February 28, 2008

In my wildest dreams, I never thought I would praise David Kay for anything. He has a long history of CIA involvement and implementing dirty tricks to de-stabilize governments and organizations.

In 1991, he got off the first plane of U.N. inspectors who were assigned to Iraq to rid that country of its weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Iraqis called foul and asked why a CIA operative was allowed to supervise the team. The U.S. scoffed at the allegations and Kay went to work. Today, however, it has been reported many times that Kay was at one time with the CIA, an accusation that no one attempts to deny.

Kay was ruthless with Iraq. He made statement-after-statement denigrating the government and calling them liars and further accusing them of harboring illegal weapons. A few years later, Kay was replaced.

When Bush began to squirm because not one gram of a WMD had been found, he made a team of 1,500 experts to go to Iraq and find the weapons. The person in charge was David Kay. Immediately, the word "plant" came to mind.

Kay went and Kay came back. He released his results and the aftermath should be have been devastating to the Bush administration: there were no WMD in Iraq and there probably had not been any since the early 1990s. He admitted that he and everybody else was duped. However, he maintained that the fault was with the CIA and not the administration. Kay said the Bush junta did not make anything up or coerce people into reporting dubious information, but relied on the intelligence data. I disagree with that assessment, but it still does not take away from Kay being objective about the search.

By 1995, Iraq had been telling the world for two years that it had no WMD and the U.S. negated this message and called the Iraqis "liars." Iraq put all its cards on the table, but nothing changed. Kay was interviewed extensively after his 2004 conclusions. One quote, in particular, stands out. He described the Iraqi attempt in 1995 at wanting to end the embargo and the Iraqi government’s openness in this manner: "They tried to come clean, but we wouldn’t believe them."

Those few words are powerful and hold many implications. The Iraqis destroyed the WMD with no fanfare and stated they were free of them. As Kay said, however, nobody believed them. If we go back in time, we see the period from 1992 to March 2003 was catastrophic for Iraq. Almost two million people died because of the severe embargo. An advanced Arab country was brought to its knees; the same country that boasted of the finest education and medical systems in the Middle East; the same country that held its female population in equal standing with the male segment. No one can put a price tag on the loss of pride.

Today, the Democrats are trying to nail Bush because of the lack of WMD. However, they are not innocent in dealing with the issue. Remember, during most of the 1990s, the U.S. had a Democratic administration. Very few congresspeople called for the cessation of the embargo or a realistic view of Iraq’s WMD. Former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, repeatedly harassed Iraq. In many interviews or press conferences, she mentioned the huge amount of WMD that Iraq possessed. Many of us remember the incident at Ohio State where she tried to sell the administration’s hard stance against Iraq and the students shouted her down with chants of "bullshit, bullshit." That was one of the few times she ever spoke to a crowd that was not handpicked. She never made that mistake again.

In December 1998, Clinton ordered the massive bombing of Iraq under the guise of destroying the supposed chemical weapons. People died and much damage occurred. However, no WMD were hit because there were none.

In other words, all the deaths because of the embargo, as well as the more than 1,000 Iraqis killed by U.S. bombs dropped from the "no-fly" zones in Iraq, and Clinton’s order to bomb in 1998, were caused because of lies. The Baghdad Observer, a former English-language publication of Iraq, in 1994 wrote an editorial called "The Big Lie." It described the classic method of turning the truth around by stating, "If you tell the biggest lie enough times, people then believe it."

Ironically, during the 1990s, one of the most outspoken people to address the situation who called for dialogue with Iraq and the cessation of the embargo was conservative Republican Jack Kemp. Few listened.

The Democrats have as much blood on their hands as the Republicans in the 12-year brutal treatment of Iraq from the 1991 military intervention until the 2003 invasion. Even after the knowledge that Iraq did not possess WMD, their messages were contradictory.

Prior to the New Hampshire primary in 2004, Jeremy Scahill of WBAI-FM Radio of New York asked some of the candidates about their former and current stands on the WMD issue. Of all the candidates, only Al Sharpton and Dennis Kucinich consistently called the WMD allegations into question. They were totally against any military intervention. The two front-runners, Kerry and Dean, jumped on the bandwagon late.

Let’s look at the "anti-war" candidate, Dean. On March 9, 2003, on Meet the Press, he stated, "I don’t want Saddam staying in power with control over those weapons of mass destruction. I want him to be disarmed." Just prior to the war, Dean maintained that Iraq possessed WMD, although he was against an invasion. Today, one would think Dean had questioned the accuracy of the WMD data all along, yet that is untrue.

The following is part of the transcript of a conversation Scahill had with Dean in New Hampshire:

Scahill: Governor Dean, why did you say in March 2003 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?

Dean: I thought he did.

Scahill: What intelligence did you base that on?

Dean: Talks with people who were knowledgeable, including a series of folks that work in the Clinton administration.

Scahill: Were you wrong?

Dean: Maybe. I don’t know. Probably not the best time to talk about it.

On October 9, 2002, Kerry spoke these words to the U.S. Senate: "According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons. Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles capable of delivering chemical and biological weapons."

Amy Goodman of WBAI-FM talked to Kerry at a campaign rally in New Hampshire. Here is part of the conversation:

Goodman: Senator Kerry, quick question. You said that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons when other nations wouldn’t try. What intelligence was that based on?

Kerry: I don’t know what report — I don’t know what you are talking about.

Goodman: You said Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear weapons.

Kerry: When did I say that? I don’t recall. I don’t know.

Goodman You said, "Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons?"

Kerry: Attempting to, because he did. He did attempt to.

Goodman: According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons.

Kerry: Say it again?

Goodman: You said, according to intelligence, Iraq has biological and chemical weapons.

Kerry: That’s what we were told. Right.

Goodman: Is that intelligence wrong? Do you think you made a wrong statement then. Because Kucinich at the time was saying no credible sources were there but you are saying …

Kerry: I’m sorry, we’re going to have to go …

At that time, Goodman was told by Kerry’s people to stop asking questions. She tried to bring up the issue after the event, but to no avail.

I find it quite incredible that after Colin Powell’s bogus presentations to the U.N. that U.S. congresspeople did not jump up at the lies. For some time, it appeared to be high comedy, although the results were not.

During the buildup to the March 2003 invasion, Powell showed a picture of a building and stated that nuclear weapons were being made there. A few hours later, the press released pictures of the inside of the building and toothbrushes were being manufactured. Powell showed a building with a roof and asked, "Why is there a roof on this building? What are they hiding?" When asked this question by a reporter, the plant manager replied, "There’s a roof to keep the wind, rain, and dust out. Why do any buildings have roofs?" Such imbecilic presentations were scrutinized by few in the government. The Secretary of State was lowered to the status of a delivery boy trying to sell snake oil. He made some of the most ridiculous statements, yet the Democrats remained silent.