Text 16682, 98 rader
Skriven 2005-11-21 12:26:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 16655 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
Ärende: Collateral Damage
=========================
 >>> Not here, it's not a lie if you don't know it as a lie at the
 >>> time you made the statement.

 MV>> That may go for ordinary citizens. Leaders have far less leaway in
 MV>> that respect. At least here.

 > Interesting. Here, Law applies to all.

Same here. But this isn't a matter of law, this is a matter of trust. The law
can not regulate trust.

 >>> Other words, if he believed what he was told,

 MV>> First of all, I have great difficulty believing GWB really
 MV>> accepted what he was told on face value. I can not believe
 MV>> he did not look over the "proof" that was supposed to exist.

 > Possibly, he did. possibly that was equally cherry-picked and slanted?

Again I have difficulty believing that if that happened GWB failed to notice.

Much more likely is that *he himself* did the cherry picking or ordered his
subordinates to do so.

 > Has no one thougt he might have been lied to?  And then, does that
 > make a difference?

Not really, see above.

 > Further perhaps he would choose not to annone thatfact, but
 > deal with it quietly, so as not cause the Pubulc to lose total
 > faith in their Intelligence syatem?

Silence does not make it any better. Bushes polpularity is at an all time low.

 > I'd consider this seriously, and then look at who's
 > been fored or retired from the CIA..

In our view it doesn not mmake much difference. The leader is responsible.

 >>> as the Congress believed what they were told,

 MV>> If they swallowed it without demanding to see the proof they
 MV>> neglected their duty.

 > They were showm proo as well, that's what the Intelligence
 > Oversight Committee is all about, and the present a sanitized
 > report to Congress.

If they saw the same stuff that was presented by Colin Powel at the UN and
accepted it as proof....

 >>> then they didn't tell a lie. Other may have, but that's not proven.

 MV>> That is not how we look at things. Over here a leader is responsible
 MV>> for the actions of those working for him. If his intelligence officers
 MV>> lied to him and he acts n that line, the lies become his lies.

 > Not exactly so, here, but on the other hand he should make
 > noises about it and do somehting to fix it.

The fact that he remains silent says a lot. He knows there is nothing to gain
and making noise will only draw attention to it. That is the last thing I want
I should say.

What Cheney is doing now, making noise about the "lies" is a move of panic I
think.

 > especially if it drops him into a hot war, and then
 > undercuts him later.

 MV>> There have been numerous occasions here where a cabinet minister had
 MV>> to resign because the information he supplied to parliament turned out
 MV>> te be false. Even if the minister in question had no way of knowing it
 MV>> was false and it was all a legacy of his predecessor.

 > I've seen similar on different levels. That's happened here, too.

So you are familiar with the principle of "the boss is responsible".

 >>> the overall world Intellignece community  belief was
 >>> that Saddam was both working on and had WMD.

 MV>> That is what you may have been told, but that is not how it looked
 MV>> from this side of the pond. On the contrary, it was only George Bush
 MV>> an Tony Blair who claimed there were WMD's in Iraq. Outside the USA
 MV>> very few people believed it, including heads of intelligence agencies.

 > Of course what the Intel Agencies say in public is one thing.
 > Privately, quite something else. I know this from experience.

I suppose that can happen but if it does it does not mean that what they say in
private is the right version. It could just as well be the other way around.

Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.nodelist.org (2:280/5555)