"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 21:16:46 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .
During several hours of testimony before the Senate Armed Services
Committee, David Kay did not make Ted Kennedy happy. Kennedy tried
valiantly to get Kay to indict Bush, to say that Bush, et al, had to
have known that WMD weren't a threat to the USA prior to the war. But,
it didn't work. Several other Dems also tried, but it didn't work.
Let's see how many retractions there are to the "Bush lied"
statements. Of course, now many will say that Kay lied. These will
probably be the same people that praised Kay's honesty a few months
ago.

Extreme conclusions on your part, John. Perhaps Kay is being incredibly
diplomatic, particularly in light of the fact that nobody has any idea
yet
where our intelligence fell to pieces. My prediction: Kay will end up
with a
lofty position in the next administration because he's demonstrating a
unique ability to not offend people while presenting the facts.

Nope. I watched Kay for several hours today. He was not being
'incredibly diplomatic' but was rebuffing the attempts to buffalo him
by the senators, any of them.

So, he resisted efforts to get him to condemn someone, anyone, and you don't
consider that diplomatic? :-) In interviews, he's repeatedly stated that
he's not sure where our intelligence failed (at what step in the chain, in
other words), and he's pretty much refused to point at anyone and say
"fool!" It's not his job to point out who the liars and fools are. The
public will decide that next November.


The bottom line, as you stated, was that he was 'presenting the
facts', which refuted the position that Bush lied.

That conclusion only works if you've chosen to ignore one of several
possible scenarios: Bush may have been told that our evidence was flimsy, at
best, and either he or his staff decided that the imperfect evidence was
enough for them to run with.

Do you recall that we have yet to hear anything specific about the nature of
the "intelligence" that led Bush to believe this WMD nonsense? The excuse is
that we need to protect our sources. Since those sources have been 100%
wrong, why protect them? Wouldn't it be better to let "nature" takes its
toll on bad sources, whether that means someone getting capped in a dark
alley, or just losing their job so they're not hobbling our policy decisions
in the future?


You need to quit trying to earn money by pouncing on customers and
instead waste your time watching C-Span!

Nice idea, but I have to devote my full attention to truckers who call and
say they missed a delivery because of icy roads in Los Angeles. In reality,
they got hijacked by a casino or a whorehouse as they passed through Nevada.