David Kay is testifying

If you are interested...you can watch it on C-span 3. It has been on going for the past two or three hours and has been very informative.

It does not matter - whenever bush is asked about WMD's all he does if avoid the question. It's amazing hom many talk radio hosts are now doing the same thing - when before they would have sworn on thier mothers lives that Saddam was an immediate threat with WMD's and Bush was rite, now all you hear from them is that it never mattered, saddam was bad , thats enough to justify war. Sad

Is that the Actor Gary Cole in your banner ?

It was difficult enough for America to drum up support for the war against Iraq before. Imagine how difficult it will be for America to get any support now for any future wars (ie: Syria or Iran)?

Credibility = None

He's just here to make sure we all got the memo about the TPS Reports.

Right. If you lie about getting a blow job, you get impeached.

But, if you lie in order to justify a multi-billion dollar war/oil grab, where hundreds of American lives are lost, then you bump your post-presidential speaking fees up a couple of digits.

It does matter. A President has to be able to rely upon the daily intel assessments provided to him...because National Security is at stake.

Ummm.

Gary was hot in Amercian Gothic..


I can't comment about government issues. My psycho neighbor says the FBI is watchin me... LOL

wasn't aware Clinton was impeached, man you learn something on GFY everyday

If the President was provided with inaccurate intel then he did not lie. David Kay is of the opinion that the intel assessment of Iraq's WMD capability was not accurate.

President Clinton was impeached...so apparently...yes...you have learned something new.

Since you leftards are incapable of acknowledging the truth about Clinton, I will help you out (and keep in mind I am not a Republican and did not vote for Bush):

Clinton was impeached because he lied under oath in a trial where he was being sued for sexual harrassment. He lied, not to save his dignity (of which he has none), but to save his wallet, as being found guilty was going to cost him a fortune.

As President of the United States of America, his primary duty is to act as Chief Executor of the Law, that is, enforce the laws of the country.

He was impeached for not only NOT enforcing the laws, but for actually SUBVERTING the law.

I hope this clears things up for the idiots.

And note, this is not a vote of affirmation for Bush or the Republicans, it is merely a statement of fact to repudiate the bullshit propaganda of the Clinton apologists.

Of coarse he is, everyone knows who David Kay is now, but did you know who he was a year ago? A year ago he was the biggest jackass on any network, Fox included. He'd be on every second day blabbing on about how Saddam has stockpiles of weapons ready to attack America, and how we had to go in immediately for the "safety of America". It was only after that, no surprise, that Bush appointed him to that job to return the favor. Of coarse he has to blame intel, his reputation is already toast, he's defending himself not Bush. PBS aired a great documentary by the BBC, following him around Iraq finding nothing and showing clips of his interviews before and after the war. It was priceless.

He's actually the one who decided to call those helium tanks "mobile chemical weapons factories" or whatever. That was probably Powell's most convincing argument to the UN (not saying much), and then Kay proved himself wrong as soon as he got there. David Kay is probably the biggest joke on the planet right now.

Wow, you should really be embarrassed if you have to learn things like that from GFY.

Buff, you rightard, the whole thing was a partisan mechaniation financed by Richard Mellon Scaife, and nobody who wasn't paid by him or his representatives EVER claimed that Clinton harassed them. No harassment charges stuck.

Your conservative idols spent millions and millions of taxpayer dollars, incapacitated the government and impeached a President over lying about a blow job, which every married man on this board would do.

Clinton doesn't need apologists, anyone who can read a paper can see the fiscal and foreign relations results of his presidency, and the utter and shameless hypocrisy of the Gingriches and Livingstons who were salivating over casting the first stone.

I think it's funny how you right-wingers like to call everybody idiots but none of you ever seem to have read a book.

I know who he is and he fully admits that he originally believed the intel and now he believes that the intel assessment of Saddam's WMD capabilities were wrong. FYI...he also stated that British...France...and German intel assessments were basically in line with US intel assessments...and now he now believes that all were wrong. He also stated before the committee today that it is his "belief" that the "consensus" of the US intel agencies is that they were wrong in their assessments...but that is only his belief. In other words there are some within the intel agencies that may disagree with him when he uses the word "consensus".

and how the FUCK you people think Bush and Ashhahahahaha are better for this country than Clinton, that's just beyond me.

FALSE -- Clinton paid Jones an $850,000 settlement check after the court case in which he perjured himself.

Now that you've proven you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, shut your fucking cockholster and learn something.

By the way, I am not a conservative, neoconservative, or anything anywhere near Republican on the political spectrum. Idiot.

he, along with the CIA, say that Bush *deliberately* misinterpreted intelligence, and also that he pressured intelligence services to only bring him results that correlated with his goal of invasion. He used intel in the state of the union that the CIA told him beforehand was bogus.

Don't you read the papers either Pathfinder?

In regards to the "mobile chemical weapons factories" he now believes that they were used to produce hydrogen for balloons and/or rocket fuel...though he stated that some of the intel analyst's still believe the were in fact "mobile chemical weapons fatories".

oh the fuck you're not, you and theking and two of a kind saying you're not conservative and ALWAYS posting conservative uneducated know-nothing BULLSHIT.

he paid her off to shut her the fuck up. Why don't you look and see who paid her bills?

also, nobody said he didn't perjure himself. If you can read, you'll see that I said he lied about a blowjob, but I know that reading comprehension thing is tough for you guys. You're too busy trying to prove you're not a hippy.

If you seriously think Bush and his team misinterputed intelligence here is something for you:

READ THEM ALL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity
to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver
them.
That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is
clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of
mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [the USA], but what happens there matters a
great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use
nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the
greatest security threat we face."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998


"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten
times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with
the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if
appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond
effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass
destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin,
Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of
mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region
and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998


"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of
mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999


"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his
weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear
programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition,
Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the
cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will
threaten the United States and our allies."
- Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,)
and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and
a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the
mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass
destruction and the means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and
chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible
to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as
Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and
developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are
confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical
and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course
to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I
believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is
a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002


"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working
aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons
within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always
underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002



"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11
years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and
destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he
has refused to do" Rep.
- Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports
show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological
weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He
has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al
Qaeda members .. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that
Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing
capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal,
murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .. He presents a
particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to
miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response
to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass
destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who is kidding who?

More true than ever:



Bush agenda was already written before 9/11 , as it was exposed in the past month.

Basically, France ( along with Germany, Russia, China and yes CANADA) was right, and the US and Britts were wrong.

The UN inspectors could not find anything, because there was nothing to find....

11 counts of perjury, and not all of them are related to Monica, dipshit.

He was trying to save his ass in a sexual harrassment trial. He lied under oath to do it. He got caught. Quit fucking whining, you little bitch.

And I am an anarchist, not a conservative, you socialist dipshit.

I watched his entire testimony before the Senate committee today. He flatly stated that every intel analyst that he spoke with assured him that no pressure had been brought to bear upon them. He also flatly stated that he did not believe that the Administration "deliberately" misintepreted intelligence.

Either you...or the paper is lying...and guess whom I suspect of lying Danny Boy...though I have to admit that the media does often get it wrong and all to frequently...it is intentional.

That's right, Clinton neutralized Hussein and didn't cost us American lives or our international standing.

Add another nick to Theking, aka Pathfinder, aka Torone, who is a hysterical rabid conservative on another board. In fact, he's far past conservative and deep into reactionary territory.

http://www.hahahahahahahahahahahahah...1&t=8966&st=50

replace whatever comes after www. with o p r a n o

Basically, France was bribed by Hussein:

http://interestalert.com/brand/sitei...ational%20News

fuck you man, what's your problem with the insults? At least I get laid for free.

if you can't argue your point without starting a fight, you're either wrong and covering it up or too fucking stupid to express yourself without yelling.

Granted, my previous statement was an oversimplification, but contrary to numerous precedents, the Supreme Court decided that Paula Jones's private lawsuit against Bill Clinton was a higher priority than the public's interest of having a chief executive undistracted from his work. This is the same Supreme Court that appointed our current President under a totally irrelevant Equal Protection clause. Clinton's legal team requested a delay in the case, not absolution.

I'm not saying Clinton isn't a weasel, but no more than any other politician, certainly including the Shrub. What I'm saying is that the case was a political hit from the get go that weakened the nation and the presidency for political purposes. You're wrong if you think it's about the money. 850K is a drop in the bucket. It was about the power and hamstringing the President with a bullshit issue.

if that's so, then why is drudgereport, salon and EVERY MAJOR NEWSPAPER in the country carrying news of the hatred that the intel community has for the Bush administration for trying to blame them for bad intel? They told the truth all along, and when it didn't fit the agenda it was ignored.

Have you ever heard of Valerie Plame?

It's more fun to argue this way. What sounds better?

"I'm going to have to disagree with you on that, friend."

or

"Shut your fucking cum-gullet for a second, you whining little bitch, and listen to a real man tell you how it is."

See?

I'm just trying to have fun.

All based on the same flawed lousy intelligence. The difference is thast those people didn't not go to war and did not disrespect their allies and the UN...

The Supreme Court forced the Florida Supreme Court to abide by the laws of Florida and not change the rules after the fact. There is nothing wrong with that. The law said "X", the election was held, then the Florida Supreme Court tried to throw out the "X" after the fact!

Bush was not appointed.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZPC.html

The Florida recount, claimed the Court, was invalid because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment; as different counties used different methods for determining voter intent, voters were being treated unequally.

"I'm personally convinced that there were not large stockpiles of newly produced weapons of mass destruction," Kay told the New York Times. "We don't find the people, the documents or the physical plants that you would expect to find if the production was going on. I think they gradually reduced stockpiles throughout the 1990s. Somewhere in the mid-1990s the large chemical overhang of existing stockpiles was eliminated ... The Iraqis say they believed that [the U.N. inspection program] was more effective [than U.S. analysts believed], and they didn't want to get caught." -- David Kay

The maddening aspect of all this is that we haven't needed Kay to set the record straight. The administration's systematic abuse of the facts, including the fraudulent link of Hussein to 9/11, has been obvious for two years. That's why 23 former U.S. intelligence experts -- including several who quit in disgust -- have been willing to speak out in Robert Greenwald's shocking documentary "Uncovered." The story they tell is one of an administration that went to war for reasons that smack of empire building, then constructed a false reality to sell it to the American people. Is that not an impeachable offense?


http://www.salon.com/opinion/scheer/...kay/index.html

An impeachable offense is "high crimes and misdemeanors."
Make your case to your congressman and see if you can get Bush tossed.

Nothing I like to see more than politicians getting their just due.

I don't write congressmen. I post on boards.

No actually they where not. This is the Iraqi governing council you're talking about. The same people who provided WMD intelligence and discovered lots of documents who where later revealed to be fake.
But I'm sure that some oil is a lot more profitable to France than a new market of millions of consumers opening up

Every news media that I am aware of all have political bias and/or the need to distort information for the bottom line. I take them all with a grain of salt.

David Kay stated today that within the intel agencies...there is still disagreement about the intel assessments made prior to the invasion...but he personally believes that the "consensus" among the analyst's is that they were wrong. In case you missed it...but you probably just chose to ignore it...David Kay stated today that the British...French and German intel was in basic agreement with US intel prior to the invasion. In other words all of the intel agencies were wrong in their "consensus" assessments. That stated...David Kay also stated that intel analyst's usually are never in total agreement. He further stated that the political leaders must assess the intel analyst's assessments...and make decisions based upon their own assessment.

He pointed out...the intel provided to President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile crisis was that there were no nuclear warheads in Cuba. The President chose to ignore the intel and took the worse case position that there were in fact nuclear warheads in Cuba...and worked his strategy based upon that.

This is the option that every President has...and that is to assess the intel provided to him...and accept it at face value...or worse case it...or the opposite. Decisions have to be made...and I personally opt for a worse case scenario.

Exclusive deals with some big cats in France is more profitable to them than markets opening up in Iraq.

Keep hanging on to that.

Who was analysing the raw CIA intelligence documents? All of a sudden it became the responsibility of Dick Cheney to do that? Is he really supposed to be unbiased and verify the reports clearly? No he didn't, he just took every report that suited him and made it into facts. So yes he did lie.

as Torone, you were too far out for even the right wingers there to stay behind you. You think CNN is biased. In fact, you think EVERY news outlet except Newsmax.com and Fox News is a liberal front. You're just weird.

Oh really? It's more profitable to them in the long term? Please. Millions of Iraqis ready to buy western products for years to come is not more profitable to them? Yeah sure

I post to one board under one name...GFY...theking. CNN is biased...leans to the left...Fox news is biased...leans to right. If you can provide me with any news media source that does not have a bias...either polictical or for the bottom line...please inform me...as I have not found one. Now Danny Boy.

yeah.. you both happen to be old men, rabid right wingers using the same ignorant waylon jennings quote in your sig.

how's the long haul trucking biz treating you TORONE?

It is the responsibility/obligation of the President and his team to analyze the intel that is provided to them...and either accept the "consensus" at face value...worse case it (as President Kennedy did) or the opposite. As I stated I lean towards a worse case secnario...and I am assuming that is the decision made by the current Administration. Decisions must be made.

It's called opportunism: The art or practice of taking advantage of opportunities or circumstances, or of seeking immediate advantage with little regard for ultimate consequences.