Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
Not a trap at all. I just wanted to be sure that others also view him as objective.
His testimony is surely damaging to the Administration in that he concludes that there are no WMDs in Iraq.
But it is also helpful to the administration in that it directly contradicts the "Bush Lied/this War was 'concocted' in Texas for political gain" mantra. This was highlighted in Kay's exchange with Teddy. Teddy was trying to pin him down as to the aggressive of interpretation by the administration of the intelligence. Kay response was essentially that after reading the volumes of intelligence compiled over the 12 or so year period by the US and our allies, he believes that a reasonable person could not reach any other conclusion but that SH had WMDs. He also said that he believes that SH was a "serious and gathering threat" to the US and that the US and the world is far safer with him gone. He also went on to explain that, based on the absense of controls, the presence of al qaeda and other terrorists in the country, and the WMD knowledge of Iraqi scientists, proliferation was a serious risk.
|
Kay has slanted his prior reports and statements to play to the Administration's political interests. If he says something is a fact, I believe that it's a fact, but I take his characterizations of the facts with a hefty dose of salt. To use bilmore's terms, he spins everything in a pro-Administration way. Witness the gratuitous reference to Al Qaeda above.
eta:
For an example of how Kay hyped things, see
this post and
this one about reports of botulism found in Iraq.
