[ambush]

What the World is Saying...

About David Kay's Statements on WMD in Iraq

Earlier this week, the administration's outgoing top weapons inspector
in Iraq, David Kay, when asked about weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, replied, "I don't think they existed." Kay based his statement
on over six months of investigation undertaken by the CIA's Iraqi
Survey Group. The following is a sample of international editorial
commentary on his recent statements

Japan

"Recent admissions by top U.S. officials that Iraq might not have had
weapons of mass destruction, or WMD, demand an explanation. Questions
must be answered and the damage done to both U.N. and U.S. credibility
must be repaired... Mr. Bush argued for the need to go to war because
Iraq's possession of WMD posed an urgent danger. No such claim can be
leveled against 'WMD-related programs.' The U.S. must discover why
that gap existed and explain to the world why it acted on the basis of
faulty intelligence. Failure to do so will ensure that doubts arise
every time the U.S. tries to marshal international support for action
in the future."

- The Japan Times, January 28, 2004

Australia

"The resignation of the United States' chief Iraq weapons inspector,
David Kay, and his stated belief there are no weapons of mass
destruction to be found there, should not be seen simply as another
blow to the countries that went to war specifically to eliminate the
threat. More importantly, it is a victory for the United Nations and
the international community generally who, over the previous decade,
put pressure on Saddam Hussein to rid his country of the WMD menace."

- Canberra Times, January 27, 2004

France

"A year ago, in his State of the Union message, President George W.
Bush lacked a sufficiently alarmist formula to describe the immediate
danger that Iraq's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed
to the United States... A few weeks later, citing meteorological
constraints, President Bush went to war. There could be no question of
waiting any longer: the danger was too great... Almost a year after
the collapse of the Saddam Hussein regime, the head of the US
inspection mission in Iraq has just submitted his conclusions. He has
worked with hundreds of men. He has operated in the favorable
environment of a country administrated by the United States. David Kay
was definite: there were no WMD's."

- Le Monde, January 27, 2004

Malaysia

"The story of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is turning into a dime
novel of farce, fear-baiting manipulation, hubris and hypocrisy. In
the latest chapter, David Kay, once stridently bullish about Saddam
Hussein's illegal weapons hoard, resigned from the Iraq Survey Group
on Friday after having found no stockpiles, or any capacity to build
them, that would have justified President George W. Bush's decision to
go to war last March. The absence of WMD in Iraq has damaged American
credibility in the eyes of the world and struck down the UN's
authority to deter aggression."

- Kamrul Idris, New Straits Times, January 26, 2004

China (Hong Kong)

"[Kay's assessment] is the most authoritative challenge yet to the
claims that Iraq had to be attacked to remove an imminent threat to
the world. His conclusions will add weight to allegations that suspect
intelligence concerning Hussein's weapons was too easily relied upon
and then exaggerated by US and British leaders in a bid to swing
international opinion behind the invasion... U.S. Vice-President Dick
Cheney said last week that 'the jury is still out' on the weapons
issue. That may be true. But the jury - in the form of international
opinion - is still lacking evidence and is becoming more skeptical by
the day."

- South China Morning Post, January 25, 2004

Poland

"The CIA, and the Bush Administration, claimed the opposite, and the
conviction that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was
prepared to use them was the main reason for attacking Iraq... The
most important thing is how [President] Bush made the decision to
start the war - whether he was himself misled or he deliberately told
a lie... It is imaginable, after all, that the United States told a
lie and went to war. However, if the country went to war by mistake,
the consequences are appalling."

- Dawid Warszawski, Warsaw Gazeta Wyborcza, January 28, 2004

United Kingdom

"It's getting embarrassing. Anybody who's anybody now admits that
there are no, and were no, weapons of mass destruction worth the name
in Iraq. The roll-call of converts to what used to be the exclusive
position of the anti-war camp gets more impressive by the day. David
Kay, President Bush's handpicked arms inspector and the former chief
weapons monitor of the CIA - hardly a limp-wristed European peacenik -
quit his post at the head of the Iraq Survey Group last week,
concluding that there are no Iraqi WMD to be found: "I don't think
they existed," he said bluntly... In 2002-03, governments in London
and Washington stretched every sinew to persuade their publics that
war was necessary because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But
Iraq did not and so the war was fought on a false basis. For that,
surely, there must be a reckoning."

- Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian, January 28, 2004

India

"The United States Administration's defense of its Iraq policy has
been steadily rendered untenable by developments on the ground. Its
justifications for the invasion have not withstood close scrutiny and
it is unable to contain the consequences of its actions... The
administration also cannot take shelter behind the CIA official's
statement that errors in judgment should be attributed to the
intelligence services rather than to the political echelon. President
Bush and his political appointees have so consistently followed a
pattern of doctoring data and concocting cases to suit their political
purposes that they cannot blame professionals in the intelligence
services for the wide gap between reality and their projections of
it."

- The Hindu, January 28, 2004

Algeria

"Despite a negative report, the head of the White House attacked an
independent country, dragging the United Kingdom along on his
adventure. He gave the American people a single argument to justify
his operation: the ruler of Baghdad possessed weapons of mass
destruction. Today the most credible and the most serious testimony is
mounting against him. Since 2001 he has not stopped lying and talking
about weapons that do not exist, this with the sole aim of seizing
ancient Mesopotamia."

- Tayeb Belghiche, Algiers El Watan, January 27, 2004

Ireland

"[Kay's statement] is a grave embarrassment for supporters of the
war... British and American official statements that the question is
still open are less and less credible after Mr. Kay's resignation...
It is not a trivial point. Despite the several supplementary reasons
for going to war put out before and after it by the Bush
administration, the allegation that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass
destruction which he was prepared to use against other states was the
basic justification offered to domestic and international opinion and
the most plausible one under international law."

- The Irish Times, January 26, 2004

Pakistan

"[Kay] said we have searched about 85 percent of the Iraqi area, but
we have detected nothing. In this situation, it can be said that Iraq
in fact never possessed such weapons... David Kay's resignation is a
slap on the US face... He was an American, and he was specially sent
to Iraq... By making the so-called WMD's an excuse, the United States
and Britain have committed most shameful aggression against an
independent and sovereign country... David Kay's resignation has
further exposed their naked aggression."

- Karachi Jasarat, January 26, 200

Conclusion: I feel bad for those who will vote Bush in 2004. I'm very concerned about their mental health.

[chabig]

Excerpts from David Kay's senate testimony:

Senator McCain: "Saddam Hussein developed and used weapons of mass destruction; true?"

David Kay: "Absolutely."

Senator McCain: "He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds; just yes or no."

David Kay: "Oh, yes."

Senator McCain: "OK. And U.N. inspectors found enormous quantities of banned chemical and biological weapons in Iraq in the '90s."

David Kay: "Yes, sir."

Senator McCain: "We know that Saddam Hussein had once a very active nuclear program."

David Kay: "Yes."

Senator McCain: "And he realized and had ambitions to develop and use weapons of mass destruction."

David Kay: "Clearly."

Senator McCain: "So the point is, if he were in power today, there is no doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. Is there any doubt in your mind?"

David Kay: "There's absolutely no doubt. And I think I've said that, Senator."

[macvillage.net]

What's amazing, is that Bush will put a spin on it (as usual)...

making the world who calls Bush a liar "terrorist supporters".

Bush has been the most creepy president so far. Never justifies anything. Not cooperating with invistigations or commissions including 9/11.

IMHO the American people deserve to get justificatoin.



The one thing I like about Mayor Bloomberg in NYC, is he takes responsibility personally... and more than once.

Problem in schools. He takes the personal responsibility, and investigates. No passing off blame, or refusing to comment.

I got more respect for someone who makes mistakes, and just admits them... Then someone who covers them up, and obstructs investigations.

At least NYC gets some accountability. It's not a fixed problem because of that. But it's a good start.


As you can tell, I really don't think this new investigation into Iraq intelegence is anything more than a Public Relations move by the Bush *campaign*. IMHO Congress should be launching this investigation. But it's a Republican congress, and an election year... so it's impossible for that to happen.


So who will be the scapegoat? I'd get Tenet.

[dtriska]

Originally posted by ambush:
Conclusion: I feel bad for those who will vote Bush in 2004. I'm very concerned about their mental health.

For once, I agree with you.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by chabig:
Senator McCain: "So the point is, if he were in power today, there is no doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. Is there any doubt in your mind?"

David Kay: "There's absolutely no doubt. And I think I've said that, Senator."

I harbor ambitions to own a gun. That does not mean that I actually do own a gun. I don't think there's any doubt that Hussein or anyone else would have a nuclear arsenal if they could get away with it (case in point: North Korea). That does not mean that they actually do have said weapons.

[GG Allin]

Originally posted by ambush:
Conclusion: I feel bad for those who will vote Bush in 2004. I'm very concerned about their mental health.

Yep. Unfortunately the people who will vote for him no matter what are beyond help. They are those who are so fundamental in their thinking that voting for another party is unthinkable. You gotta understand in America we have a lot of people who think the Democrats are n*g**r - jew - queer loving adulterous pacifist idealistic America hating godless heathens.

AND they believe what they see on TV. You cannot reason with them.

It is obvious this administrations values are extended only as far an oil company or defense contractor and their morals do not exist. And the facade of fiscal conservatism is finally gone too. So I don't know what the rationale is for voting Republican this year.

[gadster]

God save America. Not 'bless', 'save'.

Get out there and VOTE, you pillocks.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by chabig:
Excerpts from David Kay's senate testimony:

Senator McCain: "Saddam Hussein developed and used weapons of mass destruction; true?"

David Kay: "Absolutely."

Senator McCain: "He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds; just yes or no."

David Kay: "Oh, yes."

Senator McCain: "OK. And U.N. inspectors found enormous quantities of banned chemical and biological weapons in Iraq in the '90s."

David Kay: "Yes, sir."

Senator McCain: "We know that Saddam Hussein had once a very active nuclear program."

David Kay: "Yes."

Senator McCain: "And he realized and had ambitions to develop and use weapons of mass destruction."

David Kay: "Clearly."

Senator McCain: "So the point is, if he were in power today, there is no doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. Is there any doubt in your mind?"

David Kay: "There's absolutely no doubt. And I think I've said that, Senator."

I am always stunned when I hear people justifying this. Always.
Before, the rallying cry was "imminent threat, we must act NOW or face destruction." Now, the spin. The rationalizations. The afterthought justifications. The denial of responsibility- and the BLATANT decrying of those who would question.

Until Bush SAYS, IN SO MANY WORDS, "I made a mistake. I take responsibility because I AM the commander in chief", he gets zero from me.
This hypocrisy is disgusting.

[kindbud]

puhleeze.

If he said it you still wouldn't like him.

[maxelson]

Like? No. Absolutely not. I never implied that I would. At least be able to grant some respect. And, before you say it (I know you will ), nah, had no respect for Clinton after his little denial of responsibility either.

But, as you damned well know, there is absolutely no danger of Bush having some integrity on the issue and admitting responsibility. Your point is moot. ANd I am a little curious as to why you would even bring it into the debate. Like and respect are mutually exclusive.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by dtriska:
For once, I agree with you.

The alternative being?

Clark : This guy is a puppet of the Clintons.
His part in Waco, and Somalia.

Kerry : Scary. Oh, my hair!, do I look ok?

Dean : Lost it, he's certifiable. Aaarrrrggghh.
Seriously though, he has a terrible temper.

Kucinich : OMFG. No way!

I question the sanity of anyone voting for
any of these *candidates*.

[Lerkfish]

There were no viable opposition candidates to Saddam Hussein.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by ambush:
Conclusion: I feel bad for those who will vote Bush in 2004. I'm very concerned about their mental health.

Look at the DATES of all these quotes.

It must be nice to sit back and criticize
after the fact.

Who really cares what these arm-pit
countries think anyway?

Where are your sources for the quotes?
Just naming a country is misleading.
Every country has a group that can be
quoted as being against anything.

If you are trying to be convincing by
overwhelming response, then you
have been found lacking.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
There were no viable opposition candidates to Saddam Hussein.

I don't think I have to teach you a lesson in
fallacies of logic do I? You seem to rely on
using arguments containing false logic to
take jabs and 'win' arguments.

The truth is, you look foolish to educated
people, but for those fools that follow and
enjoy your banter, you seemingly win.

Very sad.

[Lerkfish]

How many "arm-pit" countries does it take to topple a giant?

Just curious.

The Roman Empire also thought it was surrounded by arm-pit countries.

the operative word there is "surrounded".

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
I don't think I have to teach you a lesson in
fallacies of logic do I? You seem to rely on
using arguments containing false logic to
take jabs and 'win' arguments.

The truth is, you look foolish to educated
people, but for those fools that follow and
enjoy your banter, you seemingly win.

Very sad.

Hmmm....I suppose you COULD teach me a thing or two about fallacies in logic, now that you mention it.

For one, I think the fallacy of your logic in this instance was that if there are no viable candidates (your opinion) to Bush, that means he deserves to stay in power. I was providing another example to see if you could connect the dots logically and see where that conclusion was fallacious.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
How many "arm-pit" countries does it take to topple a giant?

Just curious.

The Roman Empire also thought it was surrounded by arm-pit countries.

the operative word there is "surrounded".

3x more than there presently are. Hard to attack someone when you rely on selling them sh*t for your survival.

Other countries want us to "butt out"?

1. STOP BORROWING/ACCEPTING $ FROM US!

2. Grow a pair.

3. see 1 and 2.

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
How many "arm-pit" countries does it take to topple a giant?

Just curious.

The Roman Empire also thought it was surrounded by arm-pit countries.

the operative word there is "surrounded".

Bring it on.

[Lerkfish]

well, now, yes, I can see where that would sound exactly like a person from the Roman Empire, right before it fell....accounting for the translation and all.

[boots]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Who really cares what these arm-pit
countries think anyway?

Heh. Somehow I doubt you have restrictions and covenants in your neighborhood. Otherwise, you'd probably be paying some enormous fines to the neighborhood committee, given your attitude.


I also like how you just called the UK an arm-pit country when it was our staunchest ally.

You probably got a "needs improvement" on the "works well with others" part of your report card in kindergarten too, didn't you.


[yes, it was an ad-hominem, but one designed to illustrate a point, not just piss you off]

[chabig]

Before, the rallying cry was "imminent threat

Imminent threat was never a justification for the war. Here is the relevant excerpt from the 2002 State of the Union speech...

"Iraq continues to flaunt its hostility toward America and to support terror. _The Iraqi regime has plotted to develop anthrax, and nerve gas, and nuclear weapons for over a decade. _This is a regime that has already used poison gas to murder thousands of its own citizens -- leaving the bodies of mothers huddled over their dead children. _This is a regime that agreed to international inspections -- then kicked out the inspectors. This is a regime that has something to hide from the civilized world.

States like these, and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. _By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. _They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. _They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. _In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic.

We will work closely with our coalition to deny terrorists and their state sponsors the materials, technology, and expertise to make and deliver weapons of mass destruction. _We will develop and deploy effective missile defenses to protect America and our allies from sudden attack. _(Applause.) And all nations should know: _America will do what is necessary to ensure our nation's security.

We'll be deliberate, yet time is not on our side. _I will not wait on events, while dangers gather. _I will not stand by, as peril draws closer and closer. _The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons."

He said Iraq has sought WMD for a decade (true) and that there were a threat to security. He did not say they were an imminent threat.

Chris

[boots]

Originally posted by chabig:
He said Iraq has sought WMD for a decade (true) and that there were a threat to security. He did not say they were an imminent threat.

Chris

True. Blair was the one how made the "45 minute" statement.

However, just before 9/11, the administration acknowledged that the "containment" strategy was working!

So, we got 9/11 (that, according to Bush's own administration, Iraq had no connection to) and a rogue state who was, by our own accounts, contained. What was the compelling reason again?

Proof text the speeches all you want. In totem, the administration build up a frenzy of fear using WMD as the stick. They were wrong.

I won't deny that it was time to try something different...for humanitarian reasons, if nothing else. I would have bought that argument along with a less unilateral action. Saddam was a menace to his own people.

But the way this whole thing went down was wrong. It has damaged US credibility, and has set a very dangerous precedent for future conflict resolution. In historical terms, this is only the beginning.

[Lerkfish]

so...your take is that Bush was rallying support to invade because he knew WMDs were non-imminent, and of no danger? Or is your take that his intent was never to rouse up fear of future attack from Saddam and therefore the preemptive invasion?

Or are you just avocating letting him off the hook on a semantic technicality that is so paper thin as to be nonexistent?

I edited to add: this was directed at chabig, not boots, who slipped in while I was typing)

[TheMosco]

Originally posted by chabig:
Imminent threat was never a justification for the war. Here is the relevant excerpt from the 2002 State of the Union speech...

He said Iraq has sought WMD for a decade (true) and that there were a threat to security. He did not say they were an imminent threat.

Chris

But, This was said(by Rumsfeld):

Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent-that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain...We do not know today precisely how close he is to having a deliverable nuclear weapon.... [T]hose who raise questions about the nuclear threat need to focus on the immediate threat from biological weapons.

http://www.house.gov/hasc/openingsta...8rumsfeld.html


Bush said:

The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace. On the commands of a dictator, the regime is armed with biological and chemical weapons, possesses ballistic missiles, promotes international terror and seeks nuclear weapons.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0021016-1.html

While that last one doesn't use that term, i would consider the "imminent threat" phrase to be a valid description of Bush's speeches.

And this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html

that pretty much says that the US will attack countries that pose an imminent threat

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by boots:
I won't deny that it was time to try something different...for humanitarian reasons, if nothing else. I would have bought that argument along with a less unilateral action. Saddam was a menace to his own people.

But the way this whole thing went down was wrong. It has damaged US credibility, and has set a very dangerous precedent for future conflict resolution. In historical terms, this is only the beginning.

Actually, I feel the HRW has put lie to the idea that the humanitarian crisis was worsening, and Kay's report now indicates that UN inspections were effective. However, problems in both areas were still extant (and continue to be), and in this I am in agreement with you, Boots: I would have supported multilateral military action to depose Hussein on either humanitarian or security grounds, or both.

I believe that the Bush administration could have reached their "stated" goals regarding Iraq without making such a hash of the situation, had they merely been patient, thorough and less bellicose. They blew it on all three counts and left US credibility in tatters in the process.

[Lerkfish]

I think the bottom line is this:

IF you intend to preemptively invade based on circumstantial or non-verifiable intelligence rather than actual evidence, you run the risk of being wrong.
Now, once you establish that, you need to accept that the cost of being wrong is the evaporation of your credibility.

Bush gambled and ignored the possibility of being wrong. Now that he is, in fact, wrong, he needs to accept that he has evaporated US credibility in the eyes of the world. There are ways to restore that credibility. They are difficult and time consuming.

But his present response will definitely not restore that credibility. Scapegoating and evasion, prevarication and revisisionism do little to repair broken credibility...in fact, they serve to further erode it.

[maxelson]

What he said. There is nothing partisan about it. There is nothing political in Lerk's statement. It is common sense. All of this denial of responsibility shows naught but a lack of... what's the word I always use... integrity. No partisan BS, no spinning, no blinders. HE screwed up. HE needs to own up to it. HE is the Commander in Chief. Why is it that there are so many here who defend this and, seemingly, support it?

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by GG Allin:
Yep. Unfortunately the people who will vote for him no matter what are beyond help.

LOL. That's a broad generalization.... This narrow and naive point of view leads me to believe that the same can be said about you...

Originally posted by GG Allin:
They are those who are so fundamental in their thinking that voting for another party is unthinkable.

This is not exlusive to either party.... The same can be said about Democrats.

Originally posted by GG Allin:
AND they believe what they see on TV. You cannot reason with them.

Once again, this is not exclusive to either party... the whole Political forum here is based on people's views that they have obtained from periodicals, the internet, or TV.

[maxelson]

Which they have subsequently critically processed. The question is how that process is influenced. Clearly, simple partisanism IS a (or THE) filter for more than a few here.

[kindbud]

translation:

in the future, Dubya should not take action - but, instead, wait for a majority of chickenshiznit countries to grow enough balls to be willing to send their soldiers to die for the cause.

[Fanatic]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think the bottom line is this:

IF you intend to preemptively invade based on circumstantial or non-verifiable intelligence rather than actual evidence, you run the risk of being wrong.
Now, once you establish that, you need to accept that the cost of being wrong is the evaporation of your credibility.

Bush gambled and ignored the possibility of being wrong. Now that he is, in fact, wrong, he needs to accept that he has evaporated US credibility in the eyes of the world. There are ways to restore that credibility. They are difficult and time consuming.

But his present response will definitely not restore that credibility. Scapegoating and evasion, prevarication and revisisionism do little to repair broken credibility...in fact, they serve to further erode it.

Lerk has hit the nail on the head here... but everything in Politics and War is a gamble... you never know for certain.... plenty of people have gone down in history as brave, enlightened, inspired, etc. simply because they gambled and circumstances proved them right...

[boots]

Originally posted by kindbud:
translation:

in the future, Dubya should not take action - but, instead, wait for a majority of chickenshiznit countries to grow enough balls to be willing to send their soldiers to die for the cause.

There was more than one possible action to be taken.

The world is not black and white, TN. You know I respect you for keeping people honest, but this is a pretty bogus argument.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by kindbud:
translation:

in the future, Dubya should not take action - but, instead, wait for a majority of chickenshiznit countries to grow enough balls to be willing to send their soldiers to die for the cause.

Troll response.
Spliffy. Yes or no: Bush was wrong in his assertions about imminent danger. I don't want any excuses or funky evading responses. I am familiar with your sense of humor. I'm not asking for that. Nor do I want any explanations as to WHY he was wrong. Yes or no.
2) Bush is the President of the United States. The CIC.

Yes or no.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Fanatic:


Lerk has hit the nail on the head here... but everything in Politics and War is a gamble... you never know for certain.... plenty of people have gone down in history as brave, enlightened, inspired, etc. simply because they gambled and circumstances proved them right...

agreed. However, where this gets into a Really Messed Up Situation� is that Bush, Powell, and Rumsfeld assured us there was no gamble involved. That it was a "sure bet". That they had ironclad inside information as to which horse to bet on.
That's when they turned it from a normal handicapping of the horse race to a swindle.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by chabig:
Excerpts from David Kay's senate testimony:

SNIP

Senator McCain: "So the point is, if he were in power today, there is no doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. Is there any doubt in your mind?"

David Kay: "There's absolutely no doubt. And I think I've said that, Senator."

Harboring ambitions for the development and use of weapons of mass destruction is not the same thing as HAVING weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and PM Blair took us to war because Iraq HAD weapons of mass destruction that posed an imminent threat to our national security. So, there is some discrepancy here between the reasons our leaders articulated for why they were taking us into this war and what was discovered on the ground in Iraq. And that is the point most of these editorials are trying to make, namely that the discrepancy between the premise and observable results of going to war needs to be investigated.

[chris v]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
Bring it on.

He says, from his barca-lounger.

Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the United States military?

CV

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by chris v:
He says, from his barca-lounger.

Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the United States military?

CV

In fairness, being a member of the military is no prerequisite for putting an imaginary chip on your shoulder in cyberspace.

[Nonsuch]

Originally posted by chabig:
Excerpts from David Kay's senate testimony:

[...]

Senator McCain: "He used them against the Iranians and the Kurds; just yes or no."

You pretty much know the fix is in when you hear "just answer yes or no."

[chris v]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
In fairness, being a member of the military is no prerequisite for putting an imaginary chip on your shoulder in cyberspace.

I just believe that those willing to cry for war in such bellicose terms should also be willing to go the distance themselves.

It's easy to send someone else off to die for your principles. It's another matter entirely to lay your OWN life on the line. I'm curious about his degree of seriousness. The question is whether he personally is going to defend us on the front lines against all the arm-pit nations, or if he'll just be cheering along to Fox.

CV

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by chris v:
I just believe that those willing to cry for war in such bellicose terms should also be willing to go the distance themselves.

It's easy to send someone else off to die for your principles. It's another matter entirely to lay your OWN life on the line. I'm curious about his degree of seriousness. The question is whether he personally is going to defend us on the front lines against all the arm-pit nations, or if he'll just be cheering along to Fox.

CV

well, but I think you're asking a question for which you already know the answer. I think we've established already that people here are going to do that, plus I don't think its right to make that a pseudo-requirement before people can state their opinion.

Not that I disagree with where you're heading with that, but I just don't think its important to the discussion. I think we can just all accept as given that people like that are not going to actually put their own butts on the line and go from there to discuss the issue, because even if they WERE in Iraq right now, putting their own butts on the line, that wouldn't necessarily validate any opinion they might express, so by the same token, NOT being in Iraq right now should not INvalidate any opinion they might express.

Just like I should be able to say that I agree with anti-war protestors without being told I can't unless I'm actually in the street with them.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by kindbud:
translation:

in the future, Dubya should not take action - but, instead, wait for a majority of chickenshiznit countries to grow enough balls to be willing to send their soldiers to die for the cause.

No, in the future, the American President should wait for accurate information so that he/she can make an informed decision about the appropriate action necessary to take.

[chris v]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, but I think you're asking a question for which you already know the answer. I think we've established already that people here are going to do that, plus I don't think its right to make that a pseudo-requirement before people can state their opinion.

Not that I disagree with where you're heading with that, but I just don't think its important to the discussion. I think we can just all accept as given that people like that are not going to actually put their own butts on the line and go from there to discuss the issue, because even if they WERE in Iraq right now, putting their own butts on the line, that wouldn't necessarily validate any opinion they might express, so by the same token, NOT being in Iraq right now should not INvalidate any opinion they might express.

Just like I should be able to say that I agree with anti-war protestors without being told I can't unless I'm actually in the street with them.

Point taken. But by agreeing with anti-war protestors, you're not advocating that anybody go and die. There's a fundamental difference there.

CV

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
No, in the future, the American President should wait for accurate information so that he/she can make an informed decision about the appropriate action necessary to take.

Yes, but I believe the argument Kindbud was making was that Bush believed he was doing exactly that. Whether or not that is true (and it may well be), in my opinion it still would not absolve him on the issue of taking full responsibility now.

[chabig]

No, in the future, the American President should wait for accurate information so that he/she can make an informed decision about the appropriate action necessary to take.

This is exactly the type of thinking that got 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11.

Nothing is ever accurate or certain. You must make informed decisions based on the information at hand. Nothing more.

Chris

[ghost_flash]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
snip...

Just like I should be able to say that I agree with anti-war protestors without being told I can't unless I'm actually in the street with them.

"OPRESSED! I'm being oppressed here!"



Well 'ow'd you become king then?




(holy music up)




Arthur: The Lady of the Lake-- her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water, signifying by divine providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur. THAT is why I am your king!




Man: (laughingly) Listen: Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some... farcical aquatic ceremony!




Arthur: (yelling) BE QUIET!




Man: You can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!!




Arthur: (coming forward and grabbing the man) Shut *UP*!




Man: I mean, if I went 'round, saying I was an emperor, just because some moistened bink had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!




Arthur: (throwing the man around) Shut up, will you, SHUT UP!




Man: Aha! Now we see the violence inherent in the system!




Arthur: SHUT UP!




Man: (yelling to all the other workers) Come and see the violence inherent in the system! HELP, HELP, I'M BEING REPRESSED!




Arthur: (letting go and walking away) Bloody PEASANT!




Man: Oh, what a giveaway! Did'j'hear that, did'j'hear that, eh? That's what I'm all about! Did you see 'im repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Yes, but I believe the argument Kindbud was making was that Bush believed he was doing exactly that. Whether or not that is true (and it may well be), in my opinion it still would not absolve him on the issue of taking full responsibility now.

Actually, to me, the fact that he won't take responsibility for it now makes it that much harder for me to believe he acted in good faith understanding then.

I mean, if he were completely duped himself, he would ethically still say "the buck stops here, but I'm going to figure out how to avoid this in the future"
Instead, his repsonse is "its the fault of the intelligence community and we're going to investigate whether they should be restructured".
Obviously, the structure of the intelligence organizations was not at fault, it was the decision to act on the shaky intel they had.
If the intel was shaky, which is what this present witchhunt of the CIA is going to imply, then for chrissakes, why did we invade? That still goes back to the irresponsible nature of the decision, regardless.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by Ayelbourne:
Yes, but I believe the argument Kindbud was making was that Bush believed he was doing exactly that. Whether or not that is true (and it may well be), in my opinion it still would not absolve him on the issue of taking full responsibility now.

How could one possibly believe their information is accurate when weapons inspectors were saying it was wrong? Conflicting sources of information should at least introduce some doubt into the accuracy of both. And then, of course, there's the infamous "Uranium from Nigeria" claim which should have put all US intelligence into question.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by ghost_flash:
"OPRESSED! I'm being oppressed here!"

....(a monty python excerpt)

I was making a rhetorical example to make a point: He was saying someone shouldn't do A if not B, and I was just saying that was as bad as if someone said I couldn't do C if not D.

although I love python as much as the next guy, I can only guess you thought I was claiming to have suffered the hypothetical example I used by way of illustration. If so, please try to pay more attention.

[boots]

Originally posted by chabig:
This is exactly the type of thinking that got 3,000 Americans killed on 9/11.

Nothing is ever accurate or certain. You must make informed decisions based on the information at hand. Nothing more.

Chris

The information we had on Afghanistan was much different. We didn't really have a policy regarding them....that was the problem there.

We have people from Bush's administration on record saying that containment was working with Iraq. And there is no link between Iraq and 9/11. Remember? Even Bush has said there is no link.

So what was your point? Oh, yeah. Inaction. That's what happened with Afghanistan. But we were actively doing stuff in Iraq. So your point is right on target, but very out of context.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
How could one possibly believe their information is accurate when weapons inspectors were saying it was wrong? Conflicting sources of information should at least introduce some doubt into the accuracy of both. And then, of course, there's the infamous "Uranium from Nigeria" claim which should have put all US intelligence into question.

Well, I agree with you. You'd have to ask Mr. Bush that question.

Of course, he also believes that "...humans and fish can co-exist peacefully...", so his is a bit of a dreamy-eyed idealist. For my part, I fully supported the preemptive strikes against those snakeheads in Maryland two years ago.