open Democracy News Analysis - Once started, - Comments

TimLFrancis on "Once started"

TimLFrancis — Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:37:17 +0000

Ron, I will bite. > function of when the “truth” became known. What is in > contention here is the intellectual consistency of > believing such weapons in Saddam’s hands - from which > they might slip at any moment to terrorists - was an > urgent cause for war in the first quarter of 2003, > yet having invaded, and failed to secure those > weapons, maintaining we are surely somehow safer. > > To put it another way (since kff is consistent only > in avoiding facing up to the dilemma), where is the > honesty in a professed high level of concern > (justifying invasion!) for those weapons before the > war, yet, after the invasion (Bush and Co. having > failed to secure weapons still firmly represented to > be there, somewhere!) projecting a steady and > measured admiration for an administration whose > actions have manifestly thrown those weapons up to > the winds of war and the malice and greed of our > enemies. Two answers. First, I am not so sure the issue of WMD in isolation was an "urgent cause for war," even though politicians in Britain, Australia and Britain professed so to the media and thus the people of their countries and the world as a whole. Clearly, the decision to go to the UN in August 2002 was an attempt to gain international support for the Bush administration's decision that the status quo in the Middle East was untenable after 9/11. Iraq was an easier target than Iran, a fellow revisionist state, and there were clear strategic reasons (chronic instability, pre-existing undeclared war with the US re no-fly zones, breaking the logjam of Arab intransigence regarding Israel) for getting rid of Saddam. Why the administration did not make this clear is beyond me. Instead, they took the UN route, got sidetracked into the WMD fiasco and have suffered ever since, in particular because they then belatedly tried to make the strategic argument that they should have adopted in the first place. The September 2002 National Security Strategy policy document clearly indicates the U.S. is now a revolutionary state. It would have been better to make that more clear. Second, as to the claim of being "safer" when Iraqi WMD's are either missing or hidden or non-existent and thus unknowable, I personally believe this can be put in the "it is an election year" column. Brought up by Kerry and pounded on by his political enemies, Bush was forced to make it a centerpiece of his stump speeches. I think it as simple as the fact that politicians in representative democracies almost always obfuscate the truth to get re-elected. Heck, Athenian politicians fibbed as much as this as well, and pretty much everyone in between. On the other hand, making the "safer" argument does not have to reference WMD, which clearly we now know is no longer as important, primarily because the regime is gone and no stocks were discovered. The last time WMD clearly mattered was when the US military spent countless millions of dollars on chemical WMD defensive gear and systems to protect Coalition forces in the Arabian Gulf and Kuwait. Believe me, I watched some of that and it was no joke. The worry was very real. What no one realized was the incompetence and self-interested lying carried out by Saddam's regime and thus WMD proved a hollow tiger. And has been ever since. Tim

David Wood on "Once started"

David Wood — Thu, 04 Nov 2004 10:17:50 +0000

I am disappointed but not surprised that some people are still insisting that Saddam Hussein had any meaningful links to Al-Qaeda. Hussein's secular dictatorship was opposed by Bin Laden. The only significant connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda (and even these are tenuous - in that one group previsouly a rival to Bin Laden's has apparently pledged support to him) has happened since the US invasion. Whatever terrible things Saddam did (and there are plenty of those), I find this retrospective, 'let's pin everything on Saddam because we've got him and not Bin Laden' rather sad and reminiscent of the tactics used by some police forces when trying to clear up unsolved crimes by pinning them on someone they happen to have arrested for other things. Look, even the current US administration no longer claims a link, and only a conspiratorially-minded extremists continue to plug this claim in the face of all the evidence. What is the point of flogging this dead horse? Just because you can't admit you were wrong about one small thing?

jmiddleton on "Once started"

jmiddleton — Wed, 03 Nov 2004 21:08:33 +0000

Brolly, Do you think 1100 is a lot? Compared to what? 3000? How does this compare to the number of casualties suffered by the US and its allies in peace time? Americans greatly value the sacrifice and service of its soldiers, but we are not afraid of this. See, we re-elected GW!

jmiddleton on "Once started"

jmiddleton — Wed, 03 Nov 2004 21:00:57 +0000

Capfka, Did they "have to" move those 850 troops? Who is filling in at Basra? Or is Basra now stable with Iraqi forces?

brolly2_1 on "Once started"

brolly2_1 — Sat, 23 Oct 2004 20:38:36 +0100

jmiddleton, Not exactly pinned down when they move about in tanks and armoured cars but certainly not able to move about freely on foot without being in mortal danger. In this sense they are pinned down. So what conclusion can we draw - they are not wanted, its as simple as that. Any argument to the contrary is flying in the face of the facts - nearly 1100 killed.

Capfka on "Once started"

Capfka — Sat, 23 Oct 2004 16:56:31 +0100

Since I have no concept of how US troops are deployed in Iraq I can't argue with you, jmiddleton, except ... except ... why do the Brits have to move 850 troops from the Black Watch regiment to Baghdad from Basra so that there will be sufficient US forces available to re-retake Falluja? Are all the other US troops in Iraq just cooks, cleaners and builders? Oh, of course, and reservist, untrained prison guards.

jmiddleton on "Once started"

jmiddleton — Sat, 23 Oct 2004 15:08:39 +0100

US troops "pinned down in Iraq?" You can't really believe that? Most troops are there for re-construction, not for combat operations.

brolly2_1 on "Once started"

brolly2_1 — Mon, 18 Oct 2004 23:39:29 +0100

ronr327, ["Owly, I invite you to comment on the particular matter under discussion here".] You'll be lucky if owly and KFF respond to your salient point as they never have done in the past for obvious reasons.If on the other hand they do, expect some more of their waffle.

ronr327 on "Once started"

ronr327 — Mon, 18 Oct 2004 01:25:34 +0100

Owly, I don’t believe I have pronounced on this at all on this thread. What is in contention, in my contribution to this particular thread, is not the truth or falsity of the evidence over Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, or even the provenance of this or that action as a function of when the “truth” became known. What is in contention here is the intellectual consistency of believing such weapons in Saddam’s hands - from which they might slip at any moment to terrorists - was an urgent cause for war in the first quarter of 2003, yet having invaded, and failed to secure those weapons, maintaining we are surely somehow safer. After all, if it is believed those weapons are still there, beyond our knowledge and control, in a volatile and dangerous environment, it simply cannot be a “slam dunk” that we are safer. To put it another way (since kff is consistent only in avoiding facing up to the dilemma), where is the honesty in a professed high level of concern (justifying invasion!) for those weapons before the war, yet, after the invasion (Bush and Co. having failed to secure weapons still firmly represented to be there, somewhere!) projecting a steady and measured admiration for an administration whose actions have manifestly thrown those weapons up to the winds of war and the malice and greed of our enemies. Owly, I invite you to comment on the particular matter under discussion here.

brolly2_1 on "Once started"

brolly2_1 — Sun, 17 Oct 2004 00:51:29 +0100

KFF and 'sidekick' owly, (or as he was known in his former incarnation, 'wyselowl') There are a couple of simple questions that I will put to both of the above: Why did the US and the UK not allow Dr Blix the extra few months that he said he needed to show one way or another the answer to the question of the missing WMD? What was the point of agreeing to inspections and then preventing the chief Inspector from fulfilling his brief? I know the answer and so does almost everyone else (with a few exceptions ). The Bush administration was going to invade Iraq whatever the evidence that was found and, as it turned out to be, not found. The enormous anger felt in the UK for both Bush and Blair ( apart from Owly, who is quite the reactionary - I suspect he is a Likudnik) is because people felt that the UN was misused. Bush made a gesture to Colin Powell and Blair by going to the UN and was probably persuaded by Blair that he (Blair) would get the necessary Second Resolution. Blair was quite desperate to get this resolution as he knew an invasion would be illegal and at the time his cabinet ministers were speaking about 'going flat out' to get one passed. This suggests that Blair was advised that an invasion without a Second Resolution authorising the use of force, was necessary.Why go 'flat out' if an invasion was legal under the First Resolution? There is no doubt that the Attorney General was persuaded to change his opinion when it was realised that the second Resolution would not be obtained and that Bush was going to proceed anyway. Blair needed to save his own bacon and the Attorney General came to his rescue. Blair has refused despite numerous requests, to publish the FULL opinion given to him on this issue. It now is revealed that three ( not one as was formerly stated) Foreign Office legal advisers resigned because they believed the invasion was illegal. As for the probable response that the UN Inspectors would never have found out the true situation, this is a laugh because the Iraqi Survey Team proceeded to follow up much of the work of Blix and found nothing either, even though they had the absolute run of the country. The so-called 'Slam Dunk' evidence was not fully offered to Blix, who complained that he was not being given the assistance he expected from the CIA to establish the validity of this 'evidence' What he was given he found to be completely useless and did not show anything of significance. There has been an argument that if the UN Inspections had carried on and then terminated on the basis that nothing incriminating had been found, that this would have allowed Saddam to reconstitute his WMD programme at some later time.This does not follow, as there was nothing to stop the sanctions being applied with renewed vigour on the technical front. There were only a few sources that could supply the material needed for making a nuclear bomb and these were known.The fact is that containment had worked and that there was no strong and compelling evidence to the contrary. The neoconseravtive influenced Bush was determined to invade Iraq and the irony is that Iran, which is far more likely to get nuclear weapons, is now probably pursuing that goal while 90% of active US troops are pinned down in Iraq. Furthermore the US has got the problem of how to deal with Iran and the conquest of Iraq, has not in any discernible way stopped the prospect of nuclear proliferation. There is ample evidence that Colonel Gadaffi was intending to give up his pursuit of nuclear weapons capability, long before the invasion of Iraq. The Likudite neoconservatives had one particular goal in mind and that was to destroy Israel’s most obvious enemy, Saddam Hussein, and they together with the Administration’s oilmen, found common cause in instigating the invasion plan. During the lead up to the war and possibly after, the Pakistani scientist Ahmad Khan, was selling nuclear components and know-how to another so-called ‘axis of evil’ country, North Korea and also to Libya. Here is the perfect example of how the neoconservative obsession with Iraq, let some nuclear cats out of the bag. Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1

owly on "Once started"

owly — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 11:45:40 +0100

This is a repeat of a discussion elsewhere. KFF is quite correct in what he has said, and ron & his sidekick brolly are wrong. What matters is not the rantings of these two or anyone else in the media etc etc etc. It matters not what anyone says before a Select Committee AFTER the event: it is what goes on BEFORE that is of importance. The nub of all of this is what was in briefing papers presented to Ministers and upon which they reached a judgement. Much as I hate Tony Blair, had I been presented with the briefing papers he had I would have had no choice but to assume that Saddam still retained WMD. You can read much of this material in the Butler Report. What ron, brolly et al are doing is saying 'we know Saddam did not have WMD before the war', when in reality as KFF points out all the evidence then available said he did and they 'knew' no such thing. They 'assumed' and that is not the samething. Any Minister taking their advice would have been guilty of a gross breach of duty. The Blix report listed a large amount of material which was still outstanding. Are they saying that Blix was a liar ? Are they saying this material never existed, when we know and Saddam knew it had existed ? It was not for the West, UN or anyone else to prove that Saddam retained this material (its existance was an established fact): it was for Saddam to prove he did not. For reasons only he can explain this he singluarly failed to do. The material may have been sent to Syria, but we need to discover what has become of it and explain this. I have no real knowledge of the situation in the US, so my remarks and comments are based upon what has occured in the UK. What is clear is that the intelligence was not 'dodgy' or wrong as ron says. The intelligence produced by SIS through the JIC said that information on Saddam's WMD was 'sporadic and patchy'. That was spot on. All we knew for certain was that Saddam had x, y & z, but if he was producing more material we could not say. What Blair did was to take 'sporadic & patchy' and turn it into 'detailed and authorative'. It was no such thing. He has yet to explain how the intelligence services 'qualified uncertainties became his unqualified certainties'. This he has failed to do.

ronr327 on "Once started"

ronr327 — Sat, 16 Oct 2004 06:59:05 +0100

kff, Exchange: A sloppy and rather cheap shot, ron. My confusion was with your question, not with the situation in Iraq. “Do you suppose your “confusion” over the elephant’s presence carried any credibility?” Credibility is earned, ron, and so far you are scoring below 50th percentile.”> I am quite content to let the readers consider the record as it stands. And, of course, what immediately follows invites them to judge your own credibility: In a word, ‘no’. As I said in a previous post, before the Iraq invasion of 2003, most observers believed Saddam had CBNR weapons in his possession. Those in this consensus included the intelligence services of Russia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Britain, Australia, etc. Also in accord were the Senate intelligence committee, and John Kerry. Go back to my original post and you can read Kerry’s own words. Or simply do a search on Kerry and October 9 and speech. As with your credibility, your score is subpar on research. It is dishonest (or uninformed) to accuse President Bush of incompetence or inaccuracy before the invasion. It is also a failure of basic logic. Most believed Saddam had CBNR weapons before mid-2003. “having failed to secure them, insisting to the American people that the Iraq war – urgently required on the basis of those weapons – has made us safer? It certainly can’t be a “slam dunk” that we are safer.” We are safer in terms of the threat posed by the Hussein regime, its ongoing series of attacks on the U.S. at home and abroad, and its massive procurement efforts across the range of weapons systems. That much should be very clear, even to one such as yourself.” What I wrote was: So then, hasn’t the President been either blind (incompetent?), or blatantly deceptive, by insisting he believed those weapons existed, but, having failed to secure them, insisting to the American people that the Iraq war – urgently required on the basis of those weapons – has made us safer? You elide the “but”! Cleaver? Maybe, but credible? You quite alter the sense of my question, which you proceed to “rebut” as two fragments in isolation. Credibility, thy name is kff.! A splendid demonstration of “method”. And, of course, you continue to avoid the embarassment of your position. As for the Kay/Syria matter. His testimony continues to be of great interest, offering things to both sides of the contention over WMD’s and Iraq. On weapons in Syria, I offer this from Kay’ s testimony before the U.S. Congress, Wednesday January 28, 2004: Sen. Ben Nelson: All right. You know, you’ve indicated that you found no evidence of existing stockpiles of WMDs. Is it possible that they found their way to Syria? Is there any way of knowing whether they found their way to Syria or to another location? Mr. Kay: In terms of possibility, I mean, you can’t rule out anything. The way I tried to direct our activities— I knew we were not going to get permission to conduct inspections in Syria, as much as I would professionally and personally have enjoyed it. I also knew that the intelligence we collected, that showed movement of material across the Iraq-Syrian border, didn’t show what was in the containers. So you try to answer that question by saying, “Was there something to be moved back across the border?” Look at production capability. It’s totally inadequate for saying, “Did they move small amounts? Did they move technology? Did they move documentation?” Absolutely possible. I would say probable. But my personal belief is that they did not move large stockpiles, because I do not believe they had reconstituted a capability that had produced large stockpiles. So that’s how you get at it. Is it inadequate? Yeah. Will it probably always remain as an— Unless the Syrian regime, you know, really changes course. Will it always remain uncertain? Yeah. Sen. Ben Nelson: Is it a basic assumption on your part? Or a suspicion that’s based on the evidence, that you said, movement of certain undefined, non-inspected containers, or other activity, that took things across the border? Mr. Kay: My belief that they did not move large stockpiles of WMD to Syria is based on my conclusion that there were not large stockpiles to move. My assumption that it might have been something else is there was so much movement that you just can’t rule out what was there. I don’t know. Sen. Ben Nelson: Well, is it fair to say that the people who were in charge of the weapons of mass destruction activity probably were better informed about how to secret it than those who decided to bury airplanes? Mr. Kay: {Chuckles} One makes that assumption. Sen. Ben Nelson: I would think so. Mr. Kay: Now, I, and, as you know, I also have to say, that the people most likely to have been involved in this movement were the people in the intelligence services and around Uday and Qusay. And fortunately for the world, Uday and Qusay are no longer around to give evidence. And a lot of those intelligence agents are either now dead or they’re in opposition to the U.S. and not available for ISG. So, there is a limited circle of people who probably had firsthand knowledge about moving it. And here’s how we get to irreducible uncertainty. They’re dying. Not soon enough, in my view. But they are dying. Sen. Ben Nelson: Well, Dr. Kay, I appreciate very much, as I say, your candor. And I, I totally agree with you that an outside body investigating and {p.43} looking into this intelligence credibility issue is important. Certainly, it’s, it’s absolutely critical to the first-strike doctrine, which has to be on the basis of what you know — not what you think you know. And I appreciate your candor with respect to that as well. I’m certain that that’s not always an easy thing, to be able to take a position that strong. But I do appreciate that you’ve done that. Mr. Kay: Thank you. Sen. Ben Nelson: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Complete transcript can be found at: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/davidkay-sasc-20040128.html As for Kay as a whole, I sense a real strain between his protestations of support for the administration’s course, and his damning, not just of the intelligence, but of what he represents as a clear dereliction of duty by the administration in weighing and judging that intelligence - as the conclusion of the C&EN piece I alluded to demonstrates [Beginning with the question: “C&EN: Why, after you resigned, did you say ISG needed to continue its work even though you believed it wouldn't find weapons?”] I again direct the reader’s attention to it: http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8231/8231kay.html Message was edited by: ronr327

KillForFreedom on "Once started"

KillForFreedom — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 23:06:19 +0100
"It's amazing that KFF is still involved in 'flogging a dead horse'. It is abundantly clear to anyone with a brain bigger than a walnut, that Saddam Hussein was a busted flush from the WMD point of view, long before the war started." It is abundantly clear that you ignore any fact that does not comport with your view. If Iraqi possession of WMD was disproven long before the war started, why did the UN inspectors, who were on the ground in Iraq up to that point believe he was hiding WMD? Why did John Kerry agree with this assessment? Why did the intelligence agencies of most major powers agree? Why did the UN security council pass resolution 1441, which you can read here: http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/scres/2002/res1441e.pdf Resolution 1441 states in part, "Recognizing the threat Iraq's non-compliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security," "Deploring the fact that Iraq has not provided an accuate, full, final and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles . . . as well as all other nuclear programmes, . . ." You are the one flogging the dead horse, brolly, the broken nag that is the argument that Bush could or should have 'known' that Iraq had no WMD. The UN Security Council even disagrees with you. Imagine that. "The BBC is to put out a series of three documentaries in the next week or so, which deals with 'The Terror Myth'." Ah, this must be that same BBC that apologized to the Blair government for falsifying the reports of David Kelly, leading to his suicide. More propaganda from the chief of anti-war propagandists. We'll see what they have to say when medical waste is detonated in London or Birmingham. Was the fear of terror in Madrid misplaced? I think not. "Much of the currently perceived threat from international terrorism, the series argues, "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media." The series' explanation for this is even bolder: "In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power." Tell that to those who died in Madrid and Georgia, or those that narrowly escaped chemical extermination in Jordan a couple of months ago. "I agree with the views expressed in the article and with the programmes producer; the 'War on terror' as far as WMD are concerned is largely an exaggeration on the part of the politicians." And of course you would. But to retain this view, you must continue to ignore the facts that any objective observer can see. Go to it, it seems par for your course.

brolly2_1 on "Once started"

brolly2_1 — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:23:56 +0100
It's amazing that KFF is still involved in 'flogging a dead horse'. It is abundantly clear to anyone with a brain bigger than a walnut, that Saddam Hussein was a busted flush from the WMD point of view, long before the war started. The story that was put about that his son-in-law, when he fled to Jordan had said that Saddam had WMD, did not quote an essential element and that was that he said that the possession of the WMD was prior to the early 1990's and not after. This deliberate omission has been made countless times and is typical of those that will never give up on the false WMD trail. The BBC is to put out a series of three documentaries in the next week or so, which deals with 'The Terror Myth'. I have copied an extract from an article on this programme, which can be found at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/0,6957,178327,00.html "Much of the currently perceived threat from international terrorism, the series argues, "is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned through governments around the world, the security services, and the international media." The series' explanation for this is even bolder: "In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power." I agree with the views expressed in the article and with the programmes producer; the 'War on terror' as far as WMD are concerned is largely an exaggeration on the part of the politicians. That is not to say that detonating bombs occassionally is not an aim of some extremists operating in small cells.But that is pretty much the extent of it. The article explains the reasons for the perpetuation of the 'terror myth' and people like KFF have the effect of a broken gramaphone needle, that goes on repeating the same old bit of a tune. Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1 Message was edited by: brolly2_1

KillForFreedom on "Once started"

KillForFreedom — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 14:37:10 +0100
ronr, “http://democrats.com/view2.cfm?id=19102 ” This article deserves more than casual comment. What is required is a comparison of Risen/NY Times’ spin vs. David Kay’s actual words in his various interviews. I will leave that for another post. Suffice to say at this point, the NY Times is a MUCH less than reliable source. All the news that’s fit to spin. I would have thought the Jason Blair and Dan Rather scandals would have taught you to read with a more skeptical eye. “Confused? An elephant in your living room can have that effect.” A sloppy and rather cheap shot, ron. My confusion was with your question, not with the situation in Iraq. “Do you suppose your “confusion” over the elephant’s presence carried any credibility?” Credibility is earned, ron, and so far you are scoring below 50th percentile. “So then, hasn’t the President been either blind (incompetent?), or blatantly deceptive, by insisting he believed those weapons existed,” In a word, ‘no’. As I said in a previous post, before the Iraq invasion of 2003, most observers believed Saddam had CBNR weapons in his possession. Those in this consensus included the intelligence services of Russia, Czech Republic, Egypt, Britain, Australia, etc. Also in accord were the Senate intelligence committee, and John Kerry. Go back to my original post and you can read Kerry’s own words. Or simply do a search on Kerry and October 9 and speech. As with your credibility, your score is subpar on research. It is dishonest (or uninformed) to accuse President Bush of incompetence or inaccuracy before the invasion. It is also a failure of basic logic. Most believed Saddam had CBNR weapons before mid-2003. “having failed to secure them, insisting to the American people that the Iraq war – urgently required on the basis of those weapons – has made us safer? It certainly can’t be a “slam dunk” that we are safer.” We are safer in terms of the threat posed by the Hussein regime, its ongoing series of attacks on the U.S. at home and abroad, and its massive procurement efforts across the range of weapons systems. That much should be very clear, even to one such as yourself. “Perhaps the President has now accepted the absence of those weapons so he can claim to have made us safer without so frightening a matter left twisting in the wind. But then you still believe in those weapons.” Chuckle. There are beliefs/speculation and there are facts. I BELIEVE that President Bush has ‘accepted that there were no weapons found in Iraq’ to remove some of the force of his opponent’s rhetoric. The FACTS are that such weapons were found in Iraq, just not in the quantities expected. One can speculate as to the reasons for this, and there are many possibilities. They may have been destroyed. They may still be hidden in the sand (remember when ISG pulled an entire fighter aircraft out of a sand dune)? They may have been, as David Kay has indicated, transported out of Iraq to other countries, such as Syria. In one interview, Kay provided the detailed locations where he believed they were stored in Syria. “Where did your urgency go?” My urgency has been reduced by the active policies of the Bush administration. Al Qaeda is on the run, Afghanistan is a democratic republic, and Iraq will be in January as well. Solid progress, thus the urgency, in comparison to January 2003, is reduced. “No indignation at an administration which ignores so critical a question?” No, rather a great deal of respect for an administration that dealt with the urgent threat of the Hussein regime, the Taliban regime, and al Qaeda. The work continues. No one is ignoring any of these threats. You are ignoring the work that the administration continues to pursue at great cost in American lives and treasure. “I will freely concede you have good documentation for your David Kay claim, and so I apologize for my aspersion, but - for the moment - only in this particular instance.” Well, then, a limited thank you is deserved. “But I find this bit of business concerning Kay more than a little puzzling. The source for Kay’s Syria contention is Telegraph piece you cite. All references I could discover seem to circle back to that. A day or two later, in the New York Times [ http://democrats.com/view2.cfm?id=19102 ], he appeared to undercut most of what is found in the Telegraph, although the matter is not pursued in any depth” This appearance results precisely because the NY Times has become a tool of the left propagandists. Really has been for some time. “Dr. Kay said there was also no conclusive evidence that Iraq had moved any unconventional weapons to Syria, as some Bush administration officials have suggested. He said there had been persistent reports from Iraqis saying they or someone they knew had seen cargo being moved across the border, but there is no proof that such movements involved weapons materials.” Were they shipping food? Clothing? What was the explanation for this sudden ramp in heavy trucks crossing that border? Again, this was one of many possible explanations. More important, it has no impact on Bush’s original reasoning for taking down the Hussein regime. To repeat, you cannot logically indict Bush for decisions he made in 2002/early 2003 based on what he could not have known at that time, especially when most agreed that Hussein had CBNR weapons capability before the invasion. “The curious thing is that he never seems to have returned to the Telegraph contentions. Many months later, in August of 2004, he gave an extensive interview in Chemical and Engineering News: [ http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/8231/8231kay.html ] There is no mention of WMD’s and Syria there, although it is quite a broad and in depth discussion. Given Kay’s clear concern for the whole question of WMD’s, that is strange indeed. Note especially the conclusion of the piece, beginning with the C&EN question: “C&EN: Why, after you resigned, did you say ISG needed to continue its work even though you believed it wouldn't find weapons?” I would also note that Kay’s own words in the C&EN interview show that Bush was neither incompetent nor lying before the war: “Almost all those inspectors who spoke out before the war believed that Iraq had WMD, whether they were currently involved with inspections or had been involved in the past. As is true among scientists, the inspection community--and there were not that many inspectors--had an informal contact network that kept us all informed of what was being unearthed. And I think most inspectors were of the opinion that the evidence indicated that Saddam was still hiding something.” “ That is indeed the persona you have projected (at least recently), but such measured calm, in light of the: “Yes very much” just elicited, rings hollow, more evasion (or denial?) than "objective".” In comparison to earlier postings, my persona has shifted. There is a reason for this. When I first began to participate in OpenDemocracy, based on its charter, I expected a reasoned exchange of ideas. I found the nastiness and emotionality here VERY frustrating. Despite my continuing disappointment in this regard (which your most recent post does nothing to dispel) I now endeavor to remain objective.

Once started,

KappNets — Thu, 07 Oct 2004 16:00:31 +0100
It is interesting to find that half of American people still support Mr Bushs war while as polls show, the majority in other countries seems to support Mr Kerry. Odd contrast. Where does the difference come from? There could be two objective reasons. One is that once the war started, you cannot simply quit. In other words, while America is the player, the rest are arbiters. Mr Bush accused Mr. Kerry of "proposing policies and doctrines that would weaken America and make the world more dangerous." His major point is to avoid to discuss the righteousness of the Iraq war, but that he cannot simply quit the war even if the prospect is not bright. He must win and make Iraq a prosperous country, however costly. Read the rest of this post...
read more