Kay's Senate Hearings on Weapons Inspections

[Drake Tungsten]

rah -

GePap -

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
rah -

GePap -

Oh wow, the nebraskan lost in Japan speaks!

[Drake Tungsten]

Do thumbs up and thumbs down gestures really count as speaking?

edit: And I'm not "lost" in Japan, either; I know exactly where I am. In rah's universe, that mistaken statement would merely make you "wrong", but in your universe, it would make you a "liar". For shame, you dishonest ****...

[rah]

I don't need to do ****. I'm not accusing the president of the US of Lying.

You are. Which doesn't bother me, but you've already charged and convicted him without a trial. I don't even care that you've done that. If that's your opinion, you have a right to it. But when you claim it as the absolute truth without absolute proof you're doing exactly what you claim Bush did. Which by your definition makes you a liar.

But that's just my opinion.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GePap


MrFun: if you have nothing to say, don;t say it.

Of course, if you think a debate on the nature of truth is a "troll", well, you have issues.

And No, I don't give a damn there was a " " at the end. That was not a "funny" statement, that is a statement of why I do not accept rah's "simple statement".

aaawww . . . .

you hurt my feelings

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Do thumbs up and thumbs down gestures really count as speaking?

Yes- you had to write the names.

aaawww . . . .

you hurt my feelings

Mission accomplished- what you said was inane.

You are. Which doesn't bother me, but you've already charged and convicted him without a trial. I don't even care that you've done that. If that's your opinion, you have a right to it. But when you claim it as the absolute truth without absolute proof you're doing exactly what you claim Bush did. Which by your definition makes you a liar.

But that's just my opinion.

Yes, and why on earth do you insit everyone state "its just my opinion". I have made it clear that due to various arguements, which I have laid out, I believe he lied.

You say I say its absolute truth- interesting, since I do not believe in absolute truth: to build on what Agathon said: given the nature of the information at hand, the sensible assumption is he lied: am I doing what the Bush admin. did? No, becuase I am being honest about the nature of my arguements, not hidding them or misinterpreting them.

I have never asked anyone here to accept what i said as fact, I could not give a damn if any of you accept them as fact- you rah on the other hand are the one putting people down becuase they do not view their statements as you view them. Fine, you think i should say its an opinion. Well, I don't see it as 'just my opinion". If that insult yoour sensibilities, big deal- I have never asked for your approval, nor could I give a damn about it.

But it annoys the hell out of me for people put attack my arguements for inane reasons, then ridicule my counterarguements without having a clue what they were. And as long as people do so, I will retort.

[Drake Tungsten]

Yes- you had to write the names.

If I really wanted to be an ass, I might bring up the fact that "writing" and "speaking" are not the same thing. Fortunately, I'm too inebriated to give a **** about it at this point, so I'll just tell you that "I really love you man" before I turn in. Good night.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Yes- you had to write the names.

If I really wanted to be an ass, I might bring up the fact that "writing" and "speaking" are not the same thing. Fortunately, I'm too inebriated to give a **** about it at this point, so I'll just tell you that "I really love you man" before I turn in. Good night.

Ohh, you are so adorable when drunk!

[rah]

Originally posted by GePap

Yes, and why on earth do you insit everyone state "its just my opinion". I have made it clear that due to various arguements, which I have laid out, I believe he lied.

No it wasn't clear before. Now it is. You're entitled to your opinion.

Thank you.

[Ned]

Politics aside, this is an intelligence failure of the first magnitude because it led America to a war that may have been unnecessary even if it was justifiable on humanitarian grounds. If George Bush does not recognize this and does not call for an independent investigation, then he will lose all credibility not only with me but with the American people. Despite his overall good performance on the war on terror, we need good and reliable intelligence if we are to base decisions of war and peace upon our intelligence.

If George Bush fails to act, his failure to act will become the major issue in the upcoming campaign.

[rah]

Originally posted by Ned
Politics aside, this is an intelligence failure of the first magnitude because it led America to a war that may have been unnecessary even if it was justifiable on humanitarian grounds. If George Bush does not recognize this and does not call for an independent investigation, then he will lose all credibility not only with me but with the American people. Despite his overall good performance on the war on terror, we need good and reliable intelligence if we are to base decisions of war and peace upon our intelligence.

If George Bush fails to act, his failure to act will become the major issue in the upcoming campaign.

Gotta agree there. While it's unreasonable to expect intel to be good everytime, it seems that this one was well below what should be considered acceptable. Something must be done. But the Demos will probably ignore this and concentrate on what happened later. It will not be as effective because of all the people that already believed in other justifications. The dems will miss the opportunity to strike at his leadership qualities on this issue.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sikander

The most reasonable inference about Saddam was that he had WMD. Not only the CIA, but the U.N. and almost any intelligence service you care to name believed this as did the commanders of the various Republican Guard units.

And that exposes the smokescreen for what it was. Any WMD Saddam had were not a real threat to anyone. As I said in a previous post, the problem with chemical and bio weapons is that they don't really work. It was exaggeration to the max.

I thought he might have some left over chemical shells from before the first war. That's about it. Hardly worth going to war over, is it?

[chequita guevara]

I disagree that the intelligence agencies were at fault. The CIA and DIA kept saying, there is no way to know for sure. In Fall of 2002, the CIA's omnibus report stated that the information was inconclusive as to whether Iraq had WMDs or WMD programs. There was evidence either way. The NSA, however, rewrote the report to downplay this, and make it appear as if the consensus was that Iraq had such weapons.

Worse, however, was that DoD created a special intelligence group to gather all intel about Iraq, but only that information which was favorable for making the case for war. They did not analyze or vet this info, so even the most spurious of claims were included, which strong counter-evidence was ignoerd (such as the debriefings of Hussein's son-in-laws).

Even before the war, retired intel agents were complaining that the intel agencies were being played by the Admin. The intel community is pissed that they are being made the fall guys for political decision made higher up. Kay may be dutifully falling on his sword for the Prez, but many of the rest aren't.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon


And that exposes the smokescreen for what it was. Any WMD Saddam had were not a real threat to anyone. As I said in a previous post, the problem with chemical and bio weapons is that they don't really work. It was exaggeration to the max.

I thought he might have some left over chemical shells from before the first war. That's about it. Hardly worth going to war over, is it?

I'm glad we took him down, though I had my doubts about doing so while we are simultaneously fighting the Taliban. But I think we had a good enough case for a long time, a position that was the consensus politically in the U.S. since the Clinton administration. WMD wasn't the issue for me though for the same reasons you state. Starting two wars of aggression in a little more than a decade and violating the cease fire with us were my reasons, and the murder of so many is just icing on the cake.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I disagree that the intelligence agencies were at fault. The CIA and DIA kept saying, there is no way to know for sure. In Fall of 2002, the CIA's omnibus report stated that the information was inconclusive as to whether Iraq had WMDs or WMD programs. There was evidence either way. The NSA, however, rewrote the report to downplay this, and make it appear as if the consensus was that Iraq had such weapons.

Worse, however, was that DoD created a special intelligence group to gather all intel about Iraq, but only that information which was favorable for making the case for war. They did not analyze or vet this info, so even the most spurious of claims were included, which strong counter-evidence was ignoerd (such as the debriefings of Hussein's son-in-laws).

Even before the war, retired intel agents were complaining that the intel agencies were being played by the Admin. The intel community is pissed that they are being made the fall guys for political decision made higher up. Kay may be dutifully falling on his sword for the Prez, but many of the rest aren't.

I don't think that Kay is falling on his sword, he's essentially resigning in protest because his group has been gutted and he can't finish his job. His call for an independent inquiry is anethema to the administration, as it is likely to be extremely detrimental to Bush's re-election campaign. The fact that he is sounding so even-handed makes it that much harder for the administration to resist that very reasonable suggestion. Republicans in congress aren't going to take a bullet for the White House on this one.