In a message dated 7/27/2003 7:07:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> > > At 06:49 PM 7/27/2003 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> > >> QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq has > >> recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in Africa. > >> > >> The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but cannot > >> do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim. The > >> British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on this, > >> but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality. > >> > >> At this point, do you; > >> a) Call the British liars since our intelligece services have such strong > >> reservations about it? > >> b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our own > >> intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts about? > >> c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable? > >> d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have access to sources > >> our own do not, particularly in Africa, and that the British intelligence > >> services are generally considered among the best and most reliable in the > >> world, and BELIEVE the British intelligence report? > >> > >> Your choice. What do you do? > >> > >> I look forward to your, Nick's, and Ritu's answers to this question. > >> > >> YOU LEAVE OUT OF THE STATE OF THE UNION MESSAGE. YOU DO NOT USE IT TO > TRY TO CONVINCE AMERICANS THAT WE MUST GO TO WAR UNTIL YOU CAN AT LEAST > CONVINCE YOUR OWN INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY THAT THE STATEMENT IS TRUE > > > > The State of the Union is irrelevant to this example. But it is not irrelevant because this is THE major policy speech that the president makes every year. This speech is worked on with the most care and intensity by the president's staff. It is givin to a joint session of congress. It is unique and important. Statements in this speech must or should be above speculation. In short it is not just another speech. "Leaving it out of > the State of the Union" is an action that is consistent with actions a, b, > c, and d above. > > So, which is it, Bob? Before you decide whether or not to include it in > the State of the Union, you have to make the more fundamental determination > of a, b, c, or d. Actually I don't have to do any of those things. In fact it is my point that the president should have not used this data until it could be verified or disproved by our intelligence services. You don't have to call them (a)liers or (b) incompetent. You don't have to (c) ignore it. Not using it in the SOU address is not the same as ignoring it. You don't have (d) accept it on faith. You (e) ask the British to provide documenation of their claim. If they do so you can include it in the SOU. > JDG - Tough Decisions, Maru - but he is the POTUS after all.... > _______________________________________________________ > John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > "The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, > it is God's gift to humanity." - George W. > Bush 1/29/03 > _______________________________________________ > http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
