More Kay.

Now that I'm back on as a television watcher..selectively, of course, I watched David Kay's testimony(?) before the Senate today.

In an almost painful to watch successful bid to remain neutral, Kay didn't lay blame on the Administration.

He suggested that an independent outside inquiry be formed to analyse intelligence failures.

From the segment I saw...the testimony was already in progress when I tuned in, no one on the Senate Armed Services Committee asked about Messrs. Powell and Rice. This is a glaring omission.

Secretary Powell on 24 February 2001 during a press conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister, Amre Moussa:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

What changed Powell's mind? Ambien? This question may never be answered. But it should, as thousands are now dead, and hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent over his flip-flop.

But Powell wasn't the only White House official that made a declaration that Iraq was weapons free.

On 29 July 2001, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made the following statements on CNN'S Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. In response to the question raised by guest host John King about the fact that Iraq had recently fired on US planes enforcing the "no-fly zones" in Iraq. Rice craftily responds:

Well, the president has made very clear that he considers Saddam Hussein to be a threat to his neighbors, a threat to security in the region, in fact a threat to international security more broadly.

It is noteworthy that she states that, "the president" considers Hussein a threat, not herself, not the U.S. intelligence community. Striking. King asks her about the UN sanctions, which, less face it, were really U.S. sanctions and she responds:

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

These statements need to be examined. Why is it that Bush considers Hussein a threat, when neither his Secretary of State, nor his National Security Adviser consider Iraq to be a threat.

I do not believe that we'll ever get acceptable answers to these very basic, and vitally important questions. Even an independent investigation may never ask these questions.

I simply want to know what caused both Powell and Rice to alter their stated position concerning Iraq. I believe that I know the answers, but I'll leave speculation to other commentators.

On Edit: You can watch David Kay's appearance before the Senate here