I just provided something that contradicts what he said today. Information that has been known since at least October...about how the administration pressured the intelligence community in many ways. Come on?
As King Of This Thread I welcome any inputs that you wish to post here.
However, your inputs to this thead might be seen by 1000 people. Not all of them will be of voting age. My point (finally): All the URLs that you post here will not matter to the public. Your views directly contradict those of Dr. Kay.
Dr.Kay's testimony was very, very convincing; if you can pull it up on CSPAN, I really advise that you do so.
If the Democrats do not nullify Dr. Kay's testimony (and based upon what you, Chu_Bakka and Giant are saying, Dr. Kay lied to the Senate. That fact stares us all right in the face.), then this WMD issue is Over. Neither Carl Levin nor Ted Kennedy nor Hillary Clinton exposed what he was saying as inaccurate; i.e., they did not raise the issues that you guys are bringing up or if they did, they were convincingly shot down by subsequent interaction between Dr. Kay and Republican members of the Committee.
I'm not trying to anger you, nor am I soliciting mildly insulting critcism of my thought processes but I can't state it enough: if the Democrats can't find a way to nullify Dr. Kay's testimony given to the SASC, the 2004 Presidential Election is over. It really is as simple as that.
Aries, I see that the only way you are thinking about this is how it relates to democrats and the elections, which really have nothing at all to do with understanding what went on.
Quote:
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Giant are saying
It's not about what I am or am not saying. That's why we have provided links. You literally can find a mountain of info on this. There was a reason that OSP was created, and this reason is not at all hidden or disguised. This is stuff that is not in question.
Kay has always been hawkish on Iraq. He was dismissed from the IAEA for using his position to spy for the US (which he later admitted to). Look at any of his pre-war statements.
Kay was among those who were dead wrong. He was on Fox during the lead up to the war spouting off about how Saddam absolutely had stockpiles, even when many leaks were coming out of US intel agencies discounting claims of this kind. The evidence did not indicate that Iraq did and many in the intel community were upset with the politicization of intelligence, which Kay was a key part of. We've already provided a couple articles that detail this.
This is the same Kay who touted those engineering drawings as previously unknown to the IAEA, even though this was included in Blix's report:
Quote:
UNMOVIC: However, since the IAEA has assessed as credible Iraq's claim to have successfully developed and tested a single cylinder sub-critical centrifuge machine which could have been exploited to produced highly enriched uranium in weapon-significant amounts, the recovery of the drawings would do little to change the assessment of Iraq's capabilities in this area.
This is also the same kay that claimed that a few vials common Iraqi diseases (even ones that cannot or have not been made into weapons by anyone on earth) were evidence of a weapons program. This is the same kay that misindentified the strain of botulinum found.
Kay is covering up for himself and the guys that picked him to head the ISG.
He says his conclusions are his opinion based on anecdotes. Politicians protect themeselves by crafting their statements so they can't be too scrutinized for saying them, sort of like "british intelligence has learned..."
Let's let the whole "modding" critique thing alone here. You guys do know that if you have any problems, questions, gripes or praise (ha ha) for the moderators, you can contact them and/or an admin about it. Please don't use posts like that as fodder for more off-topic posting.
Not to mention, taunting or teasing member who can't defend themselves is kind of a low blow. \
Let's let the whole "modding" critique thing alone here. You guys do know that if you have any problems, questions, gripes or praise (ha ha) for the moderators, you can contact them and/or an admin about it. Please don't use posts like that as fodder for more off-topic posting.
Not to mention, taunting or teasing member who can't defend themselves is kind of a low blow. \
As Thread King, I think that this thread is done; everyone has made their points (by and large pretty respectfully which is a welcome change ). Cheerfully lock at your discretion and everyone have a great weekend.
Comments
Originally posted by ShawnJ
I just provided something that contradicts what he said today. Information that has been known since at least October...about how the administration pressured the intelligence community in many ways. Come on?
As King Of This Thread
However, your inputs to this thead might be seen by 1000 people. Not all of them will be of voting age. My point (finally): All the URLs that you post here will not matter to the public. Your views directly contradict those of Dr. Kay.
Dr.Kay's testimony was very, very convincing; if you can pull it up on CSPAN, I really advise that you do so.
If the Democrats do not nullify Dr. Kay's testimony (and based upon what you, Chu_Bakka and Giant are saying, Dr. Kay lied to the Senate. That fact stares us all right in the face.), then this WMD issue is Over. Neither Carl Levin nor Ted Kennedy nor Hillary Clinton exposed what he was saying as inaccurate; i.e., they did not raise the issues that you guys are bringing up or if they did, they were convincingly shot down by subsequent interaction between Dr. Kay and Republican members of the Committee.
I'm not trying to anger you, nor am I soliciting mildly insulting critcism of my thought processes but I can't state it enough: if the Democrats can't find a way to nullify Dr. Kay's testimony given to the SASC, the 2004 Presidential Election is over. It really is as simple as that.
Aries 1B
Originally posted by Aries 1B
Giant are saying
It's not about what I am or am not saying. That's why we have provided links. You literally can find a mountain of info on this. There was a reason that OSP was created, and this reason is not at all hidden or disguised. This is stuff that is not in question.
Kay has always been hawkish on Iraq. He was dismissed from the IAEA for using his position to spy for the US (which he later admitted to). Look at any of his pre-war statements.
Kay was among those who were dead wrong. He was on Fox during the lead up to the war spouting off about how Saddam absolutely had stockpiles, even when many leaks were coming out of US intel agencies discounting claims of this kind. The evidence did not indicate that Iraq did and many in the intel community were upset with the politicization of intelligence, which Kay was a key part of. We've already provided a couple articles that detail this.
This is the same Kay who touted those engineering drawings as previously unknown to the IAEA, even though this was included in Blix's report:
UNMOVIC: However, since the IAEA has assessed as credible Iraq's claim to have successfully developed and tested a single cylinder sub-critical centrifuge machine which could have been exploited to produced highly enriched uranium in weapon-significant amounts, the recovery of the drawings would do little to change the assessment of Iraq's capabilities in this area.
This is also the same kay that claimed that a few vials common Iraqi diseases (even ones that cannot or have not been made into weapons by anyone on earth) were evidence of a weapons program. This is the same kay that misindentified the strain of botulinum found.
Kay is covering up for himself and the guys that picked him to head the ISG.
Look at the transcript again and you can see how he worded it to protect himself if scrutinized:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/01/28/kay.transcript/
He says his conclusions are his opinion based on anecdotes. Politicians protect themeselves by crafting their statements so they can't be too scrutinized for saying them, sort of like "british intelligence has learned..."
Not to mention, taunting or teasing member who can't defend themselves is kind of a low blow.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Let's let the whole "modding" critique thing alone here. You guys do know that if you have any problems, questions, gripes or praise (ha ha) for the moderators, you can contact them and/or an admin about it. Please don't use posts like that as fodder for more off-topic posting.
Not to mention, taunting or teasing member who can't defend themselves is kind of a low blow.
As Thread King, I think that this thread is done; everyone has made their points (by and large pretty respectfully which is a welcome change
Aries 1B