Quote:

---

Key Excerpts from David Kay's Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee
Acting in Iraq was justified to protect the United States and the world
Senator McCain: "You agree with the fundamental principle here that what we did was justified and enhance the security of the United States and the world by removing Saddam Hussein from power?"

---

Quote:

---

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI):
Dr. Kay's recent reported statements, for example, that the intelligence community was wrong about there being stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the war; that it is the intelligence community's consensus, he recently said, that the two alleged biological trailers were for hydrogen production, not for producing biological warfare agents; and that Iraq had not reconstituted its nuclear weapons program -- stand in sharp contrast to the statements made by the administration before going to war in Iraq. Dr. Kay's recent statements raise serious questions about the accuracy and objectivity of our intelligence, and about the administration's public statements before the war that were supposedly based on that intelligence.
Before the war, the administration, in order to support its decision to go to war, made numerous vivid, unqualified statements about Iraq having in its possession weapons of mass destruction -- not programs, not program-related activities, not intentions, actual weapons is what the administration's statements focused on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Oh Geezer, now really. Did you think that that one statement was all I was going to point out? I have barely begun.

What I will post (when I have more time than recently) is a long, long series of information and extended quotes, in context, not just about the yellowcake claims, and not just by Bush. It will outline the entire administration engaged in a 'pattern of deception'.

I see you understand the difficulty of 'proving a negative'. But out of curiosity, is it frustrating to be held to an impossible standard? Do you see the irony of your complaint, given Bush based his decision to go to war on Hussein being able to 'prove' there were no WMD?

---

Quote:

---

cannot be refuted by alternate explanations

---

Quote:

---

preponderance of evidence

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
You may wonder why I care. The entire country was brought to war through lies and propaganda. This in itself is a serious issue that needs redress.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Geezer, I only have time for a quick question before the upcoming week consumes my time - did you favor Clinton's impeachment?

Be honest, now.

PS I'm probably older than you.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
OK.

Work is truly consuming my time for the moment, so I'll just post some related questions. If I could show that Bush lied about WMD solely to invade Iraq, would you consider that an impeachable offense? If I could show that Bush's entire administration lied about WMD to invade Iraq, would you consider that sufficient cause to keep them out of a second term? If by some remote chance that WASN'T enough for you, what would it take?

---