Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Deleted message

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU
 
Name removed Donating Member (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 Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KissMyAsscroft Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rainy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
3. none
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GR Donating Member (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....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
doc03 Donating Member (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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
polmaven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 06:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
15. Well, to be fair...
He said we were almost all wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NWHarkness Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 06:04 PM
Response to Original message
5. None
He is an active participant in the cover up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Cover Up??
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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (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
That is why
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AndyP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. OK
I guess I just thought of a cover-up differently then that. Makes sense though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ComerPerro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 06:18 PM
Response to Original message
8. Fuck him
The intelligence coummunity should apologize to Bush??? Bullshit. Bush should apologize to the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Terwilliger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 06:22 PM
Response to Original message
10. gone up?
:shrug:

I saw Kay trashing Scott Ritter back before the war...I think we know Kay works for Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CalebHayes Donating Member (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
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Snappy Donating Member (322 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Zero respect
Never had any respect for him. David Kay is a Repug shill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. read it and weep
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/4430

Here'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."


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike1963 Donating Member (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:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
trof Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 07:05 PM
Response to Original message
17. Bush* apologist.
All intels fault.
Not the admin.
balderdash
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
buycitgo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-01-04 07:30 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. I'll bet this:
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"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxr4clark Donating Member (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".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leesa Donating Member (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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mayberry Machiavelli Donating Member (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?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tinoire Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
banana republican Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 01:24 AM
Response to Original message
24. He told the truth
but He didn't make a big deal out of it

maby a +.1 on a scale of 1 - 10
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guaranteed Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kimber Scott Donating Member (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.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 02:03 AM
Response to Original message
27. gone down
-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 02:23 AM
Response to Original message
28. None at all.
I believe he's acutally assisting Bush deliberately by trying to shift focus and blame to the CIA.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:48 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (Through 2005) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC