> > But of course this statement was carefully crafted.
> > The CIA could not confirm the allegation so the
> > speech writers found language that the CIA could
> > "live with". So this was not simply a statement of
> > fact. The speech writer came up with a phrase that
> > would shield the administration from accusations of
> > lying.
>
> Which is why they weren't lying, and we all know it.
The question is not whether they were technically lying. It was what did they want the
american public to believe. Did they intentionally leave the impression that the
evidence for nuclear program was more active than they knew it was? Our own
intelligence service did not believe there was sufficient evidence to make this claim.
What more can one say. The adminsitration did not lie. It simply deceased us.
> The statement the British tell us is (in some ways)
> weaker than the statement "we know". Of course, given
> the relative records of British and American
> intelligence, it's stronger in some ways too, but
> that's neither here nor there. The point of saying
> the British told us this is to convert a factually
> untrue statement "We know this" to a true one "We
> believe this because someone else we trust claims to
> know it." And, incidentally, as I point out for what
> feels like the hundredth time and you have gracefully
> ignored, the British _still believe it_. They also
> have (much) better intelligence in Africa than we do.
Can you please point out what this evidence is? Of course the British government must
say it still believes this to be true. Are they to say "Gee guys it turns out we were
wrong. Sorry". Must we continue to take the word of a group has a good reason to
continue to hold this opinion without some other proof?
> It really is astonishing. Are we seeing criticisms of
> financial mismanagement?
Not yet
No.
The rebuilding process?
What rebuilding process? When there electricity and water we can talk about rebuilding.
>
Not in any meaningful sense. It's just accusations
> of lying about 16 words that are factually true but are meant to deceive. To deceive
> not about a sexual escapade but about taking the country into war. It is about the
> administration not trusting the american people enough to make the real reasons the
> reasons they talked about.
That even if the Administration were
> lying (it is not) its record of truthfulness compares
> quite favorably to FDR's in 1940. Or Wilson's ("He
> Kept Us Out of War!") in 1917, for that matter.
>
But we have a new moral bar. Thanks to the republicans we are now told that lying is
an impeachable offense. The republicans tried to get rid of Clinton using this new
rule. Why should not the democrats use the same rule. At least Clinton just lied about
his sex life not our military life.
> Is the Democratic Party _trying_ to give Bush all 50
> states in 2004? That would explain this fairly well,
> I guess.
We will see what happens in 2004. If the economy does not recover we might see Bush
losing some of his aura. Now I don't think this will happen because the dems do not
have a real candidate. But who knows what will happen.
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
