On Sep 5, 3:47 pm, abcdefz <[email protected]> wrote: > Since I got a response, I guess I'll chime in again... > > Too verbose and wrong? I tend to try not to waste a lot of time > making broad generalized statements, so I'll limit myself to two > points. "Too verbose" is a subjective judgement. There are doubtless > many people out there who would come down on either side of that > issue, so, there is no way that I can fault your opinion. Opinions > being what they are... > I have no idea what to do with the reference to some Wiki-whatever > article. It didn't seem to address the issue that _I_ was speaking > of, which stated, fairly simply, that there were miskakes made with > intel that various 'movers and shakers' had access to at that time. > > ****** Now, I'm going to quote from an article you can find on the > Cato Institute site: > "https://www.cato.org/research/articles/reynolds-040620.html"; > > This is merely one article of many that visits the issue of WMDs and > Iraq. I'm more likely to believe something that I got off of Cato, > rather than wiki-whatever: > > *****Quote > Ironically, a few writers attempting to defend the White House and > Pentagon also claimed Mr. Tenet should not be blamed. These Iraq war > supporters ended up claiming -- as did war critics -- Mr. Tenet did > nothing wrong. > > Michael Barone of U.S News & World Report wrote Mr. Tenet's infamous > "slam dunk" remark " > *****was the conclusion as well of every other competent intelligence > agency in the world.***** > Tenet was right. Given that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had possessed > weapons of mass destruction [mustard and nerve gas before 1991]... and > given that Saddam's regime had not accounted for WMDs he had > [reportedly] possessed, any prudent intelligence agency would have to > have concluded that he still had them. > > Moreover, there was no evidence that could have been obtained which > would have convinced a prudent intelligence agency that Saddam did not > possess them." > > We cannot prove Unicorns do not exist either. But requiring skeptics > to prove the nonexistence of invisible objects is an imprudent > definition of prudence > *****End Quote > > On Sep 4, 4:29 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Sep 4, 12:16 am, abcdefz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Too vebose and wrong. Don't you remember the "Freedom Fries" > > propaganda campaign? The French wanted to gather more information > > before waging war with Iraq. Seehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries > > . > > > Not that it matters because, when a group is unanimously wrong, it > > just means that they are in bad company- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
"Too verbose" is an objective judgment because I can paraphrase you much more succinctly. The purpose of the Wiki reference was not to give you new information, but to refresh your memory of news reports from that time. You incorrectly said, "the powers that be, in _EACH_ of our 'allies' respective governments, decided that the information was 'actionable'." That statement is wrong because the government of France, which is a USA ally, did not decide that that information justified invading Iraq. BTW, what is the meaning of "_" in your writing and why do you expect anyone to know? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
