The Reagans

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by dissention
Could be! I never thought of him, actually.

Interestingly, Greenspan has the securist position of them all. No one is about to change him now. Possibly after the new election, but even then I doubt it.

[jwd]

strandinthewind:

Interestingly, Greenspan has the securist position of them all. No one is about to change him now. Possibly after the new election, but even then I doubt it.

I heard that Dean said he would replace Greenspan if he becomes president.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Interestingly, Greenspan has the securist position of them all. No one is about to change him now. Possibly after the new election, but even then I doubt it.

Howard Dean wants to get rid of him.

[jwd]

gldstwmn:

It's too in depth and I'm not finished with it yet. Try Amazon.com

Surely by now you must know I'm cheap, er I mean conservative.


Joe

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Howard Dean wants to get rid of him.

I know - he said the poisition is too political. Then he sort of retracted that. Dean's time I believe perhaps is up and he has no one to thank but himself.

[strandinthewind]

Here is Kay on cnn.com

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...kay/index.html

Former chief U.S. inspector faults intelligence agencies
Sunday, January 25, 2004 Posted: 5:27 PM EST (2227 GMT)


David Kay says his investigation showed that Iraqi officials "had an intention to continue to pursue their WMD activities."

(CNN) -- Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.

He said U.S. intelligence services owe President Bush an explanation for having concluded that Iraq had.

"My summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons," he said on National Public Radio's "Weekend Edition." "I don't think they exist."

It was the consensus among the intelligence agencies that Iraq had such weapons that led Bush to conclude that it posed an imminent threat that justified the U.S.-led invasion, Kay said.

"I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people," he said.

"We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration," Kay said.

"It is not a political 'gotcha' issue. It is a serious issue of 'How you can come to a conclusion that is not matched in the future?'"

Other countries' intelligence agencies shared the U.S. conclusion that Iraq had stockpiled such weapons, though most disagreed with the United States about how best to respond.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by jwd
Surely by now you must know I'm cheap, er I mean conservative.


Joe

Yes. I figured that out.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
I know - he said the poisition is too political. Then he sort of retracted that. Dean's time I believe perhaps is up and he has no one to thank but himself.

Yep. If Howard stopped talking, everything would be fine.

[gldstwmn]

Originally posted by strandinthewind
Here is Kay on cnn.com

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...kay/index.html

Former chief U.S. inspector faults intelligence agencies
Sunday, January 25, 2004 Posted: 5:27 PM EST (2227 GMT)


David Kay says his investigation showed that Iraqi officials "had an intention to continue to pursue their WMD activities."

(CNN) -- Two days after resigning as the Bush administration's top weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay said Sunday that his group found no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March.

He said U.S. intelligence services owe President Bush an explanation for having concluded that Iraq had.

"My summary view, based on what I've seen, is we're very unlikely to find large stockpiles of weapons," he said on National Public Radio's "Weekend Edition." "I don't think they exist."

It was the consensus among the intelligence agencies that Iraq had such weapons that led Bush to conclude that it posed an imminent threat that justified the U.S.-led invasion, Kay said.

"I actually think the intelligence community owes the president rather than the president owing the American people," he said.

"We have to remember that this view of Iraq was held during the Clinton administration and didn't change in the Bush administration," Kay said.

"It is not a political 'gotcha' issue. It is a serious issue of 'How you can come to a conclusion that is not matched in the future?'"

Other countries' intelligence agencies shared the U.S. conclusion that Iraq had stockpiled such weapons, though most disagreed with the United States about how best to respond.

Sorry. I'm not buying that. they had intelligence yes but the nature of that intelligence could have led them to a variety of conclusions. They chose the one that best fit their motive.

[gldstwmn]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...668834,00.html

"...Kay told The New York Times in a later interview posted for Monday's editions that U.S. intelligence agencies did not realize Iraqi scientists presented Saddam with fanciful plans for weapons programs and then used the money he authorized for other purposes.

``The whole thing shifted from directed programs to a corrupted process,'' he told the Times. ``The regime was no longer in control; it was like a death spiral. Saddam was self-directing projects that were not vetted by anyone else. The scientists were able to fake programs.''

He said he has had U.S. intelligence analysts some to him, ``almost in tears, saying they felt so badly that we weren't finding what they had thought we were going to find - I have had analysts apologizing for reaching the conclusions they did.''

Kay said Iraq did try to restart its nuclear weapons program in 2000 and 2001, but that evidence suggests it would have taken years to rebuild after being largely abandoned in the 1990s.

He said it is now clear that the CIA's basic problem was that the agency lacked its own spies in Iraq who could provide credible information, but that he does not believe analysts were pressed by the Bush administration to make their reports conform to a White House agenda.

The White House stuck by its assertions that illicit weapons will be found in Iraq but had no additional response on Sunday to Kay's remarks.

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said Kay's comments reinforced his belief that the Bush administration had exaggerated the threat Iraq posed.

``It confirms what I have said for a long period of time, that we were misled - misled not only in the intelligence, but misled in the way that the president took us to war,'' Kerry, a White House contender, said on ``Fox News Sunday.'' ``I think there's been an enormous amount of exaggeration, stretching, deception.''

Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. inspector whose work was heavily criticized by Kay and ended when the United States went to war with Iraq, said Sunday the United States should have known the intelligence was flawed last year when leads followed up by U.N. inspectors didn't produce any results.

``I was beginning to wonder what was going on,'' he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. ``Weren't they wondering too? If you find yourself on a train that's going in the wrong direction, its best to get off at the next stop...''

[jwd]

Here's an excerpt of the interview with Kerry from Fox News posted over in the Iowa winner thread.

WALLACE: While we're discussing Iraq, David Kay, the chief U.S. weapons inspector, says he's now concluded that Iraq had no stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons before we went to war.

KERRY: Right.

WALLACE: And now Secretary of State Powell says, you know what, Kay may be right.

What do you make of that?

KERRY: It confirms what I have said for a long period of time, that we were misled — misled not only in the intelligence, but misled in the way that the president took us to war.

And, again, I repeat, Colin Powell came to our committee. I personally asked him the questions, along with Paul Sarbanes. And we went down the list of 16 resolutions at the U.N. that they'd given as a reason to go to war.

He eliminated every one of them, with the exception of one. The only rationale for going to war, according to Colin Powell, who spoke for the administration, were weapons of mass destruction. That was the license he was given by the United States Senate.

Now, we had inspections going on. The U.N., Hans Blix said, "They haven't complied completely, but we'd like to inspect a little further." The president...

WALLACE: But if I may ask you...

KERRY: Let me just finish now. The president...

WALLACE: Let me just ask you specifically about this. Did...

KERRY: The president cut off that process. He chose the date to start this war. He said, the time for diplomacy is over.

I talked to Kofi Annan...

WALLACE: But you voted — in your decision to support it — I've looked at your speech on the floor of the Senate. You talked about these weapons of mass destruction. Obviously you read the intelligence.

KERRY: Yes.

WALLACE: Do you believe that Colin Powell, the president, when they were talking about this threat, were speaking in good faith and just were misled, as you were, or do you think they cooked the books?

KERRY: I don't know the answer to that. I trust Colin Powell implicitly. He's a friend of mine, and I think he's a terrific person, and I would not want to believe that...

WALLACE: Do you trust George W. Bush?

KERRY: I believe that Dick Cheney exaggerated, clearly.

When they talked about weapons of mass destruction that could be deployed in 45 minutes, there were none.

When they talked about aerial devices that could deliver, there were none. When they talked about the linkage to Al Qaida that they've now exaggerated, but they themselves said then there was no smoking gun. They said it. Now they say there was a linkage.

I think there's been an enormous amount of exaggeration, stretching, deception.

And the question is still unanswered as to what Dick Cheney was doing over at the CIA personally in those weeks leading up to the war.

WALLACE: And when you see what David Kay said, do you believe that the president was part of a willful effort to mislead the American people?

KERRY: I would never suggest that about a president of the United States without adequate evidence. I don't know the answer to it. But I do know this...

WALLACE: But you're suggesting it about the vice president?

KERRY: I know the vice president either misspoke or misled the American people, but he did so in a way that gave Congress men and women, who have since said — I mean, very good people, good Americans who voted in good conscious, have stood up and said, "I was misled."

This administration has to be accountable for that. And they haven't yet accounted for it.

Puts a little different light on this excerpt taken from the article posted in the previous post:

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., said Kay's comments reinforced his belief that the Bush administration had exaggerated the threat Iraq posed.

``It confirms what I have said for a long period of time, that we were misled - misled not only in the intelligence, but misled in the way that the president took us to war,'' Kerry, a White House contender, said on ``Fox News Sunday.'' ``I think there's been an enormous amount of exaggeration, stretching, deception.''

Joe

[strandinthewind]

Originally posted by gldstwmn
Sorry. I'm not buying that. they had intelligence yes but the nature of that intelligence could have led them to a variety of conclusions. They chose the one that best fit their motive.

They seem to "want their cake and eat it too." I mean "they" were like "look all of the intelligence supports the ongoing WMD and SH has not lifted a finger to prove otherwise." The intelligence must have compelling to make the UN unanimously agree. But, then the timing of the regime change became an issue. Then the Bush Admin. threw in the nuclear stuff, which we now know they knew was false. So, it begs the question of how much of the other evidence did they know was false. Yet, they will not show us the evidence. They want us to trust them, even though they have admitted they essentially lied about the nuclear stuff which was the most compelling reason to what I submit was the majority of the last minute "for the war" people and these people were what the admin needed to sell the war.

So, I say the admin. is, to use a poker expression, "called for but could not come" unless they show their hand, which they will never do, ostensibly for security reasons, which I do not completely believe.

[strandinthewind]

From cnn.com:

U.S., Britain downplay Kay remarks

Monday, January 26, 2004 Posted: 2:14 PM EST (1914 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. and UK governments have defended their decision to oust Saddam Hussein despite an assertion by the leader of a team of experts that Iraq probably never had weapons of mass destruction.


Full article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/...kay/index.html

Again, saying SH was a rtuthless dictator is not the same as saying the US and world must act because if we do not he's coming at us with WMD as soon as possible. Yet, it continues . . .

[strandinthewind]

Fron cnn.com:

Federal judge rules part of Patriot Act unconstitutional

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- A federal judge has declared unconstitutional a portion of the USA Patriot Act that bars giving expert advice or assistance to groups designated international terrorist organizations.

Full article at:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/26/pa....ap/index.html

[gldstwmn]

http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald...s/7801616.html

White House may be probed on CIA leak
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Six Democratic lawmakers on Monday called for a congressional investigation into the leak of a CIA officer's name.

The Justice Department already is investigating who leaked the name of Valerie Plame to syndicated columnist Robert Novak in July. Her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, has said his wife's identity may have been disclosed to discredit his assertions that the Bush administration exaggerated Iraq's nuclear capabilities to build a case for war.

The Democrats, who also are senior members in Congress, asked Monday that the General Accounting Office determine whether the White House followed proper security procedures for protecting Plame's identify.

They also asked the GAO, Congress's investigative arm, to look into whether the White House complied with requirements after her name was leaked to ensure that the security breach was investigated and that remedial action was taken.

The Democratic members seeking another investigation are: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota, Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, presidential candidate Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Rep. John Conyers of Michigan.