Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Anybody see it yesterday? Before I go on a rant, I'd like to hear from the peanut gallery whether Kay objective or just a shill for the Administration. I remember last week when he said there were no WMD in Iraq he was objective, but is he still?
|
I sense a clever trap. Nonetheless, I will seize the bait --
Nope, didn't see it; heard a few reports. But I have no reason to believe that Kay is not a relatively objective fellow without a political axe to grind. He has, throughout this process (even post-resignation) said that theis WMD stuff should not be a partisan political issue, and has never said word one critical of the Administration, except that "we were wrong".
What pieces of his testimony strike you as a revelation?
The facts that he now believes that there are no WMD stockpiles left, and that (per incomplete documents they've found) Hussein most likely destroyed what was left in and around 1995 (after Kamel defected), and that the Iraqi scientists then began to tell us the truth (i.e. they were destroyed) -- but the inspectors wouldn't believe them because there was no proof presented, and that there was no proof presented because Hussein wanted to keep things ambiguous?
The problem with anyone knowing this pre-War is that there is no way we could afford to believe or trust the scientists absent hard evidence while Hussein was in power. Which may, or may not, mean that the intelligence failure was inevitable.
S_A_M
