Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: U.s. Weapons Inspector David Kay

  1. #1
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Well?

    Is he credible?

    Truthful?

    Lying?

    Does his testimony help/hurt Bush?
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    clocker's Avatar Shovel Ready
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    15,388
    I don't understand the first three parts of your question, j2.
    Is there doubt concerning his credibility?
    Had even the shadow of a credible WMD been discovered wouldn't Bush/Cheney be trumpeting the fact from the White House roof?

    As it is, Bush has been reduced to mealy-mouthed explanations that Saddam 'could" have built said weapons.
    When I saw that on Meet The Press this weekend ( yes, I DID watch) it struck me "So what? The very same could be said of any college freshman chem student".

    To me, his testimony doesn't "hurt" Bush at all.
    I always thought Bush was a lying shitweasel, so lessening my opinion of him would be difficult to do.
    "I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Hey, look who's up!

    I'm wondering whether the general opinion is favorable or not as to what Kay has said so far; regardless of what one thinks of your "lying shitweasel", the fact of Kay's assertion of "No WMD (at least, none now) in Iraq", is obviously not what it seemed to be at first blush.

    A complete reading of his commentary and testimony does Bush no damage whatsoever.

    I think it is naive to assume Bush would had invaded Iraq if he had intelligence in hand which indicated no WMD; just as we can't imagine why Saddam would fail to provide proof he didn't have them (any longer), how is it credible that Bush would have proceeded with his "nefarious" plan, knowing the truth would out on the other end of the equation?

    Call him stupid if you like, but to believe he wouldn't tumble to the damage this would do to his chances for re-election strains credibility even further.
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    clocker's Avatar Shovel Ready
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    15,388
    Originally posted by j2k4@9 February 2004 - 22:52


    I think it is naive to assume Bush would had invaded Iraq if he had intelligence in hand which indicated no WMD; just as we can't imagine why Saddam would fail to provide proof he didn't have them (any longer), how is it credible that Bush would have proceeded with his "nefarious" plan, knowing the truth would out on the other end of the equation?

    Call him stupid if you like, but to believe he wouldn't tumble to the damage this would do to his chances for re-election strains credibility even further.
    I disagree.
    I think it's naive to assume otherwise.
    There seems to be evidence that the Bush administration was working on plans to implement a "regime change" long before 9/11 gave him the golden excuse to actually get moving.

    The deliberate and unrelenting linking of Iraq and September 11th in administration speeches indicates that a lack of proof was never an impediment to Bush.
    His presumptuous and craven assumption of the title "wartime president" tells me everything I need to know about Dubya.
    Dressing up in flight suits and parading around on carriers was/is far more important to George than actually figuring out how to lead our country through a trying and difficult time.
    Very odd for someone who appears to have done his best to evade his own military duties, eh?
    "I am the one who knocks."- Heisenberg

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    j2k4's Avatar en(un)lightened
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Oh, please...
    Posts
    15,254
    Quote: Clocker

    There seems to be evidence that the Bush administration was working on plans to implement a "regime change" long before 9/11 gave him the golden excuse to actually get moving.

    Seems? Don't tell me you're buying that story-his own aid (who was also fired) refuted the charge; said it was utterly without merit.

    Very odd for someone who appears to have done his best to evade his own military duties, eh?

    Appears? Aren't you sure?

    The opposition is, of course, going to make allegations; are you going to buy them wholesale?

    I know you to be capable of finer discernment than that, Clocker, even given your rather involuntary repulsion to Republicans.


    Dressing up in flight suits and parading around on carriers was/is far more important to George than actually figuring out how to lead our country through a trying and difficult time.

    What (besides staying out of Iraq) would you have had him do differently during his tenure?

    He hasn't drilled in ANWR, and he's been spending money faster than he can print it; what more do you want?
    “Think about how stupid the average person is, and then realize that half of 'em are stupider than that.” -George Carlin

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    Biggles's Avatar Looking for loopholes
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Scotland
    Age
    60
    Posts
    8,804
    Iraq is a hot dusty and rather unpleasant place to be. I think Dr Kay grew weary of what he fast realised was becoming a fool's errand. Scientific reputations can be undone spending a couple of years searching for the black cat in the coal hole that isn't there. It may have been his credibility that was more bothering Dr. Kay not others.

    There is nothing to suggest he is anything other than credible. If there was then this would re-bound equally on the administration for selecting him in the first place. Another intelligence gaff?

    I think ultimately the civil servants and intelligence agencies will carry the can on this one. This is to be expected, as everyone knows politicians are without fault.

    The problem would appear to be twofold.

    Firstly, too much credence was given to information from people with a vested interest in overthrowing Saddam.

    Secondly, expecting that the Iraqis could give written documentation of every transaction over the last 15 years. The US, I suspect, would struggle to account for all their military transactions over the last 15 years. I understand there are several black holes in the budget and that considerable amounts of kit cannot be accounted for. This is an ongoing issue for US auditors. I did like the explanation from a US army spokeman though, which went along the lines of "it is not so much missing as probably rusting in a railway siding in some forgotten backwater in Mississippi" (we are talking tanks here by the way).

    The same is true for a number of nuclear agencies around the world (including the UK) which appear to have lost plutonium. One hopes this is purely a paperwork loss and not a material loss.

    GW's election concerns will more probably revolve on how US voters feel regarding the deficit and what a weak dollar means to the price of their favourite imports. That is, will enough US voters feel they are better off and so re-elect him or will too many feel the pinch and decide to try someone else.

    Unless something nasty happens between now and November the War President stance will cut little ice. I suspect he also lacks the gravitas for that kind of posturing.
    Cogito cogito ergo cogito sum


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •