David Kay is testifying - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

theking · 01-28-2004, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420

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?

I have told you before...Danny Boy...though you may believe you do...you do not have pyschic powers...really...you don't. You maintain your slowness on the uptake...so I will tell you one more time...my political position is that of a moderate with liberal leanings. FYI...the sig is from a Merle Haggart production. Now...Danny Boy...why don't you go visit the Disneyland board...I am sure a person of your mentality would enjoy it...really...you would.

dig420 · 01-28-2004, 01:25 PM

Merle Haggard, Waylon Jennings, what's the difference?

You can't say you're a liberal when you've made several thousand posts defending John Ashhahahahaha.

TORONE.

dig420 · 01-28-2004, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

I have told you before...Danny Boy...though you may believe you do...you do not have pyschic powers...really...you don't. You maintain your slowness on the uptake...so I will tell you one more time...my political position is that of a moderate with liberal leanings. FYI...the sig is from a Merle Haggart production. Now...Danny Boy...why don't you go visit the Disneyland board...I am sure a person of your mentality would enjoy it...really...you would.

I've noticed that the more distressed you get, the more .... you put in your posts. Getting a little mentally disorganized maybe?

it's all that speed you have to take to get your rig from Florida to Cali in a day and a half, It's understandable...

theking · 01-28-2004, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420
Merle Haggard, Waylon Jennings, what's the difference?

You can't say you're a liberal when you've made several thousand posts defending John Ashhahahahaha.

TORONE.

You are a fruitcake...with a vivid imagination Danny Boy.

On-top · 01-28-2004, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rich

Of coarse he is, everyone knows who David Kay is now

Lead singer of Steppenwolf?

dig420 · 01-28-2004, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

You are a fruitcake...with a vivid imagination Danny Boy.

and you're a one note record, Torone Boy. Can't you think of something new every now and then just to keep it interesting?

theking · 01-28-2004, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420

I've noticed that the more distressed you get, the more .... you put in your posts. Getting a little mentally disorganized maybe?

it's all that speed you have to take to get your rig from Florida to Cali in a day and a half, It's understandable...

Distress? Try again Danny Boy.

theking · 01-28-2004, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dig420

and you're a one note record, Torone Boy. Can't you think of something new every now and then just to keep it interesting?

Well...you get an A for originality...ahh...no you don't...sorry about that.

<IMX> · 01-28-2004, 02:09 PM

Comparing the invasion of Iraq to the cuban missile crisis is a very poor analogy for a variety of reasons.

Least of which was the close proxmity of Cuba, and the direct knowledge of a Soviet build-up of OFFENSIVE missiles into Cuba.

The U.S. had a grave fear of a communist revolution 70 miles off the coast. Additonally, the Soviet leadership was "energized" by the Cuba revolution and wished to support them.

The problem is this, even under the assumption of a "worse-case" scenario of WMD in Iraq, was invasion at the cost of 90 Billion (?) necessary?

Would the invasion of Iraq the most important step for an overall goal of HOMELAND security?

I would agree with the invasion for OTHER reasons, as I have stated all along.

However, the invasion is so similar to the Nixon "back-channel" philosophy of private warfare for political gain, without the agreence of "non-partisan" depts it is disturbing.

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

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.

theking · 01-28-2004, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by <IMX>

I would agree with the invasion for OTHER reasons, as I have stated all along.

I stated prior to the invasion that there were multiple reasons...for the invasion...and that WMD's was probably not at the top of the list of reasons...but WMD's was the primary (not the only reason) reason provided by the Administration.

Why would the Administration use WMD's as their primary reason...when they could have used any of several other viable reasons...if they in fact knew that the WMD's did not exist? Answer...they would not...thus they chose to believe intel reports...from the US...Britain...France...and Germany.

<IMX> · 01-28-2004, 03:16 PM

I noticed you side stepped the cuban thing.

There is a disticnt difference between having human intel or photo/signal intel, and a probablity of existence.

If there is only a probability, then there was a distinct advantage for the Bush administration to misrepresent the intelligence that was available to make the WMD case stronger.

The problem is the WMD rationale was the _only_ reason that would give international support for the invasion.

All the other reasons had little to do with the immediate threat of terrorism in US Homeland, and more to do with nation building in the Middle East and long-term issues with governments in the M.E. namely the Saudis.

The Bush regime would have faced immediate international pressure without a case for WMD, so their was a distinct reason to pressure for such evidence.

Given this evident manipulation of the intelligence data and MILITARY command for political reasons (New Yorker has a great article on this), the lack of INDEPENDENCE of intel and mil is becomming painfully clear.

Without a pretext of Saddam harboring terrorists in Iraq or WMD there are a vareity of problems with an Iraqi war that couldn't uphold international scrutiny.

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

I stated prior to the invasion that there were multiple reasons...for the invasion...and that WMD's was probably not at the top of the list of reasons...but WMD's was the primary (not the only reason) reason provided by the Administration.

Why would the Administration use WMD's as their primary reason...when they could have used any of several other viable reasons...if they in fact knew that the WMD's did not exist? Answer...they would not...thus they chose to believe intel reports...from the US...Britain...France...and Germany.

theking · 01-28-2004, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by <IMX>
I noticed you side stepped the cuban thing.

The point that David Kay made about Cuba is that the intel was wrong then...and that President Kennedy chose to ignore the intel and do as he chose to do.

My point about this is...it is the responsiblility/obligation for Presidents to make these kind of judgement calls. The current Administration made its own judgement call...as all administrations do.

Quote:

There is a disticnt difference between having human intel or photo/signal intel, and a probablity of existence.

If there is only a probability, then there was a distinct advantage for the Bush administration to misrepresent the intelligence that was available to make the WMD case stronger.

The problem is the WMD rationale was the _only_ reason that would give international support for the invasion.

All the other reasons had little to do with the immediate threat of terrorism in US Homeland, and more to do with nation building in the Middle East and long-term issues with governments in the M.E. namely the Saudis.

The Bush regime would have faced immediate international pressure without a case for WMD, so their was a distinct reason to pressure for such evidence.

Given this evident manipulation of the intelligence data and MILITARY command for political reasons (New Yorker has a great article on this), the lack of INDEPENDENCE of intel and mil is becomming painfully clear.

Without a pretext of Saddam harboring terrorists in Iraq or WMD there are a vareity of problems with an Iraqi war that couldn't uphold international scrutiny.

In my opinion there is zero "probability" that this President...or any other President...would use a story that they knew would be proved wrong. How do you explain away the fact that President Clinton believed the same "concensus" intel that was provided to President Bush by our intel agencies...British intel...French intel...and German intel.

Why do you choose to believe that the current administration is lying over believing an intel failure.

<IMX> · 01-28-2004, 04:33 PM

There is such a thing as a judgement call, naturally.

Would you agree a defensive judgement call on an immediate threat 70 miles away, in the midst of a cold war, is distinctly different from choosing to invade a country thousands of miles away with no immediate capability of deployment to U.S. soil?

That Kay would choose the Cuban missile crisis as an analogy to INVADING Iraq shows the blatant and ridiculous attempt at manipulating the public into the belief that Iraq was an immediate threat.

The belief someone has WMD is distinctly different from acting on that information with a 90 Billion dollar effort.

You don't think presidents use stories that have a possibility of being disproved?

Or presidents engage in policy that is based on fictional reasoning at worst or faulty logic at best?

Come on, be serious. Clinton did, Reagan did, Nixon did. Bush did.

Of course you know it, that's why you used "Would" instead of "could."

Bush and Co. pressed the limits and were burned.

The "history" will rpove our actions justified sounds an awful lot like Nixon. In a democracy that manipulation is punished regardless of the aim of the policy.

As far as Clinton & Co. goes I'm sure they did believe Iraq had WMD.

However, there is a problem when you choose to act on incomplete information to the tune of a 90 Billion dollar deployment.

The judgement call has to do with the analysis of threats...

Bush and Co. raised the stakes on that particular claim of intel, and stacked the deck of intel to support their claim.

My point is that Bush and Co. controlled the intel organizations AND military leadership that created policy in Iraq itself, (as far as not enough troops on the ground etc..).

The minute you choose to act on that information and you are wrong you are in serious trouble.

It makes no difference what Clinton believed in that case, b/c Clinton didn't make a judgement on the information.

The buck stops at Bush.

He got burned for not disclosing the full case for Iraqi war b/c they knew the public and international community would not support it.

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

In my opinion there is zero "probability" that this President...or any other President...would use a story that they knew would be proved wrong. How do you explain away the fact that President Clinton believed the same "concensus" intel that was provided to President Bush by our intel agencies...British intel...French intel...and German intel.

Why do you choose to believe that the current administration is lying over believing an intel failure.

theking · 01-28-2004, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by <IMX>

That Kay would choose the Cuban missile crisis as an analogy to INVADING Iraq shows the blatant and ridiculous attempt at manipulating the public into the belief that Iraq was an immediate threat.

David Kay mentioned the Cuban missile crisis as one of several examples of our intel getting it wrong. Intel said there were no nukes on Cuba and there were nukes on Cuba. He mentioned Libya...a recent case of our intel getting it wrong. Libya was much further advanced on its goal of making a nuke than our intel had reported. He mentioned Iran...a recent case of our intel getting it wrong. Our intel was not aware that Iran had an underground nuclear facility and has had for years. Etc. etc.

There was no "blatant and ridiculous attempt at manipulating the public".

<IMX> · 01-28-2004, 05:22 PM

You don'ty see the inherent inequity of that analogy?

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

David Kay mentioned the Cuban missile crisis as one of several examples of our intel getting it wrong. Intel said there were no nukes on Cuba and there were nukes on Cuba. He mentioned Libya...a recent case of our intel getting it wrong. Libya was much further advanced on its goal of making a nuke than our intel had reported. He mentioned Iran...a recent case of our intel getting it wrong. Our intel was not aware that Iran had an underground nuclear facility and has had for years. Etc. etc.

There was no "blatant and ridiculous attempt at manipulating the public".

theking · 01-28-2004, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by <IMX>
You don'ty see the inherent inequity of that analogy?

No...as it was only one of several examples he used to demonstrate that our intelligence agencies do not always get it right. He mentioned today...something that I have stated several times...it would be better if it were the President lying...for we can easily deal with that...but we cannot tolerate intelligence failures when the very security of our Nation depends on these agencies getting it right.

JunkyardDog · 01-28-2004, 07:11 PM

I was impressed to see Senator McCain actually ask for the outside investigtion. That is one Republican I totally respect.

01-28-2004, 01:25 PM	#52
dig420 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 9,240	Merle Haggard, Waylon Jennings, what's the difference? You can't say you're a liberal when you've made several thousand posts defending John Ashhahahahaha. TORONE.

01-28-2004, 07:11 PM	#67
JunkyardDog Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Location: Swamp Posts: 788	I was impressed to see Senator McCain actually ask for the outside investigtion. That is one Republican I totally respect.