Text 16753, 129 rader
Skriven 2005-11-21 22:29:10 av Raymond Yates (1:3613/48)
  Kommentar till text 16682 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
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
 MV>>> in that respect. At least here.

 >> Interesting. Here, Law applies to all.

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

But it impacts it, doesn't it? We trust our leaders to ovey the laws?

 >>>> 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?

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

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

That's, to me more doubtful than my suggestion. Usually the Intel agencies
write three Presidential Briefs. One optimistic, one pessimistic,and one in
the middle. it's up the the briefer (like the head of the Cia) to shoose the
one he presents. however, there's always a miniority view. So, if he decides
from  slanted information...

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

 MV> 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?

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

And it's not important in the long personal run, he's in his final term. How
this affects the Republican Party in 08, however.. But then I think they need
changing anyways, I'm not thrilled with them at present.

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

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

He is, and has the power to impact on his subordinates.

 >>>> 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.

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

Probably a lot more information than that..

 >>>> 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
 MV>>> responsible for the actions of those working for him. If his
 MV>>> intelligence officers lied to him and he acts n that line, the
 MV>>> 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.

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

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

Very possibly so.

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

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

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

Oh sure, I never denied that..

 >>>> 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
 MV>>> looked from this side of the pond. On the contrary, it was only
 MV>>> George Bush an Tony Blair who claimed there were WMD's in Iraq.
 MV>>> Outside the USA very few people believed it, including heads of
 MV>>> intelligence agencies.

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

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

That. in my experience is a lot more doubtful. the agency would rather tell
something innocuous than tell the real story..


---
 * Origin: Ray's Rocket Shop - Out to Launch (1:3613/48)