Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (131409)	5/4/2004 3:00:58 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I do not believe they were lying. No doubt they could have been, but there is no conclusive evidence that they were. If anything, the intelligence was faulty. Clinton has acknowledged that the same basic information was coming to him from the intelligence services, and I have read that even German intelligence agreed with our basic assessment, on an independent basis. The fact that you continue to put forward the allegation that they were lying, in spite of the facts, leads me to have less faith in your judgment, not in theirs. In any event, you ask for the impossible. None of us are in a position independently to verify or refute intelligence assessments, and it is foolish to pretend otherwise. There is no option but to act on best intelligence, and best intelligence is what is provided by the professionals. If they fail, that is cause for examination, retrospectively, but that is about it. In any event, it is laughable to pretend that I trust and your side does not. The difference is that you give credence to every anti- Bush canard that is floated. You trust, all right, as long as the pundit or politician agrees with you in your negative stereotypes of Republicans, your contempt for Bush, and your conspiratorial view of people like Cheney and Rumsfeld.