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 (131505)	5/5/2004 11:15:39 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The Administration does not have any other means to verify what is going on except the agencies that supply the data and analysis used by the CIA in preparing intelligence estimates in the first place. Obviously, they must rely on what they are given. If, in some instances, the level of confidence expressed was not a precise representation of the level of discussion by the intelligence services, I am not disturbed, since the general thrust of the intelligence was more important than any single detail. Overall, I do not for a minute believe that the intelligence services were completely fooled on the score of WMDs. If they were, then it will come out in due course. But either way, the Administration acted in good faith.........

To: cnyndwllr who wrote (131505)	5/5/2004 4:28:22 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

""The salesman tells you that he "knows" the car "doesn't burn oil." He's lying if he knows that the car does burn oil. He's also lying if he doesn't know whether the car is burning oil....He's NOT lying if he has information which a reasonable person would accept as proving that the car did not burn oil." So if his mechanic just told him that the car doesn't burn oil, then he's not lying? And what if he's the President of the United States, and the head of the CIA just told him that there was a "slam-dunk" case for Saddam's WMDs?