On Sep 6, 4:01 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
One wonders at your Philosophical standards. "Too verbose" is subjective, as you have not applied any standards as to what constitutes a properly verbose response to the original posting. Is this succinct enough for you, or would you like me to explain further? > 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.
