Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: lurqer who wrote (36794)	2/3/2004 2:27:27 AM
From: Sully-	Respond to of 89467

Kay vindicates Bush David Limbaugh February 3, 2004 In light of weapons inspector David Kay's recent statements, it is mystifying to me that President Bush and Republicans aren't claiming vindication and challenging Democrats for exploiting the issue. Some observations about this: 1. Kay did say we didn't discover major stockpiles of recently developed WMD in Iraq, but almost everything else he said supports the president's position, exposing his opponents as wrong and reckless. Kay said or implied that: A. "The intelligence community owes the president (an apology) rather than the president owing (one to) the American people." B. The administration did not pressure the intelligence agencies to overstate the WMD threat. C. While Bush relied on possibly erroneous intelligence, so did Saddam himself and his generals, the Clinton administration, France, Germany and Britain. D. "What we learned during the inspection made Iraq a more dangerous place, potentially, than, in fact, we thought it was even before the war." E. Iraq was a magnet for international terrorists who were free to operate there, and plan and conduct their deadly mischief. F. Saddam was flagrantly violating U.N. resolutions in a number of respects and feverishly trying to do so in others. While there were supposedly no major WMD stockpiles, there were probably WMDs, some of which may have been removed to Syria in the weeks preceding our invasion. Saddam was trying to weaponize the deadly agent Ricin, and he was clearly developing missile systems in contravention of the resolutions. G. Saddam's scientists may have duped him about their progress in developing WMD. 2. Bill Clinton recently said that when he ordered the bombing of Iraq's suspected WMD sites, we couldn't be sure whether we (and Britain) destroyed all of them, 50 percent or 10 percent -- because we didn't have inspectors on the ground to determine the extent of the damage. <font size=4>While Clinton was trying to take credit for possibly destroying Iraq's WMD, he inadvertently exposed his party's hypocrisy. Did Democrats complain that he bombed these sites when we didn't even know if WMD were there? Did Democrats complain about weaknesses in our intelligence because we never learned whether we struck pay dirt with those bombing attacks? Did they call for an investigation?<font size=3> 3. It's a little hard for me to swallow the idea that just one of Saddam's scientists deceived him, much less a network of them who would have had to discuss their lies conspiratorially, increasing the chances that they would be exposed (and then murdered). 4. But, <font size=4>if Kay is correct that Saddam was duped, how can we say we had an avoidable failure of intelligence? If a dictator with unchecked power has faulty intelligence about his own regime, how can our intelligence agencies be blamed for having that same info? <font size=3> 5. Intelligence is at best, an inexact science. It is hard to stomach all these armchair quarterbacks demanding perfection from the very intelligence organizations they and their like-minded predecessors emasculated in previous decades. If there were intelligence failures, they were probably not technological ones, but those of human intelligence (HUMINT), which is precisely what liberals weakened. 6. I question Kay's assertion that "you cannot have pre-emptive foreign or military policy unless you have pristine, perfect intelligence." Since much intelligence depends on the human factor, which is inherently imperfect, we will often not be completely certain about our intelligence. Yet, as even Kay admits, it was imperative that we act anyway. The only way we could prevent Saddam from developing and using WMD or sharing them with terrorists was to remove him from power forcibly. <font size=4> 7. And with all due respect to Mr. Kay and others, we did not, as I've written many times before, have the burden of proving Saddam had WMD. He had the duty of proving he had destroyed them and his programs. This he deliberately and defiantly failed to do. Our "preemptive" attack was justified with or without the continued existence of WMD. In this sense, it wasn't even preemptive; it was to enforce already violated resolutions.<font size=3> 8. President Bush has been pressured to conduct an independent investigation even though we don't know for sure that there was truly an intelligence failure that could realistically have been avoided. But as important as intelligence is in our war on terror, we can greatly benefit from a comprehensive review, provided its purpose remains constructive -- to expose and solve problems -- rather than to find a convenient scapegoat. <font size=4> 9. It doesn't make sense that Bush would have lied about WMD knowing that his lie would be exposed when we defeated Iraq. It's time for Democrats to "move on."<font size=3> ©2003 Creators Syndicate, Inc. townhall.com

To: lurqer who wrote (36794)	2/3/2004 2:40:36 AM
From: Sully-	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

BLAIR, HUTTON, US: I cannot recommend this piece by Martyn Kettle in the Guardian too highly. There's a phrase in it that rings in my ears - and not always too comfortingly. He quotes a former collague's reminiscence about one Rod Liddle, the man who hired the infamous Andrew Gilligan at the BBC: "Rob didn't want conventional stories. He wanted sexy exclusives ... I remember Rod once at a programme meeting saying 'Andrew gets great stories and some of them are even true' ... He was bored by standard BBC reporting." I must say I've had my own Brit-glib moments in journalism, when I've too easily disparaged worthy, accurate but "boring" reporting or commentary. Being boring in journalism is not a good thing; but not being boring isn't always a good thing either. The need to be fresh can lead to cheap shots or sloppy research. These are forgivable. But what isn't forgivable is the slow and insidious slide into media arrogance and cynicism. London's media can at times represent the worst of this. In this country, we're not much better. It is hard, for example, to make the case that the Bush administration made honest but real mistakes about intelligence from Saddam's Iraq. One side adamantly wants to believe that the Bushies lied; the other side wants to believe that there were no mistakes. In a completely cynical, polarized culture, it's hard to break out of this cycle. I'm particularly concerned about the use of the term "lying." I cannot claim total innocence in this, and every now and again, it may even be an accusation that's merited. But these days, every mistake people make is immediately denounced as a matter of bad faith. When that happens routinely, political discourse simply cannot operate civilly. Gilligan accused Blair of lying. That's different than claiming Blair was wrong. When we have lost that distinction, democratic debate is over. Which is why I get this horrible feeling that debate in this country has morphed into a kind of cultural warfare that will at some point devour us all. - 1:20:46 AM andrewsullivan.com