CNN/Wolf Blitzer still talking about the hearing

[Cush]

Michael O'Hanlon (Brookings Institue): David Kay is coming to Bush's defense by saying that it was the Intelligence. However, the Intel was right on the nuclear issue, but Bush used it anyways. Chemical & Biological Weaps are serious, but they aren't on the level of nuclear weapons. THe Bush Admin continued to blur the lines between the two to exaggerate the threat.

He said that while its possible that Saddam could have posed a threat, there was no imminent threat and the rush to war wasn't needed. He stated that the Admin exaggerated whenever they could to help their cause

[tabasco]

1. The Buck Stops There !

With the intel guys.

[La_Serpiente]

2. Ahh, Mr. O'Hanlon

http://www.brook.edu/scholars/mohanlon.htm

Democrat, but was really anti-Dean. He worked on Gephardt's campaign.

He's worked a lot with Ivo Daalder, Dean's foreign policy consultant. However, Daalder is very pro-Dean.

Here is the report they worked on:

http://www.brook.edu/press/books/protecting_the_american_homeland.htm

He also wrote an awesome piece about troop strength and terrorism.

http://www.brook.edu/views/op-ed/ohanlon/20040118b.htm

[ElsewheresDaughter]

3. was "Intelligence"the bush/cheney/rumfeld secert 'Office of Special Plans"

google..."office of special plans"...they are to blame...investigate the OSP!!

[Cleita]

4. Didn't hear the whole thing, but what I did hear

indicated that the evidence of WMD was flimsy at best and that the mis-administration took the word of Saddam to be true without any proof. Am I right?

If this is the case I think the families of dead soldiers have a right to sue the whole lot of them for lies and causing the death of their relatives. I think it's time to get this President, and that PNAC crowd he has put in high places in his administration, pulled through the court system. I don't think other courts will be as agreeable to BushCo as the Supreme Court has been.