[FoRK] Re: All The Rope II: Noose of Words
Gregory Alan Bolcer
gbolcer at endeavors.com
Wed Mar 17 17:05:04 PST 2004
Jeff, you still never have read Powell's speech to the UN have you?
What does Rumsfeld have to do with those intelligence estimates built
up over 9 years?
Go look up Taji on globalsecurity.org. You seem to be focused
on personalities and not policies. You also seem to have forgotten
all the intelligence and military actions taken against Iraq besides
the current gulf war.
From: fork-bounces at xent.com on behalf of jbone at place.org
Sent: Wed 3/17/2004 2:55 PM
Subject: [FoRK] Re: All The Rope II: Noose of Words
> 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
(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.
> 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.
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?
FoRK mailing list
More information about the FoRK