John D. Giorgis wrote: > Ritu and Nick make similar points which I will respond to here..... > > At 12:29 PM 7/25/2003 +0000 Robert J. Chassell wrote: > > Robert J. Chassell wrote: > > > > >The phrase "The British have learned...." suggests to a > listening > > >public that the US President had US intelligence agencies > > >investigate the matter. > > > > "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> responded > > > > It does not suggest this to me. Indeed the mere fact > that British > > intelligence is being mentioned in the State of the > Union suggests > > exactly the opposite to me. > > > >Interesting. Your ideolect is certainly different from mine and from > >people with whom I have talked over the past half century. > > I find this astounding, and can't help but wonder if you > aren't letting > your political bias and your various subtle biases towards my > opinions to > color your perception of language.
John, what do you know of my political biases? Would you care to explain what you think my political biases as well as my biases towards your opinions are? :) > Let's see, not one Brin-L'er responded to this the first time > around..... > let's see if at the very least one of you three can give it a > try this time > around; I must have missed the earlier questions - I am usually way behind on the mail. :) > 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. This is a simple one, JDG, though my answer falls in none of the categories you provide. :) It is a mix of your last two options. I'd accept that the British Intelligence might have better resources than ours [I am pretending to be the US prez here] and that they have a good record of reliability and excellence. However, when it comes to the SotU address, I'd go for option [c] without any hesitation whatsoever. In fact, I'd expect to be rather incensed if I received unverified information in *any* form other than a 'for-yours-eyes-only' note or a verbal report, with all the doubts about its veracity noted before the report even started. However, let us also examine another scenario: I *want* to go to war with Iraq and this bit of unverified information is a convenient filler in my edifice of reasons. In such a case, I might be tempted to include it in my SotU address, but only after I have clarified that the US intelligence has been unable to verify this information. If the Congress also decided to trust the British Intelligence as much as I chose to, well and good. But it would be their decision to make, on their assessment of the factual situation. And if I tamper with the facts I report to them, if I imply things that aren't true, then I would have crossed the line between leadership and manipulation. That is a Bad Thing, mmm'kay? :) Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
