Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bad62bug

David Kay

Recommended Posts

As this seems to involve me I will respond.

 

I did not expect Bush to back off of his resistance to a special investigation. After all he publicly stated at least 2 times and had Rice and Powell both say that it was not needed and the Republican Chairman of the intelligence oversight committee said that such an investigation was not needed. I am glad the president changed his position but I did not predict that. While he sends me his autographed photos and embossed credit card like things saying " I am a proud supporter of Bush in 2004" with a request for my pledge of $10,000 to keep the Bush "dream" alive he does not actually call me and tell me what he is going to do a head of time.

 

I am accused of "The initial criticism was with the President" implying that I am not still criticizing the President. That is wrong. I am still criticizing the president. I think that it is good that he has now become more supportive of an investigation which he ultimately could not have stopped (Nixon and Reagan tried that path before without success).

 

I am accused of suggesting that Mr. Bush Will not be forthcoming and will try to stall the investigation. Unfortunately Mr. Bush's record is clear in his unwillingness to to cooperate with investigations. Please show me an investigation where he has been forth coming. Even Republicans acknowledge that the President is slow in responding to information requests and is not forthcoming with information. If there is anything in his tenure as Governor or President that shows that he cooperates with inquiries please show it to me. If history predicts future behavior he will not be cooperative with this investigation. If he does cooperate I will apologize.

 

As for Kay. Kay does not claim to have had the same information at his disposal as the president did. How could he hope to know that president was acting upon the best available information. What Kay may have meant was that to the best of Mr. Kay's knowledge the president was acting on best available information. I think that is a very different statement when considering undisclosed intelligence information. I did not and do not doubt Mr. Kay's integrity. I am simply pointing out that his assessment is that Saddam needed to be removed but that David Kay did not find evidence for WMD which was the reason Saddam was attacked. Mr. Kay is entitled to his opinion but the US govt and its people deserve more than an opinion by David Kay and Mr. Bush that Saddam should be removed before we go to war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THIS is all I have to say:

 

"Yes, we have to divide up our time like that, between our politics and our equations. But to me our equations are far more important, for politics are only a matter of present concern. A mathematical equation stands forever."

Albert Einstein :argue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are dealing with cognitive dissonance here. One of the classic cognitive dissonance situations is smoking. The facts about the health effects of smoking are very clear now, but people still smoke. Smokers at least subconciously realize they are doing themselves harm, but redirect these feelings into other outlets, including anger towards antismoking campaigns, making it out to be a personal rights issue, or justifying the habit by saying things like "everyone dies eventually."

 

It seems to me that a lot of the anger from supporters of the President's Iraq policy is a result of cognitive dissonance. I actually supported the invasion of Iraq (although not the timing of the President's invasion) specifically because of the evidence our government provided concerning Iraq. Now, with the evidence (or lack of evidence) from the past year, we're faced with a problem of how to deal with the fact that we are in Iraq but our primary reason for invasion was bogus.

 

Right now, I'm directing my anger at the President. I'd feel a bit more sympathetic towards him if we were to come clean about the situation, but to continue to claim that there are still piles of WMD in Iraq seems sillier by the day. Remember, just before the war the U.S. was claiming that we had intercepted communications telling Iraq's army to move bio and chem weapons to the front so they could be deployed. If they were ready to be used we certainly would have found them by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still state that it is a huge mistake for Bush to allow an investigation to happen. Bush's strategy must be to move the public's thinking away from WMD and towards Saddam's many horrific acts. Secondly, whenever the subject of WMD come up, the position should be that we believe that they will be ultimately be found.

 

Don't you see? An investigation into our intelligence practically admits that we no longer expect to find WMD. We have David Kay to blame for all of this. Although I applaud, Mr Kay's veracity, I would think that given the damage he has done, it is time to start to question Mr Kay's principles. We all have skeletons and now is the time to find Mr Kays. It was a fairly simple matter to contain Mr ONeil's comments as those of a disgruntled and loose cannon former employee. It is much harder to paint Kay under the same brush.

 

If we start to admit that our intelligence is less than perfect, I feel that it all starts to enravel. The Bush Doctrine states that US will preemptively attack other nations based on INTELLIGENCE. If our intelligence if faulty, what does that say about the Bush Doctrine? If our intelligence is faulty, what does that do to our credibility with other nations? If our intelligence if faulty, in the future, we will be more likely to accept UN decrees for weapons inspections.

 

I say NO. This is a slippery path. There should be no investigation because it is an admission that we may never find any WMD, and that opens up a whole can of worms that I do not think that Bush nor the rest of the nation want to deal with.

 

This all started because of David Kay. I was not there, but I do not believe that Bush did enough to keep this guy in the field, with his mouth SHUT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we start to admit that our intelligence is less than perfect, I feel that it all starts to enravel.

it's already been been "started" besides, who would anyone be kidding if the US stood firm and claimed there wasn't a glitch with the intelligence? isn't it rather obvious that there's a tremendous problem begging for clarification? i don't see how questioning Kay's role in this will serve any purpose....the buck, after all, does stop with the President and the one ultimately responsible for the decision of declaring war. if he was not sufficiently astute to choose qualified people to act as his advisor's, then it is not the advisors who are to blame but rather the Pres for his error in judgment.

 

no matter how ya slice this, it ends right back on Bush, as so it should. and no, i'm not by any means making a political argument. i don't care what party does what where this matter is concerned....i would simply appreciate folks being forth right with what the H* went on and that ALL the documentation be made available for an independent investigation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

I agree with everyone who thinks that an independent investigation is in order. We have to know the truth. There is too much doubt at the present time.

 

I disagree with you Dave in your thinking that Kay opened a Pandora's box which exposes our intelligence weaknesses. Although that may be true in a sense, I see it as a good thing in that we will now, hopefully find the cause and fix the problem. Should we turn the other cheek and ignore the problem? Absolutely not as to ignore it would only perpetuate it. If Kay knew it, so did the terrorists.

 

The bottom line is that we cannot turn back the clock. The war happened based on the President (and other Countries) believing intelligence reports that Saddam posed an immediate threat based on his possession of WOMD and his past history with those weapons. David Kay's statement showed something different.

 

We have to accept that those events are in the past and cannot be changed. We have to stop debating about whether the war was right or wrong, whether or not Kay should have said what he did but instead find out the facts on what the President knew at the time, expose the weaknesses in our intelligence systems and fix the problem so it does not happen again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I understand and agree with your point Chen but I think pressure is/was mounting to get to the bottom of "the intelligence failure. " That eventually would mean an investigation and the president can't stop that.

 

I do a agree that the president or Rice should have met with him when he tenured his resignation (you know it was floated privately before publicly). The president could have sent him to Libya to work on that project for a year and probably nothing would have been said but they didn't even have the courtesy to brief him in private.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Excuse me DW you are starting with a desire 'to get to the bottom of this' while saying that "The war happened based on the President (and other Countries) believing intelligence reports that Saddam posed an immediate threat based on his possession of WOMD " In other words you are back to blaming the intelligence. The problem may be and probably is -how the intelligence was used not that it was wrong. It is as though you want to blame guns for murder when someone is pulling the trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

I said what I mean.

 

We don't know the truth. The President supposedly acted on the best intelligence reports he had. Kay said there are holes in the Intelligence reports. An independent investigation is therefore in order and will prove who was right or wrong.

 

Although I have been a Bush supporter I say let the chips land where they may.

 

I am really trying to remain on the fence with this...your binary thinking partisanship on this is starting to become quite evident.

 

Edit: Spelling (during halftime of the game :) )

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

though it's all great mental exercise, and interesting as well, seems like there's going be that investigation no matter what folks think.....and both parties are calling for it. Bush had no alternative but to sign an exec order. IMHO, he would have been foolish to have done otherwise. frankly, i tend to think there may have been intelligence to support a claim of womd's though not nearly to the extent as stated by Bush. though i also can't help but believe that what is known now about the 'glitch', if you will, had to have been known to some extent before war was declared....if not, why all the secrecy?

 

http://apnews.myway.com//article/20040201/.../D80EODA00.html

 

Edit: grammar :rolleyes:

Edited by firekracker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And from FireKracker's cite "David Albright, a former weapons inspector, said the administration could use the commission as a way to delay judgments about the intelligence community and the administration's use of the intelligence information.

 

"The bottom line for them (the Bush administration) is to delay the day of reckoning about their use of the weapons of mass destruction information," Albright said. "David Kay can blame the CIA and say 'Oh, I made all these comments based on what I heard from the intelligence community.' President Bush can't do that. He's the boss." "

 

It would seem I am not the only one that thinks that this is suspicious.

 

That same article notes that Bush has not decided when he Will sign the order. So he is already beginning the foot dragging.

 

Dave. I think it was on this board but it may have been the old one. Anyway I took the position that the evidence was that we were at imminent risk and that we should attack but only after gathering allies. Of course that was when Bush & Rummy were busy driving off any friends we might have had. But the point is that I too thought we should go to war then. In retrospect I fell used and played for a fool.

 

I hope that this is just bad intelligence. As bad as that would be for the country I think that would be better than discovering that the President manipulated the congress with a short term goal of war and an unknown long term goal (unless he really believes we could establish an island of democracy in the middle east).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How can there not be an investigation ....on boths sides of the Atlantic ....... ?

 

The UK has bombed the heart out a country ...the sole reason for Parliament to support Blair was his 45min speech ......

 

The BBC has lost its director and several other staff because they had the temerity of questioning the honesty of our Rt Reverend ...... over the issue of the existence of WMDS and their direct threat to the UK ..(Hutton report)

 

?

 

Yet dossiers purported to be accurate intel were plagiarised from a 12 year old student thesis (included the same spelling mistakes) Information about uranium shipments from Nigeria known to be fraudulent passed as true , even quoted by Colin Powell in the UN ......... Any disciplining over the process here ..? , as what has happened in the BBC...? , Yet the BBC have not been responsible for Killing over an estimated 8000 men women and children .. (estimated as it is coalition policy not to count)

 

Blair to make a statement this afternoon

 

If there is a public enquiry .... The judge should be an EU one outside UK political influence , and the remit and terms of reference as to what can be investigated should not be chosen by Blair ( like the Hutton report...which is generally considered a whitewash by most poll results )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For those that missed Fox News Sunday yesterday here is the transcript of the interview with Chris Wallace and David Kay.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109957,00.html

 

Later in the show there was an interview with Trent Lott and Jay Rockefeller of the Senate Intelligence Committee. Statements made confirms that the Committees don't recieve the same intelligence that the White house gets. Here's the transcripts from that interview.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110092,00.html

Edited by george_b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's time to get real here. We all know that there was a chance that there were no WMD in Iraq before the war started. If we had known when before we went into Iraq, with absolute certainty that there were WMD in Iraq:

 

1. We would have been able to convince the UN and the rest of the world. The reality is that we were only able to convince the UK with our intelligence.

 

2. The only way to have absolute certainty was to have actually have seen the WMD. Hans Blix was quoted shortly after the war began as saying "It is not possible to have 100% certainty that WMD exist and 0% certainty on where they are located."

 

This is in the books, but in prior administrations, when we get sufficient information that Iraq had any WMD, we would bomb those sites. Go back and look or talk to someone in the military. Sometimes we were right, and sometimes we were wrong. But now we have the Bush doctrine. We no longer bomb areas of WMD, we attack the whole country.

 

So the reality here is that we never knew for a certainty that there were WMD in Iraq. We made certain assumptions and deduced it. We had to have had some thought in the back of our minds that we might be wrong.

 

None of this ever made any sense to me.

 

If our intelligence was so good on WMD,

  • why couldn't we convince the UN that its own resolutions were being violated?
  • why didn't we just bomb the known locations of WMD?
  • Why create the Bush doctrine at all?
What happens to the Bush doctrine while the commission is doing its investigations? Will the investigations have any impact at all on the Bush doctrine?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the Bush doctrine is on hold (IMO). There is really no choice there. While the administration says we have plenty of troops in theater and always have I do not think that is supported by our actions nor the military estimates. Reserves and Guard were never meant to be deployed for years at a time and I don't think that the guard and Reserves agreed to serve with an expectation that they could be called up and treated like regular military when the US as a whole was not at war and gravely threatened I now and people I talk to in the Guard/Reserves know that they can be called up in time of war or national need but this was not thought to be for years at a time as an army of occupation. In addition to that issue is the proposal to expand the standing army next year. I think this suggests that we are not capable of waging a full blown war in another theater of operation without a significant change in deployment from Iraq. So the doctrine means nothing at this time.

 

I do not nothing nor do I expect that we can ever have 100% certainty but 90% seems reasonable.

 

As for the attacking the WMD and not the country argument, I agree. I don't understand why we ever need to invade a country to preempt an imminent attack. If the attack is imminent then attack the massed troops or the prepositioned weapons. But prophylactic war is a dangerous precedent. How imminent does the threat need to be, how threatening does the threat need to be. It would seem to me that one could include all nations/countries under the doctrine of preemption. I know i have said this before but I just think preemption is a dangerous policy.

 

As for the quality of our intelligence. I think that all of the arguments we tried to muster for going to war were based upon an assumption that there was immediate or imminent risk not that there were WMD. I do not think that anyone saw imminent here except Bush and possibly Blair. That and the shoddy way Bush treated our allies precluded much in the way of international support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the UK is going to have an enquiry , kick started by Bush's decision , but chaired by politicians (Huh...!) .....Bush's timetable for his (well after the US elections ) is very inconvenient for Blair as by then the UK will be going to the polls ....Its expected that the result will come out before Nov. this year .....

 

There is a major problem in the UK as the somewhat dubious legality of going in was purely based on the WMDs threat against the UK mainland ......

 

Saddam hardly entered in to it ...

 

Major argument over the remit ..(what a surprise) UK government wants it only based on the intelligence , and not the political decisions .....The other political parities want the whole process investigated ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Hurdy

My predictions -

 

Blair will go before the inquiry result comes out and Gordon can take over completely blameless.

 

We all wake and realise it was a dream

 

Shock, horror the truth comes out that it was actually Greg :filtered: who sent in the troops.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Bush is requiring that the investigation results be completed and reported in 2005. After the Nov 2004 election. I guess he figured that it would take more than an election cycle I meant a year to gather the information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt that Bush would have agreed to the investigation without the stipulation that the resullts come after the election. This is right, because it would have been a huge distraction, and anything else would have been pure politics.

 

I have quite a bit of video of Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell and Bush's comments before the war. The most telling comment that probably hit home the strongest including with myself was "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." There were many other comments that supported this. In Powell's speech to the UN, his facts were very specific. 186,566 tons of this gas, 214,567 tons of this chemical, etc. (I am making numbers up, the point is that Powell was very specific) Clearly he did not make these numbers up, they had to come from intelligence and they were wrong. The right numbers were ZERO.

 

CD, I think that it is important for our president for which the Doctrine is named to state that the Doctrine is on hold. BTW, this is slippery territory. What is Osama thinking that we are putting our Doctrine on hold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CD, I think that it is important for our president for which the Doctrine is named to state that the Doctrine is on hold. BTW, this is slippery territory. What is Osama thinking that we are putting our Doctrine on hold?

I can answer that one:

 

He's hooked up to his dialysis machine LHAO :rolleyes:

 

Now if Bush is/was having a "War on Terrorism" I would have tought that the first culprit to target would have been the one that posed the most risk and at the time that was and he still is Osama IMHO because his organisation is still active and he is still able to get his hate filled message to his supporters and followers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I am not sure he gets to "agree" but this does answer the question of why he would agree to an investigation that can only produce bad news for the US, Mr. Bush or both.

 

By asking for the investigation and setting this time table he only has to fear impeachment in his next term. If he had not agreed the democrats would push for it (causing more bad publicity) and some of the republicans are also agitating for an investigation. If he continued to refuse there would have been an investigation but he might not have had as much say in the deadline for the committee results. As it is he has essentially eliminated his culpability (if he had any) from being exposed until after he is re elected.

 

You know they used to call Bill slick Willy but he could have taken lessons the current president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob- I think I should have been more circumspect in my language. I should have said that the Bush preemptive first strike doctrine is de facto on hold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bush

 

"So I'm putting together an independent, bipartisan commission "

A senior Bush administration official said Monday that the president will name the members of the commission

 

Ok George :P:rolleyes: Nothin like a good ole boy hand picked "bipartison commision" :help:

Edited by Bruce

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...