Kay's Senate Hearings on Weapons Inspections

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Che, I do think the missiles he was talking about were Bliss era, but Saddam never turned them over OR said whether they were destroyed.

There is a 3rd possibility. They were lost and forgotten about. Consider how much stuff has gone missing in our own military. Hell, didn't they lose tens of billions of dollars they simply can't account for? What's 35 rockets? Regardless of the esteme in which Scott Richter is held, his estimation of Iraq seems to be the most accurate, 95% of the stuff was accounted for and destroyed, and the rest was just never gonna be found.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Too simple. There is always choice c) All of the above.

[Patroklos]

Or just wrong.

So if someone hedges their bets on the Pats for the Superbowl because all signs indicate they will win, and then they lose, are they totally incompetant?

Good thing you are infoulable GePap so that he can pass judgment on us all, oh one who has never made an honest mistake.

[Sava]

hey rah, I can't PROVE that a pink elephant doesn't live behind the moon...

Agathon made the most sense in this thread. Either Bush is an incompetent boob, or he lied.

There is a pattern of behavior though. The administration ignored all dissenting information in regards to Iraq. Not only did they base their decisions on INFORMATION THAT WAS NOT CORROBORATED... they MISREPRESENTED AND MISLED THE PUBLIC WITH THAT INFORMATION in order to make their agenda policy.

btw rah, you sort of mocked Molly Ivins, but I have never seen you or anyone else refute the facts that she brings to light. Yes, she has an intense hatred of Bush... but that doesn't make her wrong.

[chequita guevara]

Pat, if Bush made an honest mistake, he should be firing the people who misled him. Hell, he hasn't even fired the speech writer who put the uranium BS in the '03 SotU speech, after the CIA had previously pulled it from a Bush speech. I understand you want to have faith in your boss, and that furthermore, you are prohibtied from saying anything disaparaging about the CiC (assuming the UMCJ applies to military school cadets), but there is a pattern of dishonesty in this Administration and none of the actions that a accidentally mislead organization would make.

To this I would add the actions of both the Pentagon and the CIA in contradicting the Administration, something I can't remember happening in my life.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
Or just wrong.

So if someone hedges their bets on the Pats for the Superbowl because all signs indicate they will win, and then they lose, are they totally incompetant?

Good thing you are infoulable GePap so that he can pass judgment on us all, oh one who has never made an honest mistake.

HOnest mistake? Not a chance.

This admin. never cared to listen to those that asked for moderation, or for more information. An honest mistake can only be made if after ehxausting all possible sources of info, or if given only one source of info, you act and it turns out that info you had, for no fault of your own, was wrong. Neither of those apply to this admin. and its behavior. What someone in the WH did to that ambassador and his wife for daring challenge the admins. claims is proof enough there was little honestly in selling this war.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Patroklos
So if someone hedges their bets on the Pats for the Superbowl because all signs indicate they will win, and then they lose, are they totally incompetant?

oh that's responsible... equating war and foreign policy to betting on football.

sorry, but war isn't something that should be taken lightly. I don't want my schools to be faith-based... I sure as HELL don't want wars to be "faith-based" (meaning we don't have facts, just trust us).

It's really a shame that so-called "conservatives" have become so reckless, irresponsible, and cavalier regarding the use of the military. I guess when dealing with matters of life and death, we don't need all the facts to be there, right?

It seems like people spend more time investigating a new car, or buying a home; than they do informing themselves about GOING TO WAR.

[chequita guevara]

Circumstantial evidence isn't proof. But I'd say there isn't much room for reasonable doubt.

[Patroklos]

We don't lose tens of billions of dollars, but yes we do lose money to accounting errors and fraud (I know becasue this is what I do). However, we don't lose 35 standard missles every year, let alone 35 WMD capable missiles. Not even the Iraqi military is that incompetant or corrupt.

But you know all Saddam had do was say "look, here is the pieces," and all would be well. Like Kay said, he was being ambigous for a reason, a reason that obviously worked. So maybe we should chalk it up tp SADDAM bieng a lier and a very good one. His plan simply backfired.

[chequita guevara]

Pat, about 2(?) years ago, the Pentagon admitted that it had simply lost a staggeringly huge amount of money. They could not account for what happened to it. AFAIK, they still don't, though maybe that story wasn't as interesting and didn't get picked up.

[rah]

You all have made good points. And yes I mocked Molly, and didn't say she was wrong. I even said she has SOME good things to say. But her style makes it hard for her to convince anybody that doesn't already agree with her. Most good columnists are trying to convince people.

And everyone in this thread but one has stated that it's only their OPINION that he lied. I think it's a possibility that he did. And I respect those that say it's just their opinion, no matter how much they believe it.

I still have a problem with the one person that doesn't see reason and says it's just not his opinion, it's fact.
If that person says it's fact, and he can't be 100% sure, (even though most of us will believe it) then he is doing exactly what he is accusing BUSH of. Claiming fact without 100% proof. Which by his own definition, makes him a liar.


And yes, I'm more likely to go with idiot option. But since that's my opinion of most politicians, that won't keep me from voting for him again.

[chequita guevara]

Seems some of my ideological allies are hard of reading.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Patroklos
We don't lose tens of billions of dollars, but yes we do lose money to accounting errors and fraud (I know becasue this is what I do). However, we don't lose 35 standard missles every year, let alone 35 WMD capable missiles. Not even the Iraqi military is that incompetant or corrupt.

But you know all Saddam had do was say "look, here is the pieces," and all would be well. Like Kay said, he was being ambigous for a reason, a reason that obviously worked. So maybe we should chalk it up tp SADDAM bieng a lier and a very good one. His plan simply backfired.

perhaps Saddam had a vital interest in maintaining the ILLUSION he had WMD's... considering he is a paranoid meglomaniac, it's reasonable to think he believed he needed the deterrent from his neighbors.

And plus, if you are some tinpot dictator on a power trip, are you going to comply with the UN? pfffft.... Saddam was jerking them around.

I was wrong though. I thought he had WMD's. I didn't consider him a threat to America. He didn't have ICBM's... he wasn't about to fire a SCUD with something attached to it. And he wasn't about to give Islamic terrorists any such weapons when they hated him as much as they hate US!

You know, I saw on the news, last night, that two people died from space-heater fires. Space heaters have killed more Americans and are more of a threat to Americans than Saddam Hussein could have ever been in his wildest dreams.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
You all have made good points. And yes I mocked Molly, and didn't say she was wrong. I even said she has SOME good things to say. But her style makes it hard for her to convince anybody that doesn't already agree with her. Most good columnists are trying to convince people.

And everyone in this thread but one has stated that it's only their OPINION that he lied. I think it's a possibility that he did. And I respect those that say it's just their opinion, no matter how much they believe it.

I still have a problem with the one person that doesn't see reason and says it's just not his opinion, it's fact.
If that person says it's fact, and he can't be 100% sure, (even though most of us will believe it) then he is doing exactly what he is accusing BUSH of. Claiming fact without 100% proof. Which by his own definition, makes him a liar.


And yes, I'm more likely to go with idiot option. But since that's my opinion of most politicians, that won't keep me from voting for him again.

So answer GePap's question -- what do you consider proof then, other than a memo titled, "How I Lied About Iraq" written by President Bush himself??

[Patroklos]

Your right Che,

I do think alot of people need to be fired or at least slapped around a bit in the intelligence community. At least shamed for having been decieved by a thrid rate intel agency.

I also think Bush should admit he was wrong. Just walk up to the podium and say, "though I defend my decision based on the evidence presented to me, I was in fact wrong about WMB in reality." Not going to happen becasue politicians do not operate that way, unfortunetly. Also, becasue his critics are just partisain cronies for the most part it won't help him there either.

And I am no longer a cadet, but your comment does apply, even more so now