David Kay on Fox News Sunday

Fox News Sunday | Today | Me

[FlameThrower]

David Kay’s testimony and commentary on WMD intelligence has been blunt, honest and neutral. But, on Fox News Sunday, he made one statement that disqualifies him as a serious policy advocate.

He said that the blurred vision of our intelligence apparatus invalidates a foreign policy based on preemption -- at least until intelligence improves.

Why? Does not the zone of uncertainty argue for putting preemption on a hair trigger?

We do not engage in preemptive attack because we can. We attack because the danger being preempted far outweighs the known risks of the attack.

In college, I once participated in a weekend-long foreign policy simulation. I was Golda Meir. My younger brother was the War Minister of Egypt. It was run as a modified prisoners’ dilemma game. If there was a shooting war, all teams got knocked down a grade. If, however, you were attacked and taken by surprise, your team failed.

As the second day dragged to an end I notices my brother -- who had come dressed in combat boots and fatigues -- strutting about his team’s table. Knowing him as I did, I immediately sent a note to the Professor announcing a preemptive attack across the Suez.

We caught the Egyptians in mid-crossing.

Our intelligence was far from precise. But the consequences of failing to act were far more serious than the consequences of being wrong. We passed the exercise: with a B instead of an A, but with a B instead of an F.

If the consequences of missing a real threat are more serious than the consequences of a preemptive attack (even if based on erroneous assessments) and if there is a wide zone of uncertainty surrounding intelligence estimates, then the threshold for preemptive strike must be lowered, not raised. To say otherwise is to isolate the policy from its very purpose.

David Kay’s statements, themselves, threaten advocates of sound policy with increased costs from future wrong guesses and thus harm American security.

[rface]

is this a transcript?

[alnick]

He said that the blurred vision of our intelligence apparatus invalidates a foreign policy based on preemption -- at least until intelligence improves.

He's not the person who gets to decide that.

[munozjoe]

One thing we should not forget is that the case is watched by the whole world. If we do not managae to improve they will turn everything against us. They cannot beat us with their military. But they can radicalize the masses, produce more terrorists.
Although Iraq was freed from Saddam, a terrible despot, people all over the planet were protesting against the US. Imagine you gave ice-cream to everyone and their reaction was: "No thanks, you are only trying to poison us." If that happens, as a businessman, I would say something has gone wrong with your marketing.
I do a lot of my trading business in Canada, Mexico, Indonesia, and Germany. If you do good business people are still nice. But you should not discuss this war with anyone outside the US, some get furious, some just mention one point after the other why the war was evil and Bush a mean guy. Fortunately they have no right to vote here. But we should keep in mind that it is easier to live with weak allies than on your own.
One thing: I stopped trading with Indonesia when the war started. They have become too aggressive. Colleagues tell me similar stories from Malaysia, not to mention Arab countries.

[Broadside Joe]

Not only that but look at Libya. They were much further along than what was thought. Then look at North Korea. They were building another plant when Clinton was giving away the store. Moreover, you can not call the war in Iraq preemptive due to the fact that they violated a ceasefire agreement many times over.

[FlameThrower]

WALLACE: What does that do to the president's policy of preemptive attack, if you can't rely on intelligence to make sound judgments?

KAY: If you cannot rely on good, accurate intelligence that is credible to the American people and to others abroad, you certainly can't have a policy of preemption.

KAY: I think it's fundamental. Pristine intelligence — good, accurate intelligence — is a fundamental benchstone of any sort of policy of preemption to even be thought about.

WALLACE: So you're saying that if the president were to come to us and say, "Iraq is a grave danger" or Iran, rather, is a grave danger, or North Korea or Syria, you're saying that you would have greater doubts now because of what's happened in the past in Iraq on intelligence?

KAY: I would think most of us would have greater doubts. I would hope even the president would have greater doubts until we understand the fundamental causes.

WALLACE: We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you so much...

[aruanan]

He said that the blurred vision of our intelligence apparatus invalidates a foreign policy based on preemption -- at least until intelligence improves.

Why are otherwise smart people so often saying such stupid things?

[Mia T]

If the consequences of missing a real threat are more serious than the consequences of a preemptive attack (even if based on erroneous assessments) and if there is a wide zone of uncertainty surrounding intelligence estimates, then the threshold for preemptive strike must be lowered, not raised. To say otherwise is to isolate the policy from its very purpose.

Excellent. Thank you. This is PRECISELY right. (The germ of this concept has been percolating in my head all Sunday!).

The flawed, perverse, politically correct, putatively pacifistic thinking that your post addresses is--together with a wilfully seditious undermining of America in a time of war)-- in fact, the VERY reason the democrats--and especially a clinton-- are totally unfit to serve post-declaration-of-war by the terrorists, which, by the way, predates Sept. 11, 2001 by a full eight years.

Another point. The lower threshold to defend is, in fact, a great deterrent. If the states that support the terrorists know that we will defend at the slightest hint of a threat, they will think twice before aiding and abetting--AND FOMENTING!--the animals.

BTW, I am working on a new virtual hillary movie on the Kay testimony; it will debut shortly.

hillary talks: ON TERROR
(reinstalling clintons in White House-1 advantage over suicide)

(viewing movie requires Flash Player 6, available HERE)
missus clinton's REAL virtual office update
http://hillarytalks.blogspot.com
http://virtualhillary.blogspot.com
http://virtualclintonlibrary.blogspot.com
http://www.hillarytalks.us
http://www.hillarytalks.org
fiendsofhillary.blogspot.com
fiendsofhillary.us
fiendsofhillary.org
fraudsofhillary.com

[nutmeg]

FoxFan ping!

Please FReepmail me if you want on or off my FoxFan list. *Warning: This can be a high-volume ping list at times.

[New Perspective]

Interestng game you described. Simple, but so effective.

[PISANO]

First the IRAQ WAR was NOT pre-emptive it was a resumption of hostilities due to Saddam not abiding by the articles of surrender mutually agreed upon to end Gulf War 1. Secondly, the prudence used in "connnecting the dots' by our intelligence agencies concerning 911 was castigated and maligned by all politicians, NOW the same politicians are castigating our intelligence agencies for not using prudence in "connecting the dots" concerning Iraq.

We no longer have the LUXURY to be 100% sure (an impossibitlity anyway) before we use pre-emptive action because the consequences could mean hundreds of thousands of lives, even millions of innocent civilians.

[jla]

A favorite quote of mine:

"We have always said that in our war with the Arabs we had a secret weapon - no alternative."

Golda Meir

[jla]

If the consequences of missing a real threat are more serious than the consequences of a preemptive attack (even if based on erroneous assessments) and if there is a wide zone of uncertainty surrounding intelligence estimates, then the threshold for preemptive strike must be lowered, not raised. To say otherwise is to isolate the policy from its very purpose.

Another point. The lower threshold to defend is, in fact, a great deterrent. If the states that support the terrorists know that we will defend at the slightest hint of a threat, they will think twice before aiding and abetting--AND FOMENTING!--the animals.

History will prove the validity and accuracy of these remarks...our survival as a nation will bear them out.

[lainde]

bttt