Thinking caps, please: A question re David Kay and WMD

[Eloriel]

Earlier this week it was reported that David Kay -- the SAIC / CIA operative who was sent to Iraq to find those darned, elusive WMD -- was saying there are no WMD. Most of us were sure he'd either find them or plant them, and in the intervening time the reports have been that he was accumulating some miles (literally, miles) of documentation about Iraq's WMD.

What's going on here?

Couple that with the ultra-bizarre (surreal, really) performance recently where the whole Bush admin inner circle (except Cheney) came out saying they never found evidence -- and never even said -- that there was a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It was very well orchestrated, and as I said surreal.

Then, if I'm not mistaken, Bush gave his UN speech and the only parts I caught (because I cannot force myself to pay attention to him -- simply can't) sounded like his first UN speech before the war. I thought I was in a time warp. He was saying stuff which had been so thoroughly debunked that the only people who still believe it are must've been in a coma the last 5 months or so.

What the hell is going on?

I'm especially interested in the David Kay part.

Eloriel

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. Simple answer:

Flailing.

[ewagner]

2. Now you've done it

I was trying desparately not to get paranoid about all the things you've mentioned, but it's nice to know that you've noticed the same things.

I keep thinking that Bush will drop the WMD bomb sometime before the election and all the info being leaked to the press (not by Kay mind you, but someone "close to the search) is just pure disinformation. Notice also that it was leaked in Great Britain first, not any mainstream sources here...all our sources picked it up from England.

Yes, I am paranoid about it because I always suspected that they would find some low level of WMDs like artillary shells with mustard gas, or VX but absolutely none of that was found with the operational units when they were overrun by our forces.

The only thing that keeps me from being absolutely convinced that this is some kind of trap is that it would be so obvious, that the public would almost laugh at it.

I'm trying to figure out precisely what piece of information is the key to determining what is really going on. Bush's arrogance or Kays leaks to the press? Repeating discredited lies or hints from "reliable sources"? What do you think is most accurate?

[Eloriel]

4. Me?

What do *I* think is most accurate?? LOL. If I had a clue I wouldn't be asking what other people thought.

And truth to tell, that UN speech and that week of honesty about Iraq and no 9-11 connection were so incredibly surreal to me that I might have questioned my own sanity if I weren't so sure of it (Some days, anyway).

Eloriel

[punpirate]

7. Kay's history...

... may be a clue. He's often referred to, erroneously, as the head inspector of UNSCOM (in fact, he was head inspector for one of the teams). He didn't leave UNSCOM voluntarily--he was asked to leave by Blix, I believe, but Blix has always been reticent to go into any details. The most generous view is that he was trading with the CIA, and Blix believed that would compromise UNSCOM's ability to deal with the Iraqis, because Iraqi intelligence would suspect CIA involvement.

The least generous view is that Kay was responsible for getting CIA members on the team, and that between them, were manufacturing claims for political purposes.

Without much evidence for it, my suspicion is that Kay has been a CIA civilian mole for a very long time. In 1991, it was to the CIA's liking to have information created out of whole cloth--it made the elder Bush look good. Now, it's quite the opposite. Both the CIA and the White House have had their collective butt in a crack because of manufactured evidence. Kay might have started out leaking left and right about what was likely to be found, but I think that was disinformation--the White House was hoping the reports of what Kay _expected_ to find would reduce the velocity of some of the shit flying around, especially if they hyped Kay's prior and _very_ brief experience as a UN inspector.

Based on a couple of reports about what was guarded and what was not in and around Baghdad after the US entered Baghdad, I think Kay's there for two quite different reasons: First, to try to assemble some plausible documentation that the Iraqis had continuing _programs_ for weapons development to help solidify the lastest official line, and second (and more importantly) to purge Iraqi records of any indication of American involvement in propping up Hussein through the `80s and into mid-1991.

Most everyone familiar with the Ba'athist government of Iraq (in both American intelligence and UNSCOM) knew that the Ministry of Information was the central repository for every piece of paper generated, every plan, every scheme, every purchase. If the avowed purpose of finding weapons was true, the US would have placed a very heavy guard on the building, and yet, they did not. One report even suggested that looters were hired to ransack some of the buildings.

I think the US and the CIA needed a plausible reason for Kay to be in Iraq--to be "the former UNSCOM inspector" looking for weapons, but, neither the White House nor the CIA counted on some people remembering the circumstances surrounding his departure from UNSCOM as an inspector. M'self, I think he's busily identifying records for destruction, rather than searching records for evidence of weapons.

Cheers.

[Solomon]

3. Thankyou El. This was bugging the hell out of me too.

What are they cooking up?

You know what though? Everytime they try something, it blows up in their faces doesn't it.

I think Bush is stuck like a pig now and every move he makes does nothing but sink him in the quicksand even more.

I try to tell myself that when I sense the bullshit coming.

[stevedeshazer]

5. Maybe it's just as simple as that

There aren't any. Bushco was crowing and preening over the discovery of these docs back in May, when everything was all shits and giggles for them. Now all the WMD evidence, what little there was anyway, has been thoroughly debunked. They probably concede that this dog won't hunt anymore.

[Hamlette]

6. get all the bad stuff out now

in advance of the election cycle then keep repeating the lies. The American public will buy it. They don't read the newspapers either.

??? Just a guess.

[Merlin]

8. I think David Kay gamed the WH

Kay, you remember, announced he was absolutely confident he'd find WMDs just 3 months ago. He was chomping at the bit to go over there and find them. I think he did that to position himself to be trusted by the Bushies, so they would order an official sweeping (1500 man) search and report. They did. Now they're suppressing the report. But the NYT got hold of it anyway and made it headline material yesterday.

Why would Kay do that? Why don't they plant WMDs? I think the answer to both questions is the same phenom. The Neocons have infuriated the CIA. They CIA wants their heads on a platter.

Remember, the Neos set up the Office of Strategic Plans (OSP) in the Pentagon, run by 2 dozen civilians with no intel background. The purpose of that outfit was to do an end run around the CIA. They mainlined Chalabi's phony "intelligence" directly to the JCS and the WH and NSC in order to legitimize the demonization of Hussein and the unilateral invasion. That was an outrage to the legitimate intelligence folks who knew the nonsense being foisted on the Congress, the press and the public was nothing but lies.

So the shrubbies can't plant WMDs now because they CIA would find a way to out them if they did it.

The level-headed pros in the CIA, just like the rational senior officers at the Pentagon knew in advance this thing would turn into a disaster. They said so at the time. People just didn't want to listen then. They're listening now.

[Cocoa]

9. I think they were bluffing

buying time, trying to scare the dems from criticizing Bush too much, maybe hoping for a lucky break like getting Saddam, or for things to cool down in Iraq or something.