Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bad62bug

David Kay

Recommended Posts

John McCain is also calling for investigations, however he doesn't think they would be finished by election time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An article today suggests that Bush is considering to endorse an independent commission.

 

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ence_commission

 

This makes ABSOLUTELY no sense to me. What good could possibly come from this? The media will watch this like a hawk and take focus away from the election. The commission will lose control as the press will report every piece of information. Additionally, does anyone think there might be some intelligence that says that there might not be any WMD in Iraq?

 

It makes no sense to me that Bush would endorse this. I personally think that the current strategy diverting attention to the fact that Saddam is a bad guy is the right strategy. After all, Saddam is/was a bad guy. There is no dispute and we, Americans, can all agree on that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"John McCain is also calling for investigations, however he doesn't think they would be finished by election time." I would guess that is a safe bet. The 9-11 investigation hasn't been completed and they want more time. They claim the President continues to not cooperate. That commission has been going about 18 months so I would guess that there is no hope of completing an investigation of the intelligence failure (?) leading to the Iraq war if an investigation were started. There is no more reason to think the president would cooperate with that than with any of the investigations.

 

Chen I suspect yo are right. That is there is really no chance of an investigation. While Bush cannot directly stop it he can come pretty close. The Reps haven't held both houses and the executive branch in my lifetime (as near as I can recall and with a brief INTERNET search). This is their chance of a lifetime and I don't think that they will risk loosing one or more branches of the government. Besides as a friend said today. "This is a time of war. " Expletive deleted "we had planes canceled today because of terrorists. this isn't the time to be discrediting the commander in chief" I suspect that this logic will prevail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

Hmmm, people called for an investigation, including John McCain, Bush finally agrees to one....now he is being questioned for doing so.

 

Sometimes you just can't win. :rolleyes:

 

I for one support this investigation. The American people have a right to know the truth on this whole mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob,

When do we start bombing and removing all the bad men in the world?

Edited by Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chen- I think that this might be a clever tactic by Bush. He can easily stall this until the end of February. Then there is going to be 1 or 2 weeks before the commission is named. Even if the commission jumps deep in, Bush is going to stall as he did/does with the 9-11 investigation as he did/does with the CIA leak investigation, as he did/does with the investigation of the the Chaney-energy round table investigation. Bush has been incredibly successful in keeping his activities secret and there is no reason to think that this will change. I don't think that there will be any information that can jeopardize the his election until after the election and maybe until Jeb's turn at bat.

 

In the mean time this takes the focus off the economy, the debt, and especially from the Democrats. As long is there is no bad press from it he is in a win win situation. Heck he can even claim to be getting to the bottom of our failed intelligence apparatus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

CDave previously said

 

I think some of the disagreement is whether Bush made a mistake or whether he intentionally released aggravating information while withholding exculpatory information. I would say that the evidence suggests the latter rather than the former. This is one of the reasons he does not want an independent investigation.

Now he says

 

Chen- I think that this might be a clever tactic by Bush. He can easily stall this until the end of February. Then there is going to be 1 or 2 weeks before the commission is named. Even if the commission jumps deep in, Bush is going to stall as he did/does with the 9-11 investigation as he did/does with the CIA leak investigation, as he did/does with the investigation of the the Chaney-energy round table investigation. Bush has been incredibly successful in keeping his activities secret and there is no reason to think that this will change. I don't think that there will be any information that can jeopardize the his election until after the election and maybe until Jeb's turn at bat.

 

In the mean time this takes the focus off the economy, the debt, and especially from the Democrats. As long is there is no bad press from it he is in a win win situation. Heck he can even claim to be getting to the bottom of our failed intelligence apparatus.

Which is it? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see these as competing positions. I said his guilt would discourage him from an investigation. If an investigation is inevitable he is much better off publicly endorsing that position and stalling has he has done repeatedly historically. How are these incompatible positions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is indeed a frightening thought. I am not yet convinced of it however as it comes from just one person who may or may not have had an agenda. If proved true though, it is a total shame and would certainly cause me to rethink my vote

Interesting ....Deuce's ........give it a few more months and we may even both agree on something .....

 

Uk solely went to war on the threat posed by WMDS as stated by our President Blair.... Its going to look very shaky (even more ..?) if there is a public investigation in the US......

 

However the manoeuvring has already started.......

 

It now looks like his defence will be that he is an (Blair) honest upstanding politician who has been innocently led by the nose by those dastardly MI5 intelligence agents feeding him information that he thought was 100% correct.......

He is as much a victim as the Iraqi's..............!

 

There's been a lot of pigs on the wing in the UK over the last week or two ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DW,

 

I do not see any abiguity. If Bush decides to endorse an investigation, then that would be cool. I just don't understand why he would do that? Of course Bush can win in this situation, but I believe that David Kay's announcement has decreased his chances, and he should really be in damage control mode. Also, I still don't understand why Bush could not convince Kay to keep his job and to keep on looking for the weapons until after the election. Hell, it's only another 9 months. Why couldn't Kay just keep on looking for WMD for 9 more months? Is that so much to ask for the good of the country? It certainly does not do the US's credibility any good at all to have our weapons inspector saying such radical things? Does anyone think that Kay's announcement in any way, shape or form, help our war against terrorism? Let's not forget that this dude was hand picked by Bush.

 

I still feel Bush's best strategy is to keep on saying that Saddam is a bad guy and the world is better off without him. By endorsing the commission, he must come off this position and in some ways is saying that WMD was part of the reason that we invaded Iraq. This will give more creedence to the liberals that are attacking him. The last thing Bush needs to do is give the liberals more ammunition.

 

I honestly believe that this election is Bush's to lose. If he does not make a series of political mistakes, he will win this election. I view this as a political mistake. Do you not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chen- I know you weren't addressing me but, like you, I can't figure out the David Kay thing. He spent most of his more recent tenure going out of his way to say that the book was still open on WMD and then he quits and says that there is nearly no possibility of WMD. I can't figure out what the heck that was/is about. Change of heart? I don't know. I know it is weird. As you say he could have easily dragged this out for another 9 months and again as you say he was clearly Bush's hand picked man. In fact going into this he never wasted an opportunity to say that there were bucket loads of WMD and he would expose them quickly.

 

As for Bush's victory I agree. I don't see how he can loose this. I certainly hope we don't have a terrorist attack but that is another classic example of a no loose situation. If there is an attack he will say "Lucky I am here or this would be happening everyday under a Democrat" He will then argue for more Patriot acts, more spending on security, more suspension of due process. On the other hand if there is no attack he will brag about how he single handedly stopped the terrorist threat to the US.

 

The economy will not rebound but it is warming up gradually and he will argue for more stimulus in the form of tax cuts for the rich while claiming his solution is working. He is already saying that the Medicare prescription bill is needed but if the congress can't find the money maybe it will have to wait. Setting up the congress as the bad guy. I don;t see how he an loose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CD,

 

There is only one way that Bush can lose this election. And that is if he makes a series of bone headed moves. I think that the way they are handling the Kay issue is losing votes. The other issue is the debates. It is my opinion that Bush is not a very good public speaker, and he does not think well on his feet. If he puts his foot in his mouth in a debate, it could hurt him.

 

Gore had the election won in 2000, and he managed to say enough stupid things to swing people towards Bush. It will be interesting to see if Bush can return the favor in 2004.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know if his handling of the Kay issue is a problem or not. I think that it is probably a wash. Some Bush faithful were beginning to wonder why someone that is blaming bad intelligence on our going to war didn't want to try to improve the intelligence system. As I say he can drag this out for 3 years easily as long the Republicans control the congress. I just don't see this a big problem for him. You will soon see Bush's people saying things like "Saddam thought their were WMD how could we hope to know more about his country and their weapons than the dictator of the country"

 

Bush seems to have a fairly large group of supporters that are almost religious in their devotion. These are the same republicans I campaigned with that would foam at the mouth over government deficits. These people now say that the deficit is not a significant issue, that the bigger issue is the stimulus to the economy and the money that "has to be spent" on security. Even independents and some democrats I know think color coding passengers, reducing foreign students, wire tapping anyone they please, body searches for nail clippers, and so forth is is the best way to fight terrorism in the US. They don't seem to know or care that a sharp bic pen in the kidney is a lot more dangerous than nail clippers insidiously trimming your nails until you surrender the cockpit. Then they complain that air traffic is off and don't understand it. The answer is simple. I used to travel 40 minutes by plane to meetings 6 times a year. It was easy I drive to the airport (& parked 15 minutes) another 15 minutes to check in, 45 minutes later I am in a cab going to a hotel. I spend the 45 minutes reading and preparing. Now I drive 3 hours. Why? Because now it takes me 30 minutes to park (they search my car cursorily but never the less a search that slows the traffic), I have to park farther away (you can't park close to the airport because of bomb risk), I have to check in 60 to 90 minutes early. I spend about 20 of those minutes being patted down, X-rayed, having my face scanned (a demonstrated unreliable technology), turning on & off my laptop, turning on & off my cell phone, turning on & off may pager, sometimes taking off my shoes, randomly being rubbed by a cotton pad that sniffs for nitrates (hint don't spend a morning at the shooting range and then get cotton swabbed you will miss the plane for sure). then you get to go on the plane, get where you are going rent a car drive to a hotel. So my choice is drive for 3 hours, save plane fare, have the convenience of my car or spend 3 1/2 hours flying to where I am going, pay more for a plane than driving, loose almost the same amount of productive work time. If this has truly improved security how can I argue with it but I am not convinced this increases security. It does decrease peoples air travel and it is very costly. Even better it is a reminder of the safety that Bush has brought us. That is a powerful reminder to many people of how precarious their safety is/was and how much it is improved under Bush's leadership.

 

The debates are a non issue IMO. Bush will have to debate but he will probably agree to only one or possibly 2 debates and I suspect that he will only agree to 2 minute responses. I would expect that he can sound reasonably sensible for 2 minutes. I don't see his Bush-isms as a big problem it is when he prattles on and says dumb things that he us at risk. I just don't see the debates as costing him very much.

 

Bush's biggest risk at this time IMO is if the economy declines again. I think that this is likely. Consumer spending is falling again and consumer debt continues to rise. December figures show increased spending by corporations but in our case we decided to make some capital for essentially optional equipment. We made the purchase in December to lower our corporate tax liability. I don't know if we are typical or not but I guess we will see in a few weeks. I just don't see evidence of a robust recovery and I don't expect one when we are redirecting our economy into security and away from production.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems the :filtered: may really be hitting the fan. Fox News Sunday, the primary news outlet for the Bush administration, interviewed David Kay and asked why the CIA's investigation shows administrative pressure to pressure to be more assertive (sex up for those readers on the other side of the world) in its assertions about the presence of WMD. David Kay says that those pressures may have been there but he didn't find it among the analysts he interviewed and that they resisted the pressure. (?) Fox news also asked why the declassified intelligence reports show that analysts were saying that the information was weak and that there was no evidence that the programs were on going ( this is a paraphrase). The question then is why was this exculpatory information omitted in all public disclosures by the administration.

 

Senator's Rockefeller and Lott say that they want to access the information the president had prior to the war as part of the investigation. Surely this must address the question of what the Senate oversight committee has access to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

It seems the :filtered: may really be hitting the fan. Fox News Sunday, the primary news outlet for the Bush administration, interviewed David Kay and asked why the CIA's investigation shows administrative pressure to pressure to be more assertive (sex up for those readers on the other side of the world) in its assertions about the presence of WMD. David Kay says that those pressures may have been there but he didn't find it among the analysts he interviewed and that they resisted the pressure. (?) Fox news also asked why the declassified intelligence reports show that analysts were saying that the information was weak and that there was no evidence that the programs were on going ( this is a paraphrase). The question then is why was this exculpatory information omitted in all public disclosures by the administration.

CDave, what I heard Kay say on that Fox interview is that there was no other conclusion GWB could have come to based on the intelligence reports available. I also heard him say that the US was not alone in their conclusion on those intelligence reports as our Allies and other country leaders drew the same conclusion.

 

So lets slow down and let this thing work itself out. ;) It is good that this is coming to the forefront and being discussed. It is also good that the President agrees with the need for an independent investigation into the matter. I hope he follows through on that.

 

I am coming to the conclusion that you sincerely hope this turns out for the worst for Bush, rather than looking at what is the best thing for our Country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard what you heard and agree. David Kay a brave and bright person is Bush's hand picked guy. Would you expect him to say that he hitched his cart to the wrong horse? Is/was David Kay privy to the presidents briefings or just the information needed to look for WMD? I don't know how intelligence is disseminated in the executive branch of the federal govt. but I know how it is disseminated in high security facilities and in local law enforcement. I know that even a head inspector that is in the field is not given all of the information nor allowed unfettered access. So he cannot know what he doesn't know and what he does know doesn't sound too favorable.

 

I hate that it has taken you so long to "coming to the conclusion that you sincerely hope this turns out for the worst for Bush, rather than looking at what is the best thing for our Country." I have repeatedly said in this forum that Bush is dangerous and can't be trusted. I apologize if I have not adequately and forcefully enough stated this. Having reiterated that how could I or anyone else that is aware of his duplicity come to any other conclusion than that what is best for the country is inevitably bad for this President?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

I heard what you heard and agree. David Kay a brave and bright person is Bush's hand picked guy. Would you expect him to say that he hitched his cart to the wrong horse?

So now you attack Kay and question his integrity. There is no sense debating this any further with you CDave. As in all other debates you once again shift positions depending on which way the wind blows. :mrsgreen:

 

Have a nice day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did I question Kay's integrity? I supported it. I am simply saying that human nature is such that people do not generally turn completely around and say"I was totally wrong" because implicit in that is that you are error prone and perhaps naive or worse perhaps stupid. David Kay started out convinced that Saddam needed to be overthrown and had WMD. He now says Saddam did not have WMD and he needed to be overthrown. He clearly remains supportive of the Bush position and that is fine but you could hardly expect him to say "Saddam needed to be overthrown, he had no WMD, he was not a threat, the president did right (which he did say), and there is no good reason to have overthrown him"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So now you attack Kay and question his integrity.

I am at a loss as to how you come to these conclusions. :blink::huh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

David Kay a brave and bright person is Bush's hand picked guy. Would you expect him to say that he hitched his cart to the wrong horse?

Then CDave said

 

He clearly remains supportive of the Bush position and that is fine but you could hardly expect him to say "Saddam needed to be overthrown, he had no WMD, he was not a threat, the president did right (which he did say), and there is no good reason to have overthrown him"

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

Perhaps. It all depends on how you see things.

 

It is certainly questioning his integrity. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

DW,

 

Please explain how you see things instead of attacking Cdave.

I did not know that pointing out a continued shifting of positions is an attack.

 

So I will explain further at your request:

 

1. The President was being criticized for not conducting an independent investigation on the intelligence and other reports he had prior to going to war.

 

The President then agreed to consider an investigation. The focus then changes to the investigation with accusations that it will be stalled and takes the focus off the economy, the debt, and especially from the Democrats.

 

The initial criticism was with the President, then it shifted to the investigation itself when news was reported that the Pres agreed to consider and investigation.

 

2. Bush was accused of forcing the outcome of intelligence reports.

 

Kay then comes out with a statement about no WOMD and everyone grabs onto this, accusing the President even more.

 

Kay then is interviewed later and says that the intelligence reports were the best available at the time, that other countries came to the same conclusion on WOMD as Bush did, that he (Kay) believed at the time there were WOMD and that the President acted according to the best information he had at the time.

 

So now Kays integrity gets attacked. Again, a shifting of positions within a single debate.

 

- -- - - - - - - - - - - -

I have seen this same tactic in other discussions and debates and decided to point it out in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where in all of that did anyone attack Kays integrety?

 

Kay was honest when he started, and honest when he ended.

 

Because CDave thinks he is being honest and at the same time trying not to harm Bush publicly I would hardly call that an attack on Kay.

 

It is in fact praising someone for being both honest and loyal to a "former" employer. Both admirable attributes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...