Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

New on the blog: David Kay is NOT your Friend.

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
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 05:43 PM
Original message
New on the blog: David Kay is NOT your Friend.
David Kay is Not Your Friend
by Selwynn
How much has my respect for David Kay increased since his “candid” statements that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq nor were there “large stockpiles” of such weapons prior to the US invasion? None at all.

Pay careful attention to the fact that David Kay’s statements of criticism are all designed to shift the focus of scrutiny onto the Intelligence community. Pay careful attention also, to the fact that the Bush Administration has been actively supportive of Kay both prior to and after his comments. There have been no attempts to discredit Kay, or downplay his claims. In fact today, Bush had lunch with Kay right after Bush called for an “independent investigation.”

So why has the Bush Administration remained so chummy with its former Chief Weapons Inspector after he so publicly put the final nail in the coffin of the weapons of mass destruction-war justification lie? Because David Kay has been, and continues to be, a loyal ally of the President and his time in the media spotlight serves one tactical purpose: deflect responsibility and criticism from the White House.

George Bush called for an independent investigation. Was it an investigation of his administration, the defense department, the state department or the White House, you might ask? Of course not. Instead, Bush called for an independent investigation of everyone’s favorite scapegoat – the intelligence community.

There is no defensive response from the White House towards the statements of David Kay because David Kay is not a threat. David Kay is doing the bidding of the White House. The Bush administration has the stinking corpse of its lies about the reasons we invaded Iraq hanging around its neck. It is not possible just to ignore the rotting mess. Bush’s attempts to parse words and make rationalizations have not removed the dead weight. There is only one possible solution: find someone else to blame.

Along comes David Kay acknowledges the rotting corpse – but places it instead around the necks of the CIA. Suddenly every major media outlet is speaking of an “intelligence” failure, rather than an Administration failure. All attention is diverted from the White House. It’s not the President’s fault – he was tricked. Mission Accomplished.

Unfortunately, in the long run placing the entirety of the blame on the intelligence community will be a bit of a tough sell. For one thing, alert individuals following American politics know very well that there have been discordant opinions on the veracity of claims about weapons of mass destruction form inside the intelligence community since long before in invasion. For another thing, it is not true that all the intelligence agencies of the world were misled; in fact intelligence from many of the countries who opposed the invasion starkly contrasted our own intelligence claims.

And then there is the now classic example of deceptive justifications for war – the Nigeria claim included in Bush’s 2002 State of the Union address. We know for fact that the CIA expressed reservation and concern about the legitimacy of this intelligence, and strongly advised the White House to take that into account. It did not.

Perhaps more damning still, is the fact that we now know, in part thanks to revelations from the nineteen thousand pages of documents that came along for the ride with former treasury secretary Paul O’Neil, that an invasion of Iraq had been a top priority of this Administration since long before September 11th, 2001. “Find me a way to do it” was the statement of George Bush concerning plans for an Iraq invasion made almost immediately after his was sworn in.

It is ridiculous and offensive (to those of us who pay attention) to have the administration now attempting to act as though they were “bullied” into action by those big meanies at the CIA. The Bush Administration started with their conclusion first – we will invade Iraq – and then set about putting pressure on others to find the “evidence” that would support such action. Coming back to the American people and attempting to use the mouthpiece of David Kay to divert blame to the intelligence community is the latch ditch effort of an Administration which has utterly blown its foreign policy to hell in a hand basket. Big time.

And they have no one to blame but themselves for their mess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Monkey see Monkey Do Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 05:51 PM
Response to Original message
1. Spot on IMHO
I was initially optimistic about Kay's "conversion", but when I realized how much US leaders were going along with it, I increasingly began to see it as the start for a limited hang-out. The investigation will be carried over into 2005 & now Bush Inc can hold off calls for heads to roll from Dems.

(Over here in the UK, the Kay spin from the Government is bizarre. Ministers are arguing (even now on BBC as I type) that Kay actually said that Iraq was more dangerous than the intelligence suggested & that Saddam had stockpiles of WMDs.)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 07:37 PM
Response to Reply #1
10. even better spin by our lamented "leader"
John-littleman-Howard has actually decided that the Hutton Report (and some of Kay's mumblings) means that all the Australians that said we shouldn't go to war "OWE HIM AN APOLOGY" you see he beleives that as we didn't use our own intelligence but relied on what the Brits and Yanks had to say that his motives can not possibly be questioned.

He seems to have missed the rather obvious point that he CHOSE to follow that bad advice and went to WAR, killing 1000's on BAD ADVICE

A sure sign of a man in power too long (no term limits in Oz) who has delusions of indistructability - roll on election 2004
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. You are too kind
this is not so much of a "mess" as it is a "slaughter" Thousands were murdered by Bush because of his lies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cprise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
3. And it just so happens the U.K. had the exact same problem
A deranged 'intelligence community'.

Two countries, on opposite sides of the Atlantic, and exactly the same kind of faulty intelligence problem.

At least that is what we are supposed to believe.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SalParadise Donating Member (244 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 06:39 PM
Response to Original message
4. How mad does the intel community have to be?
First someone in bush's administration outs an agent & now they're being blamed for REALLY bad information? I wonder how dad feels about this since he headed the organization years ago? I'm sure he's asking all his old friends to take a dive for his boy.

I wouldn't have thought our CIA would be a collective patsy for a bunch of ideologues, but I guess I was wrong.

I'll take "Impotent Government intelligence agencies," for $200, Alex?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spindoctor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
5. Timing is everything
Kay did not come with his findings (or rather missings) until the original buzz about WMDs had already shifted to "I have no doubt that the world is a better place without Saddam in it".
You see, it is good to speak the truth, but you need to know when to speak it...when nobody cares about it anymore.
Then later you can always refer to the moments that you spoke truth.

Why the CIA continues to be humiliated is something I don't understand. Why they put up with it is another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wabeewoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 07:08 PM
Response to Original message
6. Why aren't the people who spoke out early
from the CIA saying anything?? Have they already hauled some off using the 'patriot' act to intimidate the rest?? This just doesn't make sense to me that people aren't speaking up. Makes you question all of history if its this easy to rewrite....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selwynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. I'm very curious about this too - don't have an answer...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
onecitizen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
7. Bingo! nt
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 07:12 PM
Response to Original message
8. I agree entirely
Kay was way too much of a bush* believer to do this on his own. We've been set up once again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_Roses Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-02-04 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
11. Anyone who thinks
David Kay is a friend to the Democrats is naive. David Kay is not placing blame at the feet of Bush, where it should be, but at the intelligence.

I haven't trusted David Kay's "truth" from day one.
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 18th 2024, 07:47 PM
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