Kay Resigns - Says No Stockpiles in Iraq

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-31-2003
Kay Resigns - Says No Stockpiles in Iraq
26
Fri, 01-23-2004 - 5:17pm
Do you think he waited until after the State of the Union to step down? President Bush cited his last report in his speech on Tuesday. It seems Mr. Kay returned to the states for the holidays and no one has been able to convince him to return to Iraq. Typical of Washington, the bad news is sprung late on a friday, with the hopes it won't be noticed.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=578&u=/nm/20040123/ts_nm/iraq_usa_weapons_kay_dc&printer=1

Ex-U.S. Arms Hunter Kay Says No Stockpiles in Iraq



2 hours, 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - David Kay, who stepped down as leader of the U.S. hunt for weapons of mass destruction, said on Friday he does not believe there were any large stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons in Iraq (news - web sites).

"I don't think they existed," Kay told Reuters in a telephone interview. "What everyone was talking about is stockpiles produced after the end of the last (1991) Gulf War and I don't think there was a large-scale production program in the '90s," he said.

Kay said he believes most of what is going to be found in search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has been found and that hte hunt will become more difficult once America turns over governing the country to the Iraqis.

The United States went to war against Baghdad last year citing a threat from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. No actual banned arms have been found.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Fri, 01-30-2004 - 11:10am

>"ulitmately leading to the removal of the two top men at BBC News."<


Dyke casts doubt on Hutton report.


Greg Dyke has said Lord Hutton was "quite clearly wrong" on some points of law in his report.


The departing BBC director general told GMTV Alastair Campbell had been "ungracious" in the aftermath of the report.

Mr Dyke said he would be interested to know what other law lords might think of Lord Hutton's conclusions on the death of Dr David Kelly.

He said: "We were shocked it was so black and white."

"We knew mistakes had been made but we didn't believe they were only by us," he continued.

He said he agreed with departing BBC chairman Gavyn Davies that one could not "choose the referee" and had to accept his decision, but joked: "The government did choose the referee."


He added: "I would be interested in what a few other law lords, on looking at Hutton, thought of it.


"We have an opinion... there are points of law in there where he is quite clearly wrong. That doesn't mean to say he is wrong, that is an opinion."

Mr Dyke told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I think it is perfectly fair for you to draw the conclusion that I don't accept all of the report.

"Our legal team were all very surprised by the nature of the report.

"I think it was Stewart Purvis, the former chief executive of ITN, who said... it is remarkable how he has given the benefit of judgement to virtually everyone in the government and no-one in the BBC."

But Constitutional Affairs Secretary Lord Falconer told Today the Hutton report had been "fair".

"Lord Hutton has made a very thorough investigation into what happened and I think all of us have to reflect very carefully on what he has found."


Mr Dyke suggested the implications for journalism coming from the report were a matter of grave concern for the media.


"Lord Hutton does seem to suggest that it is not enough for a broadcaster or a newspaper... to simply report what a whistleblower says because they are an authoritative source. You have to demonstrate that it is true. That would change the law in this country."

He said he had had to offer his resignation after the report but had not wanted to go.

"I said I couldn't stay here if I haven't got the support of the governors."

Mr Dyke said there should be no more resignations at the BBC, insisting: "The crisis went away yesterday when I resigned, when the prime minister accepted that was the end of it."

The corporation had apologised before the report for a whole range of things and said one of the mistakes was not to launch an internal inquiry at the time of Mr Campbell's original complaint, Mr Dyke added.

"He was running a campaign to try to influence the BBC's coverage of the war. There was nothing wrong with that," he said.


But the former director general pointed out that a range of letters of complaint had been received at the time.


It would have been easy to think of it as "just another rant from Alastair Campbell".

Questioning "remarkable contradictions" between evidence given by the former Downing Street director of communications to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee and to Lord Hutton, Mr Dyke said: "He has been remarkably ungracious."

Mr Dyke also questioned Lord Hutton's conclusion that the MoD had properly cared for Dr Kelly, telling GMTV: "If that's showing a duty of care I'm glad I don't work there."

On the spontaneous demonstrations of support by BBC staff, Mr Dyke said it made him feel like a "mixture between a politician and Madonna".

His comments came as ministers stressed the importance of a BBC independent of government influence in the wake of Lord Hutton's criticisms of the corporation.

Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said: "A BBC that is nobody's lapdog, that challenges government and raises debate - that is in all our interests."








BBC crisis considered overseas



BBC correspondents in bureaux around the world look at what impact the highly critical Hutton report and subsequent resignation of the corporation's two senior officials has had on the reputation of the BBC.


More..............


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/3444797.stm



 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 01-30-2004 - 6:14pm
I believe in a truly free press, but unfortunately, this really does not exist. The BBC used to be one of the world leaders for news, and now they are a laughing stock, much as CNN is now, compared to what they were when they dominated cable news.

I worked in the field for over 15 years, and I can tell you that every news outlet has their little "twist" that they like to put on the news, especially political news.

<< At least the BBC had the courage to shed its leadership

I think they were forced to do so.

<< would that our elected officials had as much character.

I agree, Gov. Rowland should step down in CT, but he has learned from the master...... Bill Clinton should have resigned as President, but felt he was above the law as well. Nixon only resigned for the "good of the country", which means in political terms that he probably would have been impeached anyway.

Most politicians feel that they are beyond the "normal" laws of society in one way or another.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 01-30-2004 - 6:16pm
What did them in was the fact that several of the BBC's own reporters came forward to admit to many of the claims.

If it was a witch hunt, it was one from within.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Fri, 01-30-2004 - 6:22pm
Resignation is not the way the two top honchos of any corporation express righteous indignation. Dykes replacement immediately issued a full and unqualified apology. Try to spin this any way you want but the actions of the players speak far more truthfully than their words with which they are attempting to cover their a$$es.

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Fri, 01-30-2004 - 6:56pm
If you've been affiliated in any way with the press then you know that there's a big difference between "free", and "unbiased". A free press is one that actively engages in dialogue and debate--not one that acts as mouthpiece for the government. It's amusing that there are people taking pot shots at various media outlets because they're biased. No duh! Of course, even by choosing what to report on, any newspaper, magazine, website, or television broadcast, shows some degree of bias.

I was referring to the saber rattlers of this administration who quick stepped us into a war whose casus belli has proven to be nonexistent. If they were moral, they would admit error and offer apology and/or resignation. But I guess they do feel they're beyond the normal laws of society.

Gettingahandle

Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sun, 02-01-2004 - 11:30am
TO ALL:

When affixing blame, the question, “Who made the decision?” should be asked. Were all reports considered in a rational manner? We should not just point our finger at the intelligence community; the picture is not simple it is very complex. Where were the investigative reporters? The information wasn't missing--it just wasn't reported because no one wanted to appear unpatriotic.

____________________

February 1, 2004

Intelligence on the Eve of War



avid Kay, the former weapons inspector, gave the Bush administration some insulation last week against charges that it coerced or manipulated the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to justify an invasion. In Senate testimony, Mr. Kay placed the blame for overestimating Iraq's weapons capabilities squarely on the intelligence community and said he had seen no evidence that administration officials put pressure on analysts to come up with preconceived results. Yet there are reasons to go slow in accepting Mr. Kay's version as the full story of what happened in this intelligence debacle. Only a broad and truly independent investigation can unravel the roots of this colossal failure.

Mr. Kay based his exoneration of the administration on the fact that intelligence analysts who helped him in the search for illicit weapons in Iraq repeatedly apologized for being so far off base in their prewar estimates. Not a single analyst complained to him of any pressure being applied. That is an important insight from Mr. Kay but it is not dispositive. Kenneth Pollack, a Clinton administration national security official whose support for an invasion of Iraq was highly influential in the debate leading up to war, has done a lot of soul-searching over how he and others could have been so misled. In a recent magazine article, he, too, placed most of the blame on intelligence failures but, unlike Mr. Kay, he faulted the Bush administration as well.

In the months leading up to the war, Mr. Pollack says, he received numerous complaints from friends in the intelligence community that administration officials showed aggressive, negative reactions when presented with information that contradicted what they believed about Iraq. They allegedly subjected the analysts to barrages of questions, requests for more information and fights over the credibility of sources that passed beyond responsible oversight to become a form of pressure.

Analysts at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace have tracked what they consider a pronounced change in the tone of intelligence estimates, with those made before mid-2002 generally cautious and full of caveats and those thereafter much more alarmist. The shift suggests, they say, that pressure from policy makers led intelligence analysts to reach more threatening judgments about Iraq's weapons programs. David Kay told the Senate last week he is dubious that the break was really so sharp. This, too, is a dispute that requires impartial investigation.

Without doubt the most important intelligence document leading up to the invasion was a National Intelligence Estimate hastily assembled and presented to Congress shortly before the vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. This document contended that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons in hand, as well as active programs to enhance its capabilities in all areas.

This pivotal analysis is striking for the way it minimizes dissenting views on Iraq's capabilities. The estimate cites Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength aluminum tubes as compelling evidence that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. The declassified version issued at the time fails to mention that the Energy Department, the government's leading source of expertise, thought the tubes unfit for that purpose. The estimate warns ominously that Iraq was developing drone aircraft that were probably intended to deliver biological agents and could even threaten the American homeland. That view was disputed by Air Force intelligence, the chief source of expertise on drones, which thought the drones were primarily for reconnaissance. These were no minor dissents. These were the agencies most qualified to judge.

Also left unexplained was how the estimate's authors could conclude that Iraq was continuing and expanding its chemical weapons programs when a Defense Intelligence Agency report had just acknowledged that "there is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." In these and other respects, the information on which Congress based its war vote seems out of kilter with the government's own most expert opinions. The great unanswered question is whether this was wholly the work of top intelligence officials or was the result of pressure from above.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/opinion/01SUN1.html

See also Maureen Dowd’s column: The Mirror Has Two

"The moral of Vietnam was supposed to be that we would never again go to war without understanding the culture of our antagonists, or exaggerate their threat to us."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/01/opinion/01DOWD.html

Pages