A bit of old news, but America’s chief weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay, resigned. He says it is unlikely that WMD will be found in Iraq:
“My summary view, based on what I’ve seen, is we’re very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons,” he said on National Public Radio’s “Weekend Edition.” “I don’t think they exist.”
Here it is, America’s hand picked guy, the man who replaced the U.N.’s Hans Blix as chief weapons inspector, telling the world that, more than likely, WMD does not exist in Iraq. Remember, Kay is the same guy who claimed that Iraq was planning to manufacture them:
In early October 2003:
“”At this point we have found substantial evidence of an intent of senior level Iraqi officials, including Saddam, to continue production at some future point in time of weapons of mass destruction,” David Kay told reporters Thursday after holding closed-door meetings with House and Senate committees to brief them on his work so far. ”
The Bush administration cited Iraq’s WMD program as an imminent threat, and was a significant reason for America to forgo U.N. approval for invasion. A central theme of “pre-emptive war” is to attack before you are attacked. How could Iraq attack us? We couldn’t be afraid of their army, of course. America feared WMD. Iraq’s WMD program had to be a major reason for forgoing U.N. approval. Even David Kay thought so:
“Asked if Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States at the time of the invasion, Kay said, “Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat.” ”
How could we be so wrong? Kay reminds us that the Clinton administration also believed that Iraq had a WMD program:
“”We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn’t change in the Bush administration,” Kay said. ”
Kay is very careful to shift accountability from the sitting president. Instead, the “intelligence community” is to blame. We have to wonder to whom the intelligence community is accountable. The Intelligence Community is an abstract concept. It comprises multiple government agencies in America and Britain and elsewhere.
Something has to change. The Intelligence Community needs reform. We also need to hold the heads of the various agencies that comprise this Community accountable for their actions. Clearly, the agencies failed to produce reliable information. Bush and his cabinet believed full heartedly that Iraq had WMD because the agencies on which they rely for this sort of information told him so. But this begs the question…
If Bush is the Boss, the Commander in Chief, and the buck stops there… Isn’t Bush accountable?
“Secretary of State Colin Powell defended the administration’s moves Sunday. “Military action was justified by Iraq’s violation of 12 years of U.N. resolutions,” he said in an interview with First Channel Russia during a visit to Moscow. ”
At what point does the Bush administration confess that this “justification” was based on misleading information? Good leadership is admitting when you’re wrong and fixing the problem as it stands. It would be symbolic of Bush’s leadership to admit he acted on bogus information.
Got to hand it to Tony Blair, though. He has his story and he’ll stick to it:
“Blair insisted his government was right to send troops into Iraq.
“There can be no doubt at all that those weapons existed, absolutely no doubt because that is said not just by this government or the United States government, it was set out in detail over 12 years by the United Nations and by United Nations inspectors,” Blair said…
“When they come up with their final report, then we can debate it,” Blair said. ”
OK. Can we hold you accountable, too?
Okay, how accountable is accountable enough? An impeachment? Imprisonment? A Democrat replacing President Bush in the White House and a more peace-loving (and America-hating) Prime Minister in England?
It’s also misleading to use the term misleading. Why can’t someone be simply wrong? And what happens if Saddam’s WMD’s turn up in, say, Syria? There’s a difference between having them and trying to get them: both are bad and both should be stopped. That’s why people get arrested just for trying to buy cocaine and prostitutes, not just for already having them.
Part of the Bush doctrine is preemption: act before a threat is imminent. And where, exactly, can you find any evidence of any administration official saying, “We are going to war with Iraq because it poses an imminent threat to this country.” You can’t, because nobody said it. There’s a difference between “Based on the intelligence that existed, I think it was reasonable to reach the conclusion that Iraq posed an imminent threat,” and, “There’s an imminent threat.”
The intelligence community has been going way way down since the focus moved from humint (human intelligence) to electronic surveillance starting in the 1970′s, among other things. There are people than can be held accountable, like CIA chief George Tenet, who already went on record admitting that the “uranium in Africa” claim was not substantiated enough to warrant inclusion in last year’s SOTU address.
Why wasn’t Kennedy impeached when Castro’s exploding cigar didn’t work? He was the C-in-C, wasn’t he? Wasn’t he in charge? The buck stopped with him, too.
I’d just like to see as much moral outrage about the mass graves, the flaunting of UN authority, and the sponsoring of terrorism that characterized pre-war Iraq as I do the lack of WMD’s and Halliburton contracts. I suppose it all boils down to where your focus is when it comes to apprehending current events: I’d like to see the Bush doctrine continue through the next four years (at least) because I feel that that’s the best way to prevent further terrorist attacks on our shores, so I focus on the positive things done so far.
Remember when Clinton bombed the baby aspirin factory? Was he in the wrong as well? He was given the same intelligence that was given to Bush. Bush acted in the defense of this country just as Clinton did in the past.
We know Saddam had WMD. He used them on his own people. This is well documented. There are films in Iraqi vaults of dogs being destroyed by variants of mustard gas.
Do we honestly feel that he had a sudden change of heart and gave them up for the good of the world? Nonsense. Saddam Hussein is aggressive and cold-blooded. He is a man who has no moral qualms about killing hundreds of men, women and children. He may have been ruthless, but he wasn’t stupid. The WMDs are either buried somewhere in the desert where only a select few know where they are or they were brought over the border into neighboring country when Hussein knew the invasion was imminent.
What do we do now? We keep searching until we find them. If we don’t, we’re liable to find them in a downtown city of our enemies choosing.
Clearly, Clinton and Bush and every other president had somebody killed somewhere for some reason and yes, they are accountable. There has to be a difference between bombing an asprin factory (where civilians got killed, yes indeed) and starting a pre-emptive war that costs over 87 billion dollars from start to finish and killing thousands of people based on bogus information.
I don’t think there is a difference between President Bush saying in the 2003 SOUA (or SOTU address) that Iraq sought uranium in Africa and declaring Iraq an imminent threat to the US. Of course the administration implied that Iraq is an imminent threat. I’ll search for a direct quote, but the intention is clearly there. And not just an imminent threat, an incredibly dangerous one where we could all be gassed or chemicaled or nuked or somesuch. Bush used WMD as a reason for pre-emptive war. There is no WMD, and even Kay doubts they exist. I want Bush to admit he was wrong. I also think he should be voted out of office. I would only advocate impeachment if it comes to light that he knew the information was bogus. Since I doubt Bush knew the information was bogus, there is no reason for impeachment. Yet.
Well, insofar as President Bush declaring an “imminent threat,” you won’t find any instance of him saying it. Not even implying it: the point is preemption.
Every time I see words like “bogus” and “misleading,” I usually end up finding a “Bush lied, people died” sign after it. Both of those terms claim deliberate prevarication on somebody’s part.
As for the 87 billion dollars, I’m sure that once Kerry or Edwards or some other rich collectivist sits in the Big Chair in the Oval Office, all those tax cuts for the wealthy will be repealed, and the army will be swimming in cash.
Josh, you are conveniently ignoring the past decade of useless UN resolutions and arms inspector reports that listed the large amounts of WMD that they (UN) stated that Iraq had. What happened to those WMD? Do you think Saddam destroyed them as required by the resolutions? If so, why didn’t he keep records of such destruction? If he was trying to comply with the resolutions to have the economic snactions lifted, don’t you think he would go that one little extra step of documentation? The most likely answer is that he did not destroy the WMD and they are probably buried in the sand somewhere in Syria. Why are Bush, Blair, and the CIA/NSA,etc. “accountable” for that? You are a bright, intelligent, and good person but I believe your objectivity is clouded by your desire for political change in the US. If a Democrat is elected this fall and we, as a nation have to fight in another country, I will support that President even if that nation isn’t an imminent threat. In my view, an imminent threat is one that is occurring too late to do anything about it. Do you really believe we as a nation should wait until we are just about to receive a “buckwheat” before we act? I think not.
As always, Mike, I appreciate your insightful comments (as I do Morgan’s and David’s etc. etc.). I don’t believe the WMD are buried in a sand dune somewhere. I believe Kay when he said “we’re very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons.” He was the Chief Weapons Guy. He’s saying the same thing Hans Blix said. So, I’ll go with them. My agreeing with Kay, however, is non-partisan. I believed Bush when he said Iraq had WMD. I now believe Bush was wrong.
I also have to profess ignorance on the term “buckwheat.” You use such colorful terms sometimes but I don’t know what getting a “buckwheat” means. I imagine it’s not good to get the buckwheat.
“Buckwheat” is a term from the movie “Things to Do in Denver when You’re Dead,” starring Christopher Walken and Andy Garcia.
A buckwheat is a form of murder that is especially painful to the victim. An example the movie provides is being shot in the rectum with a .22 pistol. You don’t die so much as contort and writhe for 30 minutes, and THEN you die. Jack Warden’s character says of it, “I imagine it’s like…crappin’ white-hot razor blades.”
The movie had many interesting expressions in it, including “mammyrammer,” “boat drinks,” and “I AM GOZILLA! YOU ARE JAPAN!”
I won’t bother explaining them all, as the movie’s worth watching. It evidently left quite an impression on Mike here. I will say, however, that it’s not been my experience that people in Denver, Colorado speak that way on a regular basis.
That’s because YOU’RE not DEAD! Ha ha ha!
thank you for the explanantion Davey. That being said, Josh…what do you think has happened to the WMD that the UN said Saddam had as of 1991?
Mike, please see my latest post. This requires a careful examination and I will devote some time to WMD and “imminent threat.”