Re: The "Lie"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 16 July 2003 06:31, Neil Stevens wrote:
> > because Bush was cautioned it was untrustworthy. because the CIA knew it
> > was likely forged.
>
> Says who?  Not NSC head Rice, not CIA head Tenet.

i was watching a political show with D. Rumsfeld as guest and his report on it 
was that he believed what Tenet said, namely that they had not coroberated it 
at the time, that there were doubts about it since it came from a single 
source and not one that was known as trustworthy, that Tenet's office had 
cautioned against using the material in something such as the SotU speach due 
it's shaky foundations.

> > because anyone who had any sort of expertise in the
> > field knew it was a forgery as soon as they looked at it.
>
> Mr. Blair says that MI6 had evidence independent of the allged forgery
> supplied by the French.

and this evidence is.... where? and it was ... how accurate?

> > because Blair
> > can't say he doesn't believe it without losing major political face /
> > capital, especially since it would cause the loss of major political
> > face / capital to his political ally George W. Bush and many others in
> > the US government and its agencies.
>
> So you can read minds now?  Super.

no, but i can see what's happening and take a good guess at political agendas. 
they got caught trying to stretch the truth by stating as fact intelligence 
that was extremeley dubious to begin with (by the CIA's own admission) and 
quickly turned out to be a forgery (something they don't even deny at this 
point).

now they're not just going to say, "Yep, we knew there was a good chance it 
was false, and yes once others saw it they came to that conclusion pretty 
quickly themselves, but we decided it was worth using anyways. We needed to 
sway the public opinion and felt it was a good tool in doing so." why? 
because it's already a political fiasco. imagine what it would be if they 
openly admitted they knowingly and purposefully mislead the American public?

they will never voluntarily admit to it, but the evidence is there. you may 
choose to give them the benefit of the doubt; i choose to call it as it 
likely is. politicians, especially the most powerful ones, are rarely men of 
extreme honour. they are more often people willing to do what it takes to get 
it done.

> > if GWB and Blaire lied knowingly once, they'll do it again.
>
> More mind reading.

so if someone lies consistently they must be telling the truth? pfft.

fact, i repeat, FACT is that the evidence they trotted out was a forgery. FACT 
is that it was easily spotted as such. i don't buy for a single moment that 
the very competent-at-what-they-do people in the CIA bungled that badly on 
this one given its high profile nature. nor do i believe the White House to 
be so naive as to poo-poo warnings by the CIA in an innocent mistake.

but let's say that's what happened, however unlikely: then they'd only be 
incomptent.

note that this was not the only piece of "evidence" trotted out for this war 
that wasn't accurate. i seem to remember a plaguerized student paper along 
the way as well........... that's what thinking people call "precedence" and 
a "pattern of behaviour".

- -- 
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE: The 'K' is for 'kick ass'
http://www.kde.org       http://promo.kde.org/3.1/feature_guide.php
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2-rc1-SuSE (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/FiGT1rcusafx20MRAoOoAJ0XXRDcKmIQ/RfoUIaaxWBDOW4/pwCgk9NX
ruVDl0nw9KFzuuD0s2YcNLY=
=QMZu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Kde-cafe mailing list - [email protected]
http://ofb.biz/lists/listinfo.cgi/kde-cafe

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this mailinglist are the personal
opinions of the author and do not represent OfB.biz: Open for Business, KDE or the author's employer.