A reasonable position. I thought the "one sentence" was the one Gel quoted, but you are saying the story only quotes one sentence of the report? I guess if I were an agnostic leaning pro Bush rather than an agnostic leaning to not believiing Bush I would not rush to change my position based on that either.
Dana On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 07:06:41 -0500, Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dana, > The Chicago Trib had an article on this as well and unfortunately, only 1 > sentence of the report was released. For the record, my opinion is that: > > 1. We had no "hard" intelligence that they had WMD's. By hard meaning > our > own people on the ground who saw the stuff. I believe that the > administration said something similar in the September time frame. > > 2. We had intelligence that indicated that they didn't have WMD's as > well > as intel that indicated that they did > > 3. That only the supporting information was either filtered up or was > believed by the administration > > The fundamental question for me is did the administration properly > question > the information that it received to create a balanced view and go into > this > situation with a solid understanding. If the information that they > received > was balanced in that it had both supporting and dissenting views and the > supporting views outweighed the negative then I'm ok with the way they > sold > the war (I am using this approach to try to isolate the repetitive > discussion on whether the war was right even without WMD's). If they did > not get a full picture from which to base there decision, either they > weren't asking or the intelligence community wasn't was passing up all of > the information at hand or asking enough why's. In this case, we need a > thorough analysis of the intelligence community and the Bush > administration > should be held responsible for a lousy decision making process. If Bush > believed that there were no WMD's but decided not to tell us because he > believed we still needed to overthrow Saddam, then he also needs to be > held > responsible for lying to the American people. Fundamentally, I do not > believe that the ends justifies the means. > > I just try not to react as each side in the political battle leaks out > one > thing or another. We just don't know yet what really happened and may > not > know until latter when an insider decides to speak out about the process. > > Andy > > -----Original Message----- > From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:31 PM > To: CF-Community > Subject: Re: US Intelligence report analysis.. > > > Andy > > If you follow the link there is a whole special feature there. The > initial > story looks substantial and to my eye fairly balanced. You and I disagree > about balance however :) Anyway, I haven't read the whole thing so I am > not > prepared to discuss it, but I think it says somethng when MSNBC starts > questioning the process. Likewise the Albuquerque Journal, which as I > have > previously noted is pro business, pro war and pro Bush, recently came out > against a nuclear production facility in NM, the stated reason being more > or less distrust of the feds and of the current administration in > particular... > > Dana > > Andy Ousterhout writes: > >> Gel, >> >> Interesting sentence. Not saying that this isn't important, it is just >> unfair to pull out one sentence and then define it's meaning in the > context >> of the whole. This is just one item that is helping create the picture > of >> the decision making process. Not saying the process isn't flawed. Just >> saying that we don't know enough to say it was. >> >> Andy >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 3:42 PM >> To: CF-Community >> Subject: US Intelligence report analysis.. >> >> >> "The Pentagon's intelligence agency had no hard evidence of Iraqi >> chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to >> produce them, the agency's chief said Friday. The assessment suggests a >> higher degree of uncertainty about the immediacy of an Iraqi threat - at >> least with regard to one portion of its banned weapons programs - than >> the Bush administration indicated publicly in building its case for >> disarming Iraq, with force if necessary." >> >> http://msnbc.com/news/923165.asp?0si=- >> >> Well there ya go. >> >> -Gel >> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Host with the leader in ColdFusion hosting. Voted #1 ColdFusion host by CF Developers. Offering shared and dedicated hosting options. www.cfxhosting.com/default.cfm?redirect=10481 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
