Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bad62bug

David Kay

Recommended Posts

Don't get mad at Bush. He is playing the cards that he was dealt very well. That said, I still think that this is a very tricky hand, and there are still many subtleties.

 

I think that the Democrats should focus not on WMD but the Bush Doctrine. Although the intelligence may have been flawed, and also not entirely the fault of Dubya, the Bush Doctrine is entirely the responsibility of our president. Now that we have all but admitted that our intelligence was faulty, the question is what role does faulty intelligence play in the Bush Doctrine? The democratic candidates should state whether they would eliminate the Bush Doctrine if elected.

 

For me, it is quite simple and it goes back to Hans Blix comment "It is not possible to have 100% certainty of the existance of WMD but have 0% certainty of its location." We should do nothing unless we know where the WMD are located. If we know where they are located, then we should *not* go to war. We'll send in a few planes and blow them up. Even if the intelligence is wrong, it is a far less costly a mistake than our current dilemma/occupation. So basically, I don't see a need for the Bush Doctrine at all. If we don't have as much confidence in our intelligence, then perhaps we can work with the UN for a more structured approach to intelligence gathering such as weapons inspections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

hand picked bipartisan commision....oxymoron :blink:

 

wonder who will pick members for the Committee that will investigate the Commissions methodology :rolleyes::mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe the "hand picked bipartisan commision" should come from the members of Pitstop GD......after all, who is more informed and concerned?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope Kenny Star is on the commission maybe we will find out when W stopped using coke and if the statute of limitations has expired. I know that it will take another 5 years with plenty of leaking if Kenny heads it up.

 

 

Edited to correct typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

You have to love the open minds shown here. They ask for an investigation, get an investigation (bi-partisan) then shift the attack to the investigation they initially asked for.

 

Sometimes you just cannot win. :mrsgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is an investion of an event it's circumastances and someones actions considered bipartisan when that someone handpicks the investigating team? :blink:

 

To me this looks even worse then avoiding an investigation.

 

 

Looks to me like someone is trying to guarantee they will win. :mrsgreen:

Edited by Bruce

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

How is an investion of an event it's circumastances and someones actions considered bipartisan when that someone handpicks the investigating team?  

 

To me this looks even worse then avoiding an investigation.

 

Looks to me like someone is trying to guarantee they will win.

 

Bipartisan = across both party lines, favoring neither side.

 

The commission will consist of an equal number of democrats and republicans.

 

No matter what type of committee one forms, the members are "had picked" by someone.

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They certainly should not be handpicked by an individual who will be a major part of the investigation.

 

Kinda like the fox watchin over the chicken coop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

So you are saying there are Democrats in Congress, perhaps even your own, that cannot be trusted to seek out the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that if one is trying to investigate something then one should attempt to do so with as little effort at political expedience and self serving behavior as possible. This is supposed to be about discovering why we had an intelligence failure or why the intelligence was misrepresented. If one goes about this process in so blatantly a self serving fashion I would think it requires unfavorable comment. We are talking about the lives and deaths of our citizens, the lives and deaths of citizens of other countries, the credibility of our nation, and a sizable chunk of money. Should this not be taken seriously or should it just be tailored to meet the political objectives of the President? I for one think there is much more at stake here than GWB's political needs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

there are probably some Republicans that Bush wouldn't trust, don't ya think?

Possibly, but some cannot see the attempt to make this investigation as fair as possible. Lets first see who gets picked before we complain about who may be picked.

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't care if he picked a team of investigators from the democratic presidential candidates.

 

He should not be hand picking such a committee. Because this involves him, and his staff, the committee should be put together by members of congress. Let John McCain head it up!

 

Perhaps if he hadn't "handpicked" the people disemminating the information in the first place we wouldn't even be at this stage.

 

Now he is going to handpick the people to investigate the people he handpicked to investigate WMD's.

 

See a pattern in that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

You never answered my question.

 

So you are saying there are Democrats in Congress, perhaps even your own, that cannot be trusted to seek out the truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You never answered my question.

 

I am not here to "answer your questions"

 

Your constant badgering in that manner is very aggrevating.

 

I am stating my opinion like eveyone here has a right to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Lets first see who gets picked before we complain about who may be picked." It seems to me that GWB has more than enough history at this point to reasonably conclude that he will exhibit bias in his choice of committee members.

 

This sounds like the way you treat a spoil a child. "Well he says he didn't steal the gum. I know there is no other explanation but lets give him the benefit of the doubt he is our son. What all your change is missing and there are no other suspects and he denies it. Well we have no proof and he is our son" Isn't this the very reasoning that got us in the war? Didn't we say well GWB and his buddies say that there are WMD and an imminent threat. But there is no proof. And then many people (including me) said well he is the President. I have learned my lesson. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

 

I agree with Bruce. Let the congress pick the committee and set the time table. Let McCain chair the committee or at least pick the members.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

You never answered my question.

 

I am not here to "answer your questions"

 

Your constant badgering in that manner is very aggrevating.

 

I am stating my opinion like eveyone here has a right to do.

 

See a pattern in that?

Then don't ask me questions. :mrgreen:

 

BTW: Asking a question to you twice is not constant badgering.

And there is no need to get nasty with me. :mrsgreen:

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't ask you anything.

 

It was more of a sarcastic statement then anything.

 

If it were a question to you, I would have directed it specifically to you. If you thought it was directed to you, then by your own standard you should have answered it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the Uk ones a stitch up

 

The liberal party have refused to get involved due to the constricted remit (surprise surprise)

 

Only the intelligence report's will be looked at and their accuracy ,on no account will the political decisions will be investigated by the hand picked investigation committee , the majority of whom are Blairite luvvies ...

 

 

What a pig in a poke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

58%.... turn out last election.....

 

What percentage in the next ...?

 

poor job all around....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

george ~

 

that's an excellent link...thanx :)

 

and the more i think about what Bush is doing, especially after reading that article, the more i think this whole business is going to backfire on him. making the statement that any findings will not be made public until after the election, or that it's simply going to take longer than 10 months to complete given the broad scope of the investigation, is going to do him more harm than good. at least that's how i see it anyway....fine by me :mrgreen:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George B I'm not sure that listening to an informed source revealing how the administration is manipulating an investigation to minimize information and reduce culpability gets us very far in this discussion. It does not seem to give the president the benefit of the doubt. After all we are only talking about possibly misleading the electorate, possible responsibility for sending American Military at considerable and ongoing loss of life to fight an unjust war while creating significant financial hardship to the American people.

 

Even Mr. Powell corrected his words saying at first that the absence of WMD should result in reconsideration of the need for war against Iraq which he corrected today. He indicated that the president felt a need to attack Iraq and that attack was justified. Surely that is a good enough explanation.

 

I do not think we will get anything from the investigation and certainly nothing before we (the US) has an opportunity to do more harm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Tenet (head of the CIA) announced that they felt no pressure to tailor their intelligence to the administration's position and like Rumfield said yesterday there may be lots of WMD in Iraq only about 85% of Iraq has been adequately searched. Tenet This has to be seen as good news for the administration and does seem to argue for a thorough (and I think quick) investigation in to our intelligence failure.

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...