----- Original Message ----- From: "Sonja van Baardwijk-Holten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 4:41 AM Subject: Re: UK dossier on Iraq
> Dan Minette wrote: > > > Let me get this straight. You are accusing Powell of fabricating evidence? > > Its all made up because the poor misunderstood Mr Hussein, who is trying so > > hard to lead his Republic into a bright new future is being slanded by the > > big bad United States? > > Well you must admit that subtly changing words to give it a sound that is far > more grave then the original documents, copying parts of an old article and > selling it as real and recent doesn't do much to improve believabillity. Powell didn't do that. Powell provided intercepted conversations and satallite photos at the UN. Jeroen stated that it would have been easy to fabricate them out of whole cloth. If you wanted to argue that one needs to take the shading of interpretation of the meaning of words with a grain of salt, that's one thing. I would not be opposed to interpretation of the dry language of accadamia in a different manner than the British government did. That's fair criticism, that the US and British governments may be misinterpreting the report...the origional is available and the interpretation can be debated openly. I remember reading, but can't pull up now, a statement by the author that indicates that he wasn't all that upset by the translation from dry accademic terms. But, again, that's open to interpretation. But, Jeroen suggested a far different scenero. That the US government may have created false data. The difference is the same difference as a defense attorney stating that the prosecution gave too much weight to a particular bit of data that can best be interpreted in another manner and accusing the police lab of issuing a false DNA test in order to frame an innocent man. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
