Open for opinions on David Kay

[ewagner]

We know that David Kay has ties to a company that had a lot of CIA involvement.

We know that David Kay was Dubya's hand-picked boy to go into Iraq to look for WMDs.

but it appears that he's ginving Dubya some troubling nights. So the question is this:

Do you think David Kay is a tool of the administrations, or, is he a loose cannon trying to cover his own arse?

What's the name of the game here?

Anxious to hear opinions.

[reprehensor]

1. Tool.

Nothing to see here. Just trying to shift blame from White House to CIA/Intel.

[Terwilliger]

2. Kay is a Bush tool

Kay gave the admin. exactly what it wanted: the CIA scapegoat...Kay didn't have the luxury of hemming and hawing on the WMD issue, b/c after 6 months of not finding a damn thing, they HAD to say something

[gWbush is Mabus]

3. IMO

he's trying to appear objective, but not rocking the boat too much.
he knows it was all lies


for ex:
he was hired to find WMDs in iraq,
but his report contained his speculation that the admin. did not manipulate intel. from CIA


he should stick to his job...no WMDs with no comment on the latter.
the fact that he did comment suggests to me that the admin. told him to say that.

[Terwilliger]

4. I think David kay knew there were no WMD's before he went to Iraq

but we'll never hear about that

[ex_jew]

5. I'll play devil's advocate

Did anyone three months ago imagine David Kay just blurting out the truth about WMD ? Of course not - it was his job to find them and one way or another he'd accomplish that mission. Now that he's done the honest thing by saying look - we goofed, I'm inclined to salute him.

Who really thinks trotting around Iraq qualifies him to say how Smirky got it so wrong ? Who cares what he thinks the next step should be ? All he was supposed to was find the weapons. He didn't, and he admitted it - none of this "we just need more time" BS. Any truthful statement from a member of this administration is practically a miracle.

[Brotherjohn]

6. Not only that, but he said yesterday that we should look into...

... whether the intelligence was manipulated.

He specifically said that:
"...the apparent contradiction (between the intel and WH statements) ‘raised the possibility that the intelligence community had been telling the White House one thing and the White House had been hearing something else.'"
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3464807.stm)

I think he was Bush's man, but I also think he didn't need to both (A) resign and (B) make the statements he did on the day he resigned. Something is fishy in that, and it doesn't smell good for Bush.

[ewagner]

8. That's why I raised the question

even today he made a remark that is damaging to the administration.

to paraphrase: It appears that the CIA said one thing and the adminsitration heard another.

If you're in the Bush* administration, that's gotta hurt!

[macedc]

7. David Kay

ditto with the first reply

he is plainly delegated to shift the focus to blaming the CIA and so far the media is following that line

WMD(istraction)- subvert the political discussion of the fact that the admin had pre-determined to go to war for real and in my opinion the mistaken but debatable reason of putting a standing army in the middle of the 'muslim land' - oil, isreal, asserting amerikas pre-emptive option

of course for Rove and G W(ar is a good issue for us) Bush getting votes in the fall is the only thing; the above applies to the neo-con hawks at and around the Pentagon

parenthetically, i mistakenly argued last spring that they would not go until this year because of the chance of problems developing before the election; had they waited the election would have been all over before TSHTF

[stepnw1f]

9. David Kay

is clearing himself from any further investigations. My guess is that Kay believes the Sh*t has already hit the fan. He's covering arse.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi macedc!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[macedc]

12. thanks

[BillZBubb]

10. Right wing tool, but

politically clumsy. He's trying to cover Bush*s ass as best he can, but he has lapses of honesty that get him into trouble.

Saying that almost everyone was wrong about WMD in Iraq was supposed to cover for Bush*. In fact most people were right about WMD in Iraq. IE, they believed it was possible, but far from certain that he had them. And that whatever Iraq had posed no immediate threat to the US or Iraq's neighbors. It was the Bush* cabal of pathological liars that spun it into total fantasy.