Tweet
Hey,
Watched some of the hearings on CSPAN today at lunch, at least enough to see Kay smack Senators Kennedy and Clinton around like tricks on a street corner, and it proved very intresting.
Granted, I onlw say about 30 minutes of it, and I haven't read any other literature on Kay, but I was pretty sure that the media was hyping him up to be the vindicator of the Democratic Bush-lied-about-weapons-of-mass-destruction mantra.
What I saw didn't seem to be heading that way at all. Now I am not saying that Bush was right, but everyone seems to be claiming that Bush lied or at the very least manipulated the data given to him for his own ends. This is exactly what Kennedy and Clinton tried to make him say, but he literally laughed them all off and sent them on their merry way.
He said that the intelligence community was pretty much split down the middle on the issue, and that Bush would have had equal justificatied to have accepted either position (granted I know Bush said irrefutable proof but how many world leaders take the wishiwashy road after making a decision like this). He also, while bieng one of the most open and in the know critics of the intelligence failure on this one, asserted that given the evidence collected in the past decade and the intentional ambiguousness of Saddams answer to both UN and US inquiries, the intelligence community was correct to follow the line they did. He seems to be more critical of the intelligence gathering portion of the buisness rather than the analysis.
Lastly, he made it emphatically clear that while Iraq did not have any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, he also stated emphatically that he had plenty of warheads and rockets stockpiled that had no use but to deliver those weapons.
Like I said I didn't see it all, it will be repeated tonight and hopefully I can catch the rest.
Question though? As Kay also told a red faced and stuttering Kennedy, the pocession of those warheads is a technical, literal, and illegal breach of every UN resolution passed on Iraq concerning weapons of mass destruction. Legally, they should have been declared to the UN and then destroyed and not having done so is a clear breach of UN policy.
So as a side note, what do you all think is more important? The gun or the bullets? Iraq had the gun, but no ammunition for them, which is still a breach of law but do you think this should be the case?
Watched some of the hearings on CSPAN today at lunch, at least enough to see Kay smack Senators Kennedy and Clinton around like tricks on a street corner, and it proved very intresting.
Granted, I onlw say about 30 minutes of it, and I haven't read any other literature on Kay, but I was pretty sure that the media was hyping him up to be the vindicator of the Democratic Bush-lied-about-weapons-of-mass-destruction mantra.
What I saw didn't seem to be heading that way at all. Now I am not saying that Bush was right, but everyone seems to be claiming that Bush lied or at the very least manipulated the data given to him for his own ends. This is exactly what Kennedy and Clinton tried to make him say, but he literally laughed them all off and sent them on their merry way.
He said that the intelligence community was pretty much split down the middle on the issue, and that Bush would have had equal justificatied to have accepted either position (granted I know Bush said irrefutable proof but how many world leaders take the wishiwashy road after making a decision like this). He also, while bieng one of the most open and in the know critics of the intelligence failure on this one, asserted that given the evidence collected in the past decade and the intentional ambiguousness of Saddams answer to both UN and US inquiries, the intelligence community was correct to follow the line they did. He seems to be more critical of the intelligence gathering portion of the buisness rather than the analysis.
Lastly, he made it emphatically clear that while Iraq did not have any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, he also stated emphatically that he had plenty of warheads and rockets stockpiled that had no use but to deliver those weapons.
Like I said I didn't see it all, it will be repeated tonight and hopefully I can catch the rest.
Question though? As Kay also told a red faced and stuttering Kennedy, the pocession of those warheads is a technical, literal, and illegal breach of every UN resolution passed on Iraq concerning weapons of mass destruction. Legally, they should have been declared to the UN and then destroyed and not having done so is a clear breach of UN policy.
So as a side note, what do you all think is more important? The gun or the bullets? Iraq had the gun, but no ammunition for them, which is still a breach of law but do you think this should be the case?
God that is lame.
Comment