Was I hearing things, or in the interview with Liane Hansen last Sunday did David Kay say that everyone expected there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? I may have missed something — I was washing dishes at the time — but it sounded to me as though Kay asserted that no one doubted the existence of WMD in Iraq at the time the Bush Dynasty wanted to justify conquering Iraq. If I heard right, then Kay is either a bare-faced liar or a dangerously self-deceived. With hardly any effort, any of us will be able to find massive skepticism about Saddam Hussein’s weapons program; if Kay honestly thinks that no one doubted their existence, he had no business serving in the position he just resigned from.
(Listening to the streamed audio now; no transcript at this point. OK: beginning at about 8:10 into the interview, the quotation runs “almost everyone” expected to find WMD, so Kay qualifies his claim on the first run; but then “there was no disagreement about the belief that the weapons existed” (Kay’s emphasis). Overall, Kay’s shifting the blame from Bush’s consistent certainty that Iraw had WMDs to the intelligence agencies on which Bush supposedly relied. Still, from what Josh Marshall has consistently been reporting, the intelligence was divided — that’s what the Plame affair indicates, after all — and Bush cherry-picked the most favorable evidence for his case.)
Posted by AKMA at January 27, 2004 10:05 AM | TrackBackMy impression is that even most folks (like me) who opposed Dubya's Excellent Adventure thought that Iraq had some WMDs lying around somewhere. We opposed the war, nevertheless, for one of the following reasons: whatever WMDs existed didn't constitute a clear threat to the US or its allies; the inspection process needed more time to work; an invasion, if it was necessary needed more international participation to give it legitimacy; even if war was a good thing in theory, Dubya was sure to screw up its execution.
Posted by: Seth Gordon at January 27, 2004 12:47 PMBefore GW went a'conquerin' I argued against it on the basis that there was little if any evidence that Hussein had any WMD. Chances are, if he did have them, he would already have declared it to the world in some inane test (likely on Israel, or S. Iraq itself). And, what weapons systems he DID have, WE GAVE HIM! I think it is astonishing how little our (average American) collective historical memories can hold. Saddam used to be the good guy back when the Ayatollah was the bad guy. We sold him and gave him (Saddam) numerous weapons system, advanced fighter aircraft, and grounds weapons. The Congressional reports released detailing are this are not exactly hidden, just as far as your local library with a government documents section in microfiche. The polemics surrounding this entire debate amaze me. People want to believe one thing so badly that they are not above making up their own "evidence" or believeing fox news. Sounds to me like that whole attitude plays into the debate of whether we should elect a President who is more qualified or more "electable". We're talking about the leader of our nation folks, not a mascot!
-R
Posted by: Ryan Whitley at January 27, 2004 05:19 PM"We sold him and gave him (Saddam) numerous weapons system, advanced fighter aircraft, and grounds weapons."
While I was opposed to the war, this is simply not true. Saddam's air force was equipped with aircraft he purchased from the former Soviet Union and France. His ground forces were equipped with Russian armor. I believe most of his long range artillery was purchased from South Africa. Small arms and rocket propelled grenades are almost all Soviet. He purchased some French anti-tank rockets. The air defense system was, I believe, a hodge-podge of Soviet and other european systems, not US.
We did advise Iraq's army in its war against Iraq when it became likely that the Iranians may have prevailed against the Iraqis, and I believe we provided them some survellance data against the Iranians. We also worked with the Iraqis to establish "deconfliction" procedures when Iraqi aircraft were flying against tankers in the gulf after the STARK was hit.
Posted by: dave rogers at January 27, 2004 09:16 PMWhile what Mr. Rogers says regarding the source of weapons in Iraq is technically correct, the U.S. played a large hand in seeing to it that such trades were possible and in many cases essentially gave (via means other than strict government-to-government trades) Iraq (a) the means to obtain or manufacture said items, or (b) the actual items themselves. The primary means of such activity was through the ever famous "dual use" items.
I misspoke in my earlier post when I said some of this information is available no farther away thatn your local library. One report is actually available on the internet, that I was able to find, and perhaps others. I would suggest reading this site: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/gao/nsi94098.htm
Poor AKMA's comment section is really no place for a lengthy political debate where the nuances of speech and reaction time are so unobtrusive.
-R
Posted by: Ryan Whitley at January 27, 2004 09:58 PM"While what Mr. Rogers says regarding the source of weapons in Iraq is technically correct, the U.S. played a large hand in seeing to it that such trades were possible and in many cases essentially gave (via means other than strict government-to-government trades) Iraq (a) the means to obtain or manufacture said items, or (b) the actual items themselves. The primary means of such activity was through the ever famous "dual use" items."
Well, this is bogus too. The US had very little role in the creation of the Iraqi military. Iraq possessed the means of obtaining its own military equipment on the open market by relying on their own oil wealth. Yes, the reference you point to indicates some quantity of "dual-use" material was allowed to be sold to Iraq by companies in the United States. While not exactly an example of shining American virtue, it hardly supports the contention:
"What weapons systems he DID have, WE GAVE HIM! I think it is astonishing how little our (average American) collective historical memories can hold. "
I think it's astonishing how much of some people's "historical memories" are little more than fantasies.
However, I believe the cited reference does support this contention:
"People want to believe one thing so badly that they are not above making up their own 'evidence'."