On Thu, 29 Jan 2004 17:14:06 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"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.

Kay ****ed off Democrats and the entire Bush administration, and
you're calling him diplomatic? He ****ed everyone off because he stuck
to what he thought was the truth.

He admitted that he was also wrong and that he had access to all the
intelligence available (as far as he knew). He stated he was convinced
he would find something. He stated that we (the USA), the British, the
French, and the Germans, not to mention the previous administration,
all thought there were WMD to be found. "We were all wrong," was his
main theme.

He also suggested that an "outside" investigation be conducted to
determine and fix the intelligence problems. McCain (sp?) loved that,
but the administration doesn't much like the idea. I think the
administration still thinks that something may be found. Kay also
admitted that he wasn't "sure" that there was nothing to be found.

Personally, I can't understand why they don't just call Mr. Krause,
who knows everything, and get this mess cleared up.

I think an investigation would be worthwhile. But if the results
didn't show that Bush and Powell absolutely lied, then the Dems would
say the committee was unduly influenced anyway.

I hope those damn truckers weren't union folks. Why do they have to
stop at a whorehouse? Isn't that why they have queen beds and jacuzzis
in that 'motel' behind the seats?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

"John H" wrote in message
...


Kay ****ed off Democrats and the entire Bush administration, and
you're calling him diplomatic? He ****ed everyone off because he stuck
to what he thought was the truth.


If he condemned your leader in a one-sided way, and let the Dems off the
hook, you'd say he was biased. If he's ****ing off everyone equally, he's
behaving like a scientist who understands that there are not sound
conclusions to be drawn yet. If you like, purge the word "diplomatic" from
your mind. It's getting you all hung up. Normally, that only happens to
little Dave Hall.


He admitted that he was also wrong and that he had access to all the
intelligence available (as far as he knew). He stated he was convinced
he would find something. He stated that we (the USA), the British, the
French, and the Germans, not to mention the previous administration,
all thought there were WMD to be found. "We were all wrong," was his
main theme.

He also suggested that an "outside" investigation be conducted to
determine and fix the intelligence problems. McCain (sp?) loved that,
but the administration doesn't much like the idea. I think the
administration still thinks that something may be found. Kay also
admitted that he wasn't "sure" that there was nothing to be found.

Do you suppose the investigation might last until December of 2004? Not
October of 2004?


I think an investigation would be worthwhile. But if the results
didn't show that Bush and Powell absolutely lied, then the Dems would
say the committee was unduly influenced anyway.

Some of us will say that any committee will be influenced by an unfortunate
tendency in politics to protect those who are still in power or still
living, or those who may have sad illnesses. It took a long time to find out
that Nixon was being dosed with Dilantin for quite some time. It may take a
long time to find out that some of our intelligence people are not as slick
as they're portrayed in the movies.


I hope those damn truckers weren't union folks. Why do they have to
stop at a whorehouse? Isn't that why they have queen beds and jacuzzis
in that 'motel' behind the seats?

I guess some of the truckers figure that anything is better than working, or
dealing with traffic. Some of them can't stand lumpers - crack heads who
hang around loading docks and get paid cash for helping to unload trucks.
Very common thing in the grocery biz. Not union, either. We have to make
sure truckers have green cash money ready for these guys, or they can't
unload.