer , there is this:
Lauer: "But the intent to develop WMDs was there?"
Kay: "Absolutely, Saddam surely wanted to get WMDs and spent a lot of money trying to do so."
Lauer: "Is it true that in 2000 and 2001 Saddam was pushing his nuclear program?"
Kay: "Yes, he was pushing hard for nuclear and long range missiles. Look, it's clear the man had the intent."
Kay: "He clearly lied to UN and was in material breach."
In a key moment in the interview, Lauer asked: "Based on everything you now know, was it prudent to go to war against Saddam?"
Kay: "It was absolutely prudent to go to war. The system was collapsing, Iraq was a country with desire to develop WMDs, and it was attracting terrorists like flies to honey."
Lauer: "Are your earlier comments being exploited for political reasons?"
Kay: "Inevitably yes, but what we have is a national security issue that shouldn't be exploited as a political issue."
Lauer: "Should we continue to search for WMDs as VP Cheney has suggested?
Kay: "Absolutely."
And from an interview with Tom Brokaw :
TB: David, as you know, a lot of the presidents political critics are going to say, This is clear evidence that he lied to the American people.
DK: I think if anyone was abused by the intelligence it was the president of the United States rather than the other way around.
TB: The president described Iraq as a gathering threat a gathering danger. Was that an accurate description?
DK: I think thats a very accurate description.
All of these comments are from 2004, after David Kay stepped down from his post as the Chief WMD Inspector on-site. His opinion is uniquely qualified, as no other single person has seen all the raw data, spoken personally with the witnesses, or has had the reasonable opportunity to weigh actions against the need for those actions. And David Kay says George W. Bush was right to go to war in Iraq.
John Kerry has some apologies to make. But I doubt Mr. Kay or Mr. Bush will receive them between now and November.
posted by DJ Drummond at 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Kathianne
I wonder why we don't hear more on this?
http://www.polipundit.com/2004_07_11_polipundit_archive.html#108973606064306966
Originally posted by TheOne
That initial post is from a blog, but it is quoting from the Today Show, the most popular morning program in America, from a Tom Brokaw interview, which I would assume is primetime news coverage, and NPR, the supposedly "left wing" alternative to Fox News. How much more coverage were you looking for?
I have read the full text of the Brokaw interview. No smoking guns in there. Kay has been consistent since his initial testimony.
Originally posted by TheOne
. . . . NPR, the supposedly "left wing" alternative to Fox News. How much more coverage were you looking for?
Originally posted by Kathianne
Actually if you read, which might be difficult for you little thing, it's not Brokaw the sources are given.
And from an interview with Tom Brokaw :
