It is a rare instance when the correction of a major factual error in a story actually helps make the case laid out by said story stronger. But my story questioning the credibility of David Kay got a major boost from the detection of an error.

When one hears of a "chief weapons inspector" whose specialty is nuclear arms, whose responsibility is being able to oversee the search, detection, assessment/analysis of sophisticated weaponry and/or the often elusive evidence thereof, what does one automatically envision? Well, if you are a reasonable person with reasonable, even minimal, expectations of what is appropriate, then you probably envision a SCIENTIST. Better yet, a NUCLEAR SCIENTIST, right?

Well, if you do, then you are dead wrong. Just like I was. I made the mistake of ASSUMING that David Kay, a former chief weapons inspector for the UN and now Bush's top pick for the job of turning up even traces of evidence that WMDs exist(ed) in Iraq, was a scientist. In fact, laboring under this illusion, I misread a confusingly worded paragraph in an article describing an interview with Dr. Gordon Prather, a real scientist, in which Prather discussed Dr. Kay. Both men worked under Reagan, but only Prather has the distinction of being a SCIENTIST, let alone chief scientist for the Pentagon.

I was alerted to the error -and the illusion of Kay's competence- by Dr. Prather himself, who wrote a note to inform me that Kay was no scientist - his pHD is is foreign affairs or some other nonscientific discipline. He's about as qualified to search for nukes as Ronald McDonald. Funny, when you search for David Kay's biographical info via google.com, you come up empty handed. Now I see why. Yet this is the man to whom Bush has entrusted one of the most scientifically rigorous tasks possible (the make or break provision of "proof" of WMD)?

To read the original article see: baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4430/index.php

So, I guess I can now bask in the august company of the writers at the Washington Post, who contribute on a daily basis to that paper's usually extensive error correction and retraction section! To my credit, at least I know the difference between a "Retired General" and an active weapons peddler, a "mystery" the Post never figured out when referring to Jay Garner.



Here is the note from Dr. Prather and my response:

"David Kay is not a scientist. His PhD is in Foreign Affairs or some such. On the other hand, I am a Physicist and was Chief Scientist for the Army during the Reagan Years. Please don't get me confused with that guy. "
-Dr. Gordon Prather


Dear Dr. Prather,

I just had some time to check the comments in my "Cheryl Seal Reports" articles from the past several days...was delighted to see a comment from yourself...

Believe me, I would be no more likely to confuse you with the odious Mr. Kay that I would be to confuse granite with quicksand! And, from the sounds of it, Mr. Kay's quicksand is a lot "shiftier" than even I suspected! I at least gave him credit for having some sort of science credientials. Jeez! Who will Bush send next as his "chief nuclear WMD expert"? Dr. Laura? I hear she has a degree in physiology, which actually makes her better qualified than "Dr." Kay! But then again, she isn't a former excec of a defense corporation....a serious drawback on her "resume."

Btw - I would have included your credentials in my reference to you, but they went on for five lines! To save space and summarize, I finally just settled for "highly credentialed."

All the best,
Cheryl Seal