Kay's Senate Hearings on Weapons Inspections

[Drake Tungsten]

Bush and Blair both vindicated on the same day? What a world...

[Agathon]

Bad troll Drake. You don't even like Bush.

[Drake Tungsten]

You don't even like Bush.

True, but I like seeing whiny leftists being embarassed enough to root for the guy now and then.

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by 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.

Ah good. A witchhunt. That'll improve efficiency in our operatives and analysts. Not.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

You don't even like Bush.

True, but I like seeing whiny leftists being embarassed enough to root for the guy now and then.

I take it you didn't watch the hearings then. Saying Bush was vindicated is going a bit too far.

[Drake Tungsten]

I take it you didn't watch the hearings then.

You think?

Saying Bush was vindicated is going a bit too far.

That's the key to trolling, my good man...

[Agathon]

Anyway, **** the knuckle-dragging racist Republican scum and their simian President.

Someone should pop a cap in his ass.

[Ben Kenobi]

A logical arguement as proof is not proof. It's a logical arguement. Until there is material proof, it's only an opinion. QED MATERIAL PROOF IS THE ONLY PROOF. Anything less is just a logical arguement. OPINION. NOT PROVEN FACT.

Why does this quote remind me of the Mangler?

"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."

[GePap]

We are talking about what the man believed when he made his statements. If he believed, he was not lying. Quite simple. There is no way you can know what he believed. The brain is not always logical. YOU CAN NOT KNOW WHAT HE BELIEVED. IT's quite simple. Unless he tells you he lied, there is no proof, and you're left with just YOUR OPINION>

Like I said, rah would make the worlds worst prosecutor.

So basically, until somone confesses, you can never know if they lied. Obviously rah was one that agreed with the OJ verdict, after all, OJ never admited, and only if someone admits guilt are they guilty, cause otherwise, how do you "really" know? right?

I return to Guynemer's statement- now, I will assume it is an accurate quote- how is that NOT a lie? You have never addressed that quote, but I don;t expect you to. For it comes down more simply: KNOW and BELIEVE are fundamentally different things: even if I can not know what the president believed, I can guess at what he knew as fact (or more specifically, what he did NOT know as fact). I can also say that to state that your beliefs are = to knowledge is false. Do you honestly think the president saying "I am steadfast in my belief that Saddam has WMD's" is the same as saying "I know Saddam has WMD's"? NO, those two things are not the same. BY your own standards of proof Rah the president or any member of the admin. could never have said "we know Saddam has WMD's" becuase they could never KNOW until they actually found them, no? So what do you label making a statement that is fundamnetally impossible? I am curious, what do you call it?

I just get tired of his continued statements of it as a fact that's already been proved.

First fell free to address me. I don;t mind people using my call name. I would say though that your position on what can be "proven" is certainly the extreme one: to say no one can ever be said to have lied until they tell you they did? How many people would agree with that?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Bush and Blair both vindicated on the same day? What a world...

How is Bush vindicated? To use a little rahism here, all Kay did was state his opinions (right rah?), and opinions can not vindicate, as they have no probative value.

Even if we forgo the rahism, that remains correct-Kay thinks fault lies with the intellienge agencies-but Kay was not part of those that planned for war, he is a biased observer (his new arguement, that we needed to take out Saddam not becuase of the threat of his strength, but of his weakness, which all of a sudden was an even bigger danger! is extremely lame) stating his opinion.

What we need is an inquiry into how we got to war: it would be nice for the administration to proceed (at minimum, even if they want to whitewash themselves, investigate the utter incorrectness of the intelliegence) with one. But this admin. will block the suggestions all the way.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by rah
This is freaking hilarious. Gepap still can not admit that it's just his opinion. He is still claiming it's fact. And you wonder why people don't take you seriously.

How could W make a statement of fact when there was at least a 50% chance of going wrong? It's like he was saying, "Let's flip a coin. If it come up heads, we attack."

Then there's the question of why he consistently ignored Blix and his team, that the Bush admin made all sorts of excuses playing down their reports.

The only reasonable conclusion one can draw is Dubya had decided to invade Iraq, and he was just looking for an excuse.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by rah
After paying big bucks for them, I have seen upper management believe a lot of crazy crap, just because they paid for it. It just makes them boobs, not liars.

Nah.

The conclusions are already in place, the consultants are hired to make up the rest.

[Jack_www]

I dont think Bush lied about the WMDs, but on the other hand I do think he has to do something about this. The CIA has to do better than this if we are to prevent anther terrorist attack. They really messed this one up, but even before Kay came out to talk about this I knew that the US would not find these WMDs a few months after the end of the war.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap


What counts as proof? A memo titled "HOw I lied about WMD's", handwriten by Bush?

As agathon said, they are either utterly incompetent, or they lied.

I can't believe you haven't mentioned Bush's book, "Lying About WMD is My Bag Baby".

[Drake Tungsten]

Oh behave, Sikander...