> > > At 05:37 PM 7/17/2003 -0700 Gautam Mukunda wrote: > >Furthermore, Bob, you're much too smart to believe > >something as dumb as that the world of intelligence is > >quite as clear as whether Bill Clinton had sex with > >Monica Lewinsky. > Since I never got around to answering Gautam on this issue (sorry I was busy for a few nights and this was one post I did not have time to respond to. I've saved it and will try by the end of the week) let me answer it now). The issue isn't complexity. It is how that complex information is used and presented. The administration did not present its case based on complex data that could be interpretted in a number of ways. It did not say to the american people that even though our intelligence is limited we must do this because it is too dangerous to leave him in power. It said Iraq had WMD and could soon have a nuclear capacity. It said it had proof. Now what we learn is that it had hunches. One thing I do when reviewing a paper for a scientific journal is make sure I know where my own opinions lie. I am very careful about interpretting ambiguous data when I want that data to show something that I wish to be true or false. The administration did not do this. It did the opposite. >
Which of course is what this all about. So many Democrats turned a blind > eye to Clinton's perjury But this is where you are precisely wrong John. No democrat defended Clinton this. Not one said he was right and none as far as I know said his interpretation was alright. What they said was that his actions did not warrent impeachment. There is a difference between believing something is wrong and believing that a punishment is inappropriate. I do not favor the death penalty for armed robbery. That does not mean I approve of armed robbery. Once again I find it facinating that Clinton's personal prevaracations are considered more important than this adminsitrations public pravaracations. > Well, sorry it just doesn't fly..... the British are standing by their > report - and if the same people who argued so strongly for the necessity of > iternational cooperation with our allies on Iraq now state that we > shouldn't have made use of British intelligence - well, everyone has their > own right to be a hypocrite. > >I just wish the british would come up with a few specifics. Like where else did he >try to but uranium. By the way it would be amazing if the British did not stick to >their story. They would be more damaged than us if this particular piece of evidence >turned out to be as pattenly false as the Niger incident.
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
