Name removed
(0 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 05:55 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Deleted message |
|
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
|
grytpype
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 05:58 PM
Response to Original message |
1. He wants to blame the CIA, but says nothing about the OSP. |
|
He's just laying the groundwork for Bush's escape.
|
KissMyAsscroft
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 05:59 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Well...it started at O. |
|
And has now gone to contempt.
|
rainy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 06:00 PM
Response to Original message |
|
he was hand picked by bush and is still protecting him. I remember him at the beginning of this hunt proclaiming that we WILL find wmd in Iraq very cocky. As Scott Ritter says he came to the only conclusion he could. There are no wmd.
|
GR
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 06:00 PM
Response to Original message |
4. He Didn't Have To Make A Big Deal Out Of Being Wrong... |
|
He could have pretended they'll still find something like many repukes. True it's dispicable that he's trying to blame CIA, but that won't hold. There's too much evidence to the contrary. He may have inflicted a mortal wound on BFEE....
|
doc03
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. He said we were all wrong |
|
Not Scott Ritter or Hans Blix
|
polmaven
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
|
He said we were almost all wrong.
|
NWHarkness
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 06:04 PM
Response to Original message |
|
He is an active participant in the cover up.
|
AndyP
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
|
What kind of cover up would start with a man admitting that the premise for the invasion was made up of lies? I'm not trying to be an ass- just curious.
|
ComerPerro
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. Because he is blaming the CIA, not PNAC or Bush |
AndyP
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #9 |
|
I guess I just thought of a cover-up differently then that. Makes sense though.
|
ComerPerro
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 06:18 PM
Response to Original message |
|
The intelligence coummunity should apologize to Bush??? Bullshit. Bush should apologize to the world.
|
Terwilliger
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 06:22 PM
Response to Original message |
|
:shrug:
I saw Kay trashing Scott Ritter back before the war...I think we know Kay works for Bush
|
CalebHayes
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 06:28 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Just an idiot doing a little Monday morning quarterbacking |
Snappy
(322 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
|
Never had any respect for him. David Kay is a Repug shill.
|
grasswire
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
|
Once again, the Bushies have put in place a FIXER. It's time to get educated on David Kay. http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/4430Here's part of it: Like Bremer, Rice, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the cast of hardened corporate characters, David Kay is an overfed relic from a past rightwing hawk regime. Under Reagan, he was a chief scientist for the Pentagon http://baltimore.indymedia.org/newswire/display/4522/index.php> as well as serving as a section chief for the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Administration of the UN) from 1983 until 1991. During this time, Hans Blix - Kay's boss - who was a man of integrity, was continually pressured by first Reagan, then Bush() I. to come up with 'evidence' that oil-rich Iraq() posed a sufficient nuclear threat for the US to invade (and thus to capture the oil).
In fact, until Kay came along, most experts in most western nations believed there was no evidence for an extensive WMD program in Iraq. But after the war, when Bush I needed greater validation for his actions in the run up to the 1992 election, Kay was made chief nuclear inspector for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq. UNSCOM was created in response to the Bush claims that Iraq was a hotbed of WMD weaponry that had to be 'dismantled.' Kay's investigations turned up all sorts of 'evidence' -given the time lapse from the end of the war to Kay's mission, who knows how much of it was planted -possibly all of it. Certainly the contributions of some 'defectors' have been totally dicredited. But UNSCOM produced the same sort of arrays of conveniently -in fact, unbelievably- detailed documents, all just left 'just laying around,' waiting to be found by Kay and company. The same evidence we hear reported ad infinitum and sans question on NBC, CNN, et al. Thanks to Kay's obliging efforts for Bush after Gulf War I, the stage was neatly set for Gulf War II. In fact, the entire invasion of Iraq was trumped up over the UN clause referring to WMDs.
Whenever Kay makes the rounds of the Bush-controlled media these days, he is always introduced only as 'former UN chief weapons inspector' and 'senior fellow at the Potomac Institute for Policy Research.' In short, Kay skips over several years of his interim history. Why? Maybe because during the 'missing years,' he was Vice President of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), a company with extremely close ties to the Pentagon and to the Bush administration in particular. A company up to its armpits in post-war Iraqi business, not to mention secret contracts rumored to involve electronic spying. A company in which Kay is rumored to still hold a sizeable chunk of stock, one where he maintains a rich network of inside connections.
SAIC's recent history is interesting, to say the least. The company was commissioned by G. W. Bush in 2002 to construct a replica of a mobile WMD laboratory of the sort used by Saddam. This mock up, supposedly destined to be used to train teams searching for WMDs in Iraq, was designed by Stephen Hatfill, the WMD expert now being harangued into isolation and thus silence by Bush's FBI. Last spring, the Bush administration handed SAIC some of the biggest defense contract plums to be had -a billion-dollar chunk of the NexGen business and an unbelievably porky 10-year contract worth over $600 million. I bet Kay just danced a jig of joy over that one, with visions of overflowing stock returns. Just think how much gratitude a couple of billion dollars can buy. Maybe even enough to produce another round of "evidence," thus setting the stage for Gulf War III?
But back to Gulf War I's aftermath. In 1992, Kay was fired from his UN position for trying to use underhanded methods (intriguing with the CIA and Iraqi thugs) to obtain 'informants' willing to feed him whatever information he needed (true or not). One such informant appears to be Khidir Hamza, whose 'evidence' was completely discredited by 1995. However, even in the aftermath of Kay's near-disgrace, Blix refused to bad-mouth him, as a matter of gentlemanly principles. "How did Kay repay Blix for defending him?" asks highly credentialed physicist James Gordon Prather, in a June 30, 2003 interview in the Worldnet Daily website. "He repeatedly testified before congressional committees in the months preceding Operation Iraqi Freedom as to the ineptness of Blix and the U.N. inspection regimes. Kay argued that Saddam certainly had "weapons of mass destruction" that the UN inspectors would never find and that it would ultimately be necessary to invade and occupy Iraq to find them."
|
mike1963
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 06:58 PM
Response to Original message |
16. I had to say "none" because there was no choice "a teeny tiny bit" |
|
And maybe respect wouldn't be the right word, but I feel that his outright admission "there were no WMD" is a small positive step. Sure, he misplaced the blame like a good soldier but the words got into the mainstream and that's a hell of a lot better than if they hadn't been said. Maybe it's too much to hope that a few people will begin to question the lies...but a glimmer of hope surely is better than none... isn't it? :eyes:
|
trof
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 07:05 PM
Response to Original message |
|
All intels fault. Not the admin. balderdash
|
buycitgo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
|
If Kay was axed to speak before the Senate committee before he arranged any of his other appearances that he did the media blitz ONLY because of his being called before the senate.
remember: he was called on such short notice that he didn't even have a statement to read.
what do you think: were all those other appearances part of a media blitz, complete with FAWNING, unquestioning interviews at EVERY turn, part of a fully orchestrated exercise in damage control.
once he HAD to testify, they went APE, getting him on everywhere, in order to put maximum spin on "CIA dog ate my homework"
|
maxr4clark
(639 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 07:42 PM
Response to Original message |
19. David Kay is setting the stage for Bush to invade Syria and Iran. |
|
He is providing data against the administration, and interpreting it as not Bush's fault. He has made contributions to the RNC and Bush's campaign in the past. He is clearly enjoying his role as an expert to the media and to Congress.
When he was asked if he thought there should be an independent investigation, he didn't say he thought so; he said he thought that Congress would eventually decide to have one. The phrase "plausible deniability" comes to mind, just as it does when I think about the phrase "gathering threat".
|
leesa
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sun Feb-01-04 07:49 PM
Response to Original message |
20. Why would it go up? He stated the obvious...no WMD, then blamed it |
|
on the CIA and other intelligence agencies who quite clearly said over and over again prior to the war, that the evidence showed Saddam had no WMD. What's to respect about that?
|
Mayberry Machiavelli
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-02-04 12:28 AM
Response to Original message |
21. The current scenario is very strange. |
|
The part where Kay is blaming only the intelligence agencies and deflecting criticism/responsibility from the president is not strange, that is sadly predictable.
But the issue is, (and I still haven't been able to figure this out) why say something now? Most thinking people who think like me recognize the administration's pattern of lies from before the war and nothing since has changed our basic conclusion, and Kay's admissions only confirm what I already feel that I knew.
But couldn't Shrub have crept through the NOV elections without Kay saying anything? Couldn't Kay have resigned while giving the old thumbs up to the cameras and saying "We haven't given up the fight to find those pesky WMD! Sure to find them soon! Stay tuned to this channel!"
It didn't seem strictly necessary for him to say anything like this. Sure there is a creeping realization among many or most people that the Iraq occupation is not going particularly well with many soldiers still getting blown up every day since the wonderful capture of Saddam. But by conceding the point on WMD it seems to force a crisis upon the administration that I'm not yet sure that they wanted. Now sure, it's better to have it now and bury it under some bogus comission that won't report until next year, then have a crisis close to election time.
Did Kay "go off the reservation" by conceding no WMDs exist, and then have some personal or Rove/Cheney induced remorse hence the comments about the intel agencies owing an apology to Shrub? Interpretations?
|
Tinoire
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-02-04 01:03 AM
Response to Original message |
22. Where's the choice for "Gone Down to sub-Arctic temp"? |
|
The guy's part of the cover-up. I've gone from zero respect to negative numbers. His entire performance is choreographed to divert attention from the real culprits.
|
ecstatic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-02-04 01:11 AM
Response to Original message |
23. none. he always ends his statement with a "but" |
|
There are no weapons "but" ...
He refuses to say anything that would reveal how deceptive the Bush admin has been. He even offers up the hope that the weapons could be found, or might have moved to another country.
|
banana republican
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-02-04 01:24 AM
Response to Original message |
|
but He didn't make a big deal out of it
maby a +.1 on a scale of 1 - 10
|
Guaranteed
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-02-04 01:38 AM
Response to Original message |
25. Huh? What, you think he's changing his spots? The guy's blaming it on |
|
the CIA. This whole thing, including his "coming out," is a ploy by the Bush administration to get in front of the WMD issue and push the responsibility to someone else. This isn't him coming clean or anything- it's totally political.
|
Kimber Scott
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-02-04 01:44 AM
Response to Original message |
26. It could be the safest way |
|
for Kay to get Bush in the end. Like wearing a shield in the front and the back. Point out the problem and let somebody else find who's to blame.
|
rman
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-02-04 02:03 AM
Response to Original message |
Selwynn
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Mon Feb-02-04 02:23 AM
Response to Original message |
|
I believe he's acutally assisting Bush deliberately by trying to shift focus and blame to the CIA.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 04th 2024, 02:46 PM
Response to Original message |