fatcatfan
01-26-2004, 06:24 PM
Someone is bound to bring it up eventually, so I thought I'd start by giving everyone a better look what exactly David Kay really said about weapons in Iraq, and how it relates to our President's decision to go to war.
The (liberal) media is telling everyone that Bush lied to the nation about the state of things in Iraq.
dictionary.com
lie
noun
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true
lie
verb
1.To present false information with the intention of deceivingInspectors such as David Kay have only just this past week decided that maybe Iraq doesn't have the weapons of which they were suspected. David Kay blames our intelligence agencies for failing to provide accurate information. (which President was it which recently dismantled our military and intelligence?) So Bush did not present information more than a year ago, which might be shown to be false in light of new information, with the intention to deceive; he was acting upon the best available information (and btw, it wasn't just U.S. intelligence which might be wrong, it was intelligence agencies all over the world). Do you liberals understand the difference between lying (the intent to deceive) and honestly mistaking false information to be correct? Probably not, because of course liberals have no experience either in lying or being mistaken. :rolleyes:
But now to get to all the emphasized mights I've spread about. In its typical Conservative/Republican/Bush-bashing way, the media has severely twisted David Kay's recent testimony. They ran with what could be perceived to reflect poorly on Bush, and ignored the rest of what Mr. Kay had to say. This news article gets to the matter succinctly:
http://www.manoramaonline.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=manorama/MmArticle/CommonFullStory&c=MmArticle&cid=1074829704662&channel=News&p=1002194839100&count=7
You can be sure that you won't see those words of David Kay in the national news coverage. They ignore him now that they've gotten the "bad" news they wanted.
This one gives a little bit more detail, but this writer is obviously biased towards Bush.
http://polisat.com/DailyPoliticalSatire-Commentary/du20y04m01d25-01.htm
Pay attention there to the (truthful) assertion that Mr. Kay himself testified to Congress before the war began supporting action against Iraq because of what he believed was going on in that country (David Kay is a former U.N. weapons inspector, one of the ones that was kicked out of Iraq in 1998 by Hussein in violation of U.N. resolutions and the cease-fire which ended the first Gulf War)
Then
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1075032063404&call_pageid=968256289824&col=968705899037
Kay said: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president, rather than the president owing the American people."But, of course, politicians everywhere and liberal reporters/writers in the media still blame Bush.
In October 2002, Bush said Iraq had "a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for and is capable of killing millions."That is absolutely a true statement. Iraq had failed to comply with U.N. requirements for a documented disarmament, so weapons that did, at one time, exist were unaccounted for. They might've been destroyed, the might've been hidden. Even threatened with war and a new U.N. resolution, Iraq ignored the U.N. and continued in "material breach" of U.N. requirements.
But today, Kay reiterated his conclusion that Saddam had "a large number of WMD program-related activities." And, he said, Iraq's leaders had intended to continue those activities.
"There were scientists and engineers working on developing weapons or weapons concepts that they had not moved into actual production," Kay said. "But in some areas, for example producing mustard gas, they knew all the answers, they had done it in the past, and it was a relatively simple thing to go from where they were to starting to produce it."
The Iraqis had not decided to begin producing such weapons at the time of the invasion, he concluded.
Kay also said chaos in postwar Iraq made it impossible to know with certainty whether Iraq had had banned weapons.
And, he said, there is ample evidence that Iraq was moving a steady stream of goods shipments to Syria, but it is difficult to determine whether the cargoes included weapons, in part because Syria has refused to co-operate in this part of the weapons investigation.I love how they bury these bits towards the end of the article, where they know many people won't ever read it.
If you don't like Bush or Republicans or Conservatives, that is your right, and I respect it even if I disagree with you. However, please base your aversion on facts and not false accusations, incomplete information. Don't take everything you hear on TV or the radio for gospel truth.
The (liberal) media is telling everyone that Bush lied to the nation about the state of things in Iraq.
dictionary.com
lie
noun
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true
lie
verb
1.To present false information with the intention of deceivingInspectors such as David Kay have only just this past week decided that maybe Iraq doesn't have the weapons of which they were suspected. David Kay blames our intelligence agencies for failing to provide accurate information. (which President was it which recently dismantled our military and intelligence?) So Bush did not present information more than a year ago, which might be shown to be false in light of new information, with the intention to deceive; he was acting upon the best available information (and btw, it wasn't just U.S. intelligence which might be wrong, it was intelligence agencies all over the world). Do you liberals understand the difference between lying (the intent to deceive) and honestly mistaking false information to be correct? Probably not, because of course liberals have no experience either in lying or being mistaken. :rolleyes:
But now to get to all the emphasized mights I've spread about. In its typical Conservative/Republican/Bush-bashing way, the media has severely twisted David Kay's recent testimony. They ran with what could be perceived to reflect poorly on Bush, and ignored the rest of what Mr. Kay had to say. This news article gets to the matter succinctly:
http://www.manoramaonline.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=manorama/MmArticle/CommonFullStory&c=MmArticle&cid=1074829704662&channel=News&p=1002194839100&count=7
You can be sure that you won't see those words of David Kay in the national news coverage. They ignore him now that they've gotten the "bad" news they wanted.
This one gives a little bit more detail, but this writer is obviously biased towards Bush.
http://polisat.com/DailyPoliticalSatire-Commentary/du20y04m01d25-01.htm
Pay attention there to the (truthful) assertion that Mr. Kay himself testified to Congress before the war began supporting action against Iraq because of what he believed was going on in that country (David Kay is a former U.N. weapons inspector, one of the ones that was kicked out of Iraq in 1998 by Hussein in violation of U.N. resolutions and the cease-fire which ended the first Gulf War)
Then
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1075032063404&call_pageid=968256289824&col=968705899037
Kay said: "I actually think the intelligence community owes the president, rather than the president owing the American people."But, of course, politicians everywhere and liberal reporters/writers in the media still blame Bush.
In October 2002, Bush said Iraq had "a massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been accounted for and is capable of killing millions."That is absolutely a true statement. Iraq had failed to comply with U.N. requirements for a documented disarmament, so weapons that did, at one time, exist were unaccounted for. They might've been destroyed, the might've been hidden. Even threatened with war and a new U.N. resolution, Iraq ignored the U.N. and continued in "material breach" of U.N. requirements.
But today, Kay reiterated his conclusion that Saddam had "a large number of WMD program-related activities." And, he said, Iraq's leaders had intended to continue those activities.
"There were scientists and engineers working on developing weapons or weapons concepts that they had not moved into actual production," Kay said. "But in some areas, for example producing mustard gas, they knew all the answers, they had done it in the past, and it was a relatively simple thing to go from where they were to starting to produce it."
The Iraqis had not decided to begin producing such weapons at the time of the invasion, he concluded.
Kay also said chaos in postwar Iraq made it impossible to know with certainty whether Iraq had had banned weapons.
And, he said, there is ample evidence that Iraq was moving a steady stream of goods shipments to Syria, but it is difficult to determine whether the cargoes included weapons, in part because Syria has refused to co-operate in this part of the weapons investigation.I love how they bury these bits towards the end of the article, where they know many people won't ever read it.
If you don't like Bush or Republicans or Conservatives, that is your right, and I respect it even if I disagree with you. However, please base your aversion on facts and not false accusations, incomplete information. Don't take everything you hear on TV or the radio for gospel truth.