Re: Background of David Kay
But if someone shows u what is verifiably a tree and claims that it was there all along the persons background is relevant to determining whether that is true or whether he or she likely had it planted in order to convince u that it was there. Of course a person's interests and background do not prove that they are lying or are twisting the truth but they should surely send up flags as to the probabilities. One can't say that if Kay discovers something it is a plant because of his background but it certainly should generate a degree of scepticism. If the US were much interested in assuring everyone that they were objective, they would not hire him but would use the UN as a cover again. I gather they dont even feel the need to do this. Your idea that there could be some simple uncontrovertible finding of WMD is a highly unlikely scenario. Whatever is found may be planted or even if not planted whatever is uncovered will be given a political spin. It is important to understand who is spinning and how credible they may be. Cheers, Ken Hanly > One does not need to know anything whatever about his > "background" -- EVEN IF it has been as the world's > comparatively longest record-holder for truth telling, as > attested to by the proverbial one-hundred (assuming: > not child-molesting) Bishops -- to have the good sense > to reconize that avowed "optimism" (a purported report > merely about one's mental state) does not tell anyone > anything of substance about whether, at some unstated > and presently unknown and also unknowable future time, > in some not described place, he will (or won't) find even > a not-controversially described widget (e.g., a tree), nor > would correspondingly similar conclusory statements of > not-disclosed "evidence" of a "cover-up" communicate > anything whatever of substance about whether there > has (or has not) been a cover-up. > > If, conversely, an otherwise past-lying S.O.B. or (overt > or covert) C.I.A. agent, or both, shows me what > verifiably is a tree -- or, for that matter, what can be > reasonably described, in fact, to be "weapons of mass > destruction" -- those objects would be no less so > because of his/her "background" is of the sort this > thread's initiator (and, apparently, Mr. Devine) find > "interesting" as, meanwhile, Mr. Kay's history (including > what k hanly implied has not been "announced") has been > very widely reported, including on . . . [gasp!] . . . FOX- > TV.
Re: Background of David Kay
It might depend on your definition of "finds." I bet that he "finds" something awful once the election starts to heat up. On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 01:21:08PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > If he verifiably finds or meaningfully helps find > whatever it is that also verifiably is confirmed to be > "WMD" (however defined), what difference will his > "backgound" have made? And to whatever if any exent > that he will not have done this, why is it "[i]nteresting" > what his "background" may be (WHATEVER his > "background" is)? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Background of David Kay
On 8 /5/03 1:50:14 PM, "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kay made some published statements of > optimism concerning the imminent finding > of evidence concerning the WMDs, . . . . . . so what? . . . > . . . along with statements that his group > had already found evidence . . . . . . which he has not described much less actually disclosed . . . . > . . . of a cover-up. His "background" > tells us how much credence we should put in > those statements. One does not need to know anything whatever about his "background" -- EVEN IF it has been as the world's comparatively longest record-holder for truth telling, as attested to by the proverbial one-hundred (assuming: not child-molesting) Bishops -- to have the good sense to reconize that avowed "optimism" (a purported report merely about one's mental state) does not tell anyone anything of substance about whether, at some unstated and presently unknown and also unknowable future time, in some not described place, he will (or won't) find even a not-controversially described widget (e.g., a tree), nor would correspondingly similar conclusory statements of not-disclosed "evidence" of a "cover-up" communicate anything whatever of substance about whether there has (or has not) been a cover-up. If, conversely, an otherwise past-lying S.O.B. or (overt or covert) C.I.A. agent, or both, shows me what verifiably is a tree -- or, for that matter, what can be reasonably described, in fact, to be "weapons of mass destruction" -- those objects would be no less so because of his/her "background" is of the sort this thread's initiator (and, apparently, Mr. Devine) find "interesting" as, meanwhile, Mr. Kay's history (including what k hanly implied has not been "announced") has been very widely reported, including on . . . [gasp!] . . . FOX- TV.
Re: Background of David Kay
Kay made some published statements of optimism concerning the imminent finding of evidence concerning the WMDs, along with statements that his group had already found evidence of a cover-up. His "background" tells us how much credence we should put in those statements. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2003 10:21 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [PEN-L] Background of David Kay > > > On 8/5/03, k hanly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > Interesting that when it was announced that > > David Kay . . . was hired . . . to look for weapons > > in Iraq there is zilch about questionable parts > > of his background . . . . [that] he has . . . no > > training as a scientist . . . [and] admitted in > > effect making a Faustian bargain with US > > intelligence sources. He was fired by Blix and > > consequently vilified him. > > http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid= > 2728 > > If he verifiably finds or meaningfully helps find > whatever it is that also verifiably is confirmed to be > "WMD" (however defined), what difference will his > "backgound" have made? And to whatever if any exent > that he will not have done this, why is it "[i]nteresting" > what his "background" may be (WHATEVER his > "background" is)? >
