Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bad62bug

David Kay

Recommended Posts

On October 9, 1998

 

In a letter sent to president, Bill Clinton. expressing concerns about Saddam and his weapons program.

 

That letter was signed by Tom Daschle, Carl Levin and John Kerry .. three Senators,

 

That letter contained this paragraph:

 

"We 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 program."

 

John Kerry, a probable Democratic nominee for president, is now slamming George Bush for acting on

the very intelligence they relied on for their 1998 letter to their president, Bill Clinton.

 

 

Ted Kennedy said "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing

weapons of mass destruction."

 

So who did they their intelligence information from ??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup and strategic air and missle strikes were very common throughout the 90's. In fact they are probably the very reason there were no weapons left.

 

Amazing how things can get done without killing thousands of innocent people and hundreds of American soldiers when one does things with a little forethought.

 

I wonder if the people/government officials who supplied Saddam with chemical and biological weapons can be charged with war crimes, and crimes against humanity? After all they gave him the weapons to use against Iran.

 

The funny thing is they now claim some high moral ground 15 - 20 years later, what did they think a dictator would do with such weapons? :shifty:

 

Lets see the people responsible would be former CIA cheif Bush senior, Pres Reagan, Vice pres Bush, Rumsfeld..........

 

Neal Boortz LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with this new communications strategy. I still think that the best strategy has been and remains to be "The world is better off without Saddam and we are still looking for weapons of mass destruction." First off, and most importantly, both of these statements are TRUE.

 

When one states, "Well the democrats believed this information too", it opens up a whole new can of worms. Who was is that said "Information is nothing, it is the application of information that creates knowledge?" Something like that.

 

I repeat again Hanx Blix comment "It is not possible to know 100% that WMD exist, and have 0% certainty of where they are located." Please go back and read it again. It is an extremely intelligent and insightful comment. If we knew where they were located, we had NUMEROUS options at our disposal.

 

1. We could have told the UN where they were located. Then we could have the rest of the world on our side.

2. Even without that, we could have just bombed the suspect locations, same as we did in the 1990's under BUSH Senior and CLINTON. Let's not make this a Democrat Republican thing, because it isn't.

 

These options are so much better than the one we chose. What I want to know... no wait, what I DEMAND to know, is why Bush could have said to the CIA "Tell me where the WMD are." He should have told the CIA, that is the only acceptable proof of WMD. Anything else is just speculation. It might be intelligent speculation but it is still speculation.

 

There is another more subtle point here. I was 100% unaware that Clinton, Kerry et al had made these representations in internal memos. Why is that? Because they didn't release this info to the press. Why? Well maybe, maybe they didn't want to scare the American people strictly based on intelligence information. Who knows? What I do know is that the current president and his staff diseminated this incorrect information to the American public. And let's face it, it truly scared the crap out of a lot of people. Me included. Is there no culpability on disseminating the information as well. I know that whenever I have passed on bad information, somehow I have always felt responsible for that bad information being passed on. Doesn't Bush feel that way a little bit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rob - I think the previous administration did not share the suspicion of the presence of WMD with everyone because it was described by the CIA as questionable or at least it came with warnings that the information was unreliable. As Tenet said 'the CIA never claimed that there was imminent risk and we always said the the intelligence was questionable'. So why did the people and the congress get the message that 'we have proof that we are at imminent risk of attack from Iraq by WMD'? I don't know what the motivation was but I am confident that that is where the decision switched from containment to support for a proposed preemptive strike.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

I think the previous administration did not share the suspicion of the presence of WMD with everyone because it was described by the CIA as questionable or at least it came with warnings that the information was unreliable.

I am not doubting you CDave but I am curious as to your source for that statement.

Edited by Deuces Wild

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Farce

 

the Independent

Michael Howard, the Tory leader,called yesterday for Tony Blair to resign after the Prime Minister admitted that he did not know the Government's claim that Saddam Hussein could deploy weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes referred simply to battlefield munitions.

 

As Mr Howard labelled Mr Blair's failure to ask key questions about the intelligence "a gross dereliction of duty", Downing Street revealed that Mr Blair did not know the truth until the summer, after the military conflict. Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, said he knew, and said the reason he had not told the Prime Minister was that there was no point of controversy about it.

Its turning into a script for a bad comedy..... Edited by Tankus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....and here I thought Danny Kaye was just a silly actor and dancer

:rolleyes:

 

i miss Danny Kay.....he was marvelous

 

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/americanmasters/da...ase/kaye_d.html

 

re the topic of this thread....i came to the same sort of conclusion as did CDave after reading all that, otherwise we (the public) would have heard about it. that would be my guess anyway....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Deuces Wild

If you mean the CIA's position it was in my previous link. If you mean why I think the previous administration didn't publicize it I think that is just deduction.

Either way, good joke CDave :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite obvious to most firecracker. :P

was curious if you had anything substantive to say besides taking shots at others who have posted in this thread....guess not ;)

 

and that would be fireKracker, not fireCracker :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

why do you think it's a "good joke" :huh:

i asked why you thought what CDave posted was so funny as i agreed with him.

 

apparently, you have nothing substantive to say about that. real simple :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a late replier and so forgive me if I don't immediately respond to issues brought up before.

 

The present administration has engaged in belligerant acts against a foreign power in contravention of the American constitution. to wit The presiding administration may bring American troops to bear against a foreign power without congressional support if a real and imminent danger to the nation is at hand. Nevertheless, within sixty days, such admistration must bring forth an act of war before Congress, to be codified therein.

 

There was no imminent danger and, more to the point, Congress has yet to declare war against Iraq.

 

The war against Iraq is nothing of the sort. It's a police action by an imperialist state against a weak sister in a vulnerable and desirable area of the world.

 

I

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The president spoke at length on Sunday in an interview. Repeatedly he said that he wants to get to the bottom of the intelligence failure. I guess I am wondering if that is the case why did he say that he will help anyway he can with the investigation but he will not testify. Does that sound like any help he can provide? I guess I don't understand how this is even an option. The commission is supposed to have subpoena power. He cannot claim executive privilege because this is a commission set up by the executive branch. Any constitutional law scholars that can shed some light on this?

 

Wasn't this the same Lawrence H. Silberman that over turned the conviction of Ollie North? Wasn't he on the commission that investigated the Iran Contra stuff and exonerated Bush Sr. ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...