[FoRK] All The Rope II: Noose of Words
Gregory Alan Bolcer
gbolcer at endeavors.com
Wed Mar 17 16:57:43 PST 2004
I have no idea what Owen's comment means. But the special department's
charter was to sell the war. Second, there was an abundance of evidence that
large amounts of WMDs were missing. Far more than evidence to the
contrary. As I mentioned to Jeff, you only need one counter-example
to disprove something, but you need complete coverage to prove it.
Proving there was no imminent threat was a near impossiblity due to
the active counter-inspection activities of the Iraqi government as well
documented by Powell's speech to the UN. In the absence of
any provable answer, you go with the best possible intelligence.
There was very little difference between the OSP and traditonal
intel agencies--running 70-30 instead of OSP's 99-1. The absence
of 100% proof doesn't mean the opposite is true.
The imminent threat was the intelligence that a nuclear
incident was imminent on US soil within the next decade.
Given Iraq previously had an active nuclear program,
intel reports warning of 9-11 weren't taken as seriously as
they should have, and the US public twice wanted
regime change in Iraq as approved by the US congress, don't you think
erring on the side of caution. It sounds like a pretty good
policy to me.
From: fork-bounces at xent.com on behalf of Lucas Gonze
Sent: Wed 3/17/2004 2:10 PM
Cc: fork at xent.com
Subject: Re: [FoRK] All The Rope II: Noose of Words
The Bush administration said, unambiguously, that there was an imminent
threat. The administration had plenty of contrary evidence and no
supporting evidence. The administration sabotaged providers of
contrary evidence (Joe Wilson) and rewarded providers of supporting
evidence (Chalibi), going so far as to create a new intelligence
apparatus in the defense department to be sure of ideologically correct
That's lying, and it's willful.
On Wednesday, Mar 17, 2004, at 16:48 America/New_York, Owen Byrne wrote:
> Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
>> I think the issue has to be precise. Lying about what exactly? The
>> charge can be made that the Bush administration lied about the reasons
>> why they went to war in Iraq. I personally think they did the right
>> thing for the wrong reasons. When Jeff starts talking about
>> they lied about whether or not Iraq had WMDs--as if they knew they
>> didn't, well, even Hans Blix, Kofi Annan, and Jaques Chirac wouldn't
>> even agree with that statement before the war. It's not my intention
>> to browbeat, I just cant' understand how someone can retroactively
>> go back and re-assign maliscious intent to a policy that is
>> from every other policy with the exception that it's being enacted by
>> a new administration. So, the big lie involved the complicity of
>> Chirac, Annan, the UN, Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr., the entire US
>> military, and the entire US intelligence? It seems just a little
>> unbelievable to me. Greg
> Its like a rapist's lament. If she really didn't want to be fucked,
> why didn't she fight back more? She must
> have really wanted it.
> FoRK mailing list
FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK