Somehow this went just to the sender.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
His qualifications are not scientific ones that one would expect as an
inspector looking for nuclear weapons but he is well qualified as as a tool
of US interests. He certainly did help uncover weapons in the first series
of inspections but there is evidence he also served as a spy for the US and
provided intelligence to the US. If this doesnt matter to you I guess his
background doesnt matter either.
However, some people require at least the semblance of objectivity in
inspectors. As a former US mole within the UN and now as an inspector
explicitly hired by the US he will know where his interests lie. Even if he
does find alleged weapons of mass destruction his find will have little
credibility among those who require objectivity. But this may
not matter in the present political climate at least in the US. When a
president can justify the war in Iraq with speeches that contain a myriad of
lies perhaps it doesnt matter what Kay's background is. Even if something
is
found it is not likely that it will be some massive cache of WMD. Even Bush
now claims only that it is clear that Hussein had WMD programmes, a very
different claim than those he originally made. These claims can easily be
"verified" by someone adept at buying testimony from captured Iraqi
scientists. What is surprising is that so many scientists have refused to
"co-operate".
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=430101
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Cheers, Ken Hanly
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "PEN-L list" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 12:21 PM
Subject: Background of David Kay
>
> On 8/5/03, k hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> > Interesting that when it was announced that
> > David Kay . . . was hired . . . to look for weapons
> > in Iraq there is zilch about questionable parts
> > of his background . . . . [that] he has . . . no
> > training as a scientist . . . [and] admitted in
> > effect making a Faustian bargain with US
> > intelligence sources. He was fired by Blix and
> > consequently vilified him.
> > http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=
> 2728
>
> If he verifiably finds or meaningfully helps find
> whatever it is that also verifiably is confirmed to be
> "WMD" (however defined), what difference will his
> "backgound" have made? And to whatever if any exent
> that he will not have done this, why is it "[i]nteresting"
> what his "background" may be (WHATEVER his
> "background" is)?
>
>
>
