Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ghost
There simply is no justification for attacking Iraq. None. Zero. The reasons we were given ... WMDs, al Qaeda link, possible 9/11 connection, attempts to obtain nuclear material ... were all proven false in time.
|
David Kay (who's report I'm assuming you're going by) doesn't seem to think so.
Transcript of an interview with David Kay on the Today Show, being interviewed by Matt Lauer. This interview came after the report.
Lauer: "Is it true that in 2000 and 2001 Saddam was pushing his nuclear progarm?"
Kay: "
Yes, he was pushing hard for nuclear and long range missiles. Look, it's clear the man had the intent. He simply wasn't successful."
"He clearly lied to UN and was in material breach."
In a key moment in the interview, Lauer asked: "Based on everything you now know, was it prudent to go to war against Saddam?"
Kay: "It was absolutely prudent to go to war. The system was collapsing,
Iraq was a country with desire to develop WMDs,
and it was attracting terrorists like flies to honey."
Lauer: "Are your earlier comments being exploited for political reasons?"
"Inevitably yes, but what we have is a national security issue that shouldn't be exploited as a political issue."
Lauer: "Should we continue to search for WMDs as VP Cheney has suggested?
Kay: "Absolutely."