American in charge of Iraq Survey Group RESIGNS

[impostal22]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13822,1130344,00.html

"Tony Blair last night suffered a blow on the eve of the most testing week of his premiership when the US official at the helm of the hunt for Saddam's weapons of mass destruction asserted Iraq did not have large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons.

Resigning from his post after nine fruitless months in charge of the Iraq Survey Group he said he did not think there had been a large-scale weapons programme inside Iraq since 1991.

David Kay, a hardline CIA of ficial close to the Republicans also criticised President George Bush for failing to give him adequate support."

"Mr Blair has already shifted ground from saying he was absolutely confident that Saddam's weapons arsenal would be located to saying instead that evidence of weapons programmes would be found.

More recently on the BBC Frost programme he said he did not know if any weapons would be found."

[p8ntball1016]

Powell: Possible Iraq Had No Banned Arms


By GEORGE GEDDA, Associated Press Writer

TBLISI, Georgia - Secretary of State Colin Powell held out the possibility Saturday that prewar Iraq may not have possessed weapons of mass destruction.


Powell was asked about comments last week by David Kay, the outgoing leader of a U.S. weapons search team in Iraq, that he did not believe Iraq had large quantities of chemical or biological weapons.


"The answer to that question is, we don't know yet," Powell told reporters as he traveling to this former Soviet republic to attend the inauguration Sunday of President-elect Mikhail Saakashvili.


Powell acknowledged that the United States thought deposed leader Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) had banned weapons, but added, "We had questions that needed to

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040124/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq&cid=540&ncid=1478

[Thordic]

Who cares?

[Rebel46_99]

Looks like we have a "CB Wannabe" in our midst.....

[cphilip]

Again a distortion of what was already reported yesterday. The Guardian again spins a different slant AFTER it reads the story in other media...

He was fired actually. And replaced by another inspector Before this. I read that in yesterdays paper who it was! And one that has always doubted the level of WMD's in Iraq that might have still been there. But someone with a better reputation. Partly to bring some legitimacy to the investigation as it proceeds. So the real release was that he was fired by Bush and replaced with someone that people that doubt him will trust the findings of. A classy move really. Resigned was a way to save face I am sure. But in fact it was asked for. The replacement was annouced BEFORE the resignation was made public. So that story is totaly backwards or they deliberately left the important facts out. One or the other.

You need to read more and keep up with a lot more scources than just the Guardian so you can get a better handle on what the truth might be. You seem to always be behind and a little off target.

Oh and I love how they take a swipe at Blair. He had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!! LOL... thats so low its not worth repeating. Bush assigns that job not Blair. And really it has nothing to do with Blair. Not at all!

[Rooster]

We've already uncovered the biggest Weapon of Mass Destruction in Iraq, Sadam Hussian. No amount of liberal crying will change that.

[Flamebo]

Originally posted by Rooster
We've already uncoered the biggest Weapon of Mass Destruction in Iraq, Sadam Hussian. No amount of liberal crying will change that.

You are the most blindly conservative person in existance. I'm sure you make Rush proud.

[Rooster]

Rush is a weak drug adict, and he supports too many of the Rebulican party's liberal agendas. Its unfortunate the party must lower itself to those substandards in order to seem "compassionate".

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Rebel46_99
Looks like we have a "CB Wannabe" in our midst.....

ya...since posting an article that affects both sides of the political spectrum is a CB thing to do.

i'm really sick of being equated to CB, because CB was really really bad at defending his side. NOONE ever sided with him, and he got the hatred of most of the board.

people even went as far as to defend me when i was banned, which noone would have done for CB. why? because sometimes i have a good point, and don't resort to name calling and generalizing (a la rooster) or just "i'm right, you better believe me cuz..i'm right!" (a la CB). i tend to attempt to support myself with what i view as proof, but here's the key. I AM NOT THICKHEADED, so i AM openminded about anything i post. which again, is very UNLIKE CB.

so WTF is with the CB remarks? it's not like i throw my views out as THE views, and i certainly ALWAYS try to back them up. just cuz i lean much more left (yes, i do have more right feelings on some things), doesn't mean i'm like CB.

cphilip - i'll be much more careful next time i think to use the guardian as a source of accurate information, thanks.

[cphilip]

Good Idea Postal. The Guardian is a good place to stop over but often you then need to follow a few others and kind of meld them all together and notice the differences. Often you are tipped of to an issue by something like the Guardian but then you will see some very different slants when to go to try and read other takes on it.

Another interesting thing was when Kay came back he says he has ample evidence that WMD were moved to Syria before the start of the war. He seemed confident in his evidence. Which was turned over to this new guy (I keep forgetting his name). There is some speculation that this evidence will be presented but that Bush did not feel that people would believe it if it came from Kay. So they moved to this new guy who is a pronounced skeptic of the existence of them, but well thought of by both sides in this issue. So there is speculation that the move was to make certain the bearer of the news would be unbiased when he looked at the evidence and then would also be beyond reproach when it was presented. This is all speculation at this point. But its the rumor for the change. If this is the case then the evidence must be compelling enough for Bush to risk changing to present it. He must think its so compelling even this guy will have to conclude its true. Again... speculative rumors so I am not standing behind all this. Just have to wait and see.

[1stdeadeye]

Here is a picture from the Guardian. This is how they say Bush brought peace to the middle east:

[1stdeadeye]

Here is a picture from the Guardian. This is how they say Bush brought peace to the middle east:

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

That is some good stuff. 1DE

[impostal22]

phil- just to clear one thing up, i don't think he was fired. i'm pretty sure now that he actually did resign. i saw this article on cnn today : http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...kay/index.html

[cphilip]

Yea its hard to say for certain. I mean the reason I conclude he was more or less "Asked to resign" is they announced his retirement and sucessor BEFORE he came back off vacation and said then he said he resigned. I think they all wanted a change. However he was not pleased to be removed either way from what I am hearing. So if thats the case why would he resign? If he seem bitter about having to do so is what kind of bugs me a little about it... Kay is a bit of a eccentric guy anyway. He as done a few twist and turn abouts before this. I was a bit skeptical of his appointment in the first place really. I think everyone was.