[FoRK] Re: All The Rope II: Noose of Words

jbone at place.org jbone at place.org
Wed Mar 17 14:55:06 PST 2004


> I think the issue has to be precise.

Indeed.  Let's be precise.  The previous quote I offered from the menu 
was perhaps somewhat ambiguous.  Let's try another one.

> Lying about what exactly?

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad 
and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Rummy the Poet, 3/2003

There are three possibilities.  At least one of the following three are 
true, and (2) and (3) are mutually exclusive.

(1)  Rummy and the entire intelligence chain leading to him are stupid, 
incompetent, etc.  OR
(2)  Rummy stated a falsehood, with intent to deceive.
(3)  Rummy's hyperbole was just that, and unintentional.

(1) isn't credible.  It defies belief.  It also is false-to-facts;  
there have been no credible reports from the lower intel echelons of 
100% confidence estimates of the locations of WMDs.  If there were, 
then this whole issues would be somewhat less interesting. There were 
wide (and widely reported previously) differences of confidence on the 
various estimates and pieces of intelligence.  There are many smart 
people in our intelligence apparatus.  Many of them share the same 
kinds of concerns about the quality and presentation of the 
intelligence that was our putative casus belli.  Indeed, were it not 
for this lack of consensus about this issue, the OSP would have been 
unnecessary.

(3) isn't credible.  This kind of statement was too frequent and too 
consistent from too many quarters to represent unintentional hyperbole.

.: (2) is true.

QED.

> I just cant' understand how someone can retroactively
> go back and re-assign maliscious intent to a policy that is 
> indistinguishable
> from every other policy with the exception that it's being enacted by
> a new administration.

As stated ad nauseam before, in the endless iterations of this issue:  
THE POLICY IS NOT THE ISSUE.  There is a difference between policy and 
between the decision to act.  Furthermore, it's the spin used in so 
many ways (from the creation of an entire propaganda agency inside the 
Pentagon with the sole purpose of "spinning" the intel!) that is so 
outrageously offensive about this thing.

> So, the big lie involved the complicity of Blix,
> Chirac, Annan, the UN, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., the entire US
> military, and the entire US intelligence?

Which of those people / groups "pulled the trigger?"

Which created the OSP?

Was the casus belli indeed what was stated, or was it something else?  
If something else, what?

jb



More information about the FoRK mailing list