WHITHER A LIE?
I posted this first as a comment over at Classless WarFare
As busy and distracted as I feel now, I don't want to reiterate all my main points about whether the BBC screw up is the end game for claims that lies were made and evidence ignored by Blair and Bush governments.
His post is here.
The comments are here.
My final comment is below.
>>I specifically quoted Blair when he said that it's perfectly legitimate to question the accuracy of the intelligence and why no WMD have been found yet.
Let me make my point clearer then (I'll take the burden that my point was not clear rather than that your understanding is lacking).
Even more clear then it already was.
There was a claim by Blair that Iraq could deploy WMDs in 45 minutes.
Repeat. There was a claim by Blair that Iraq could deploy WMDs in 45 minutes.
It was false. There's no question about that.
That this is false should be the issue but is not. Instead the issue has become, as declared by your post, not whether but the degree of how much Blair and Bush knew and whether they were listening with open ears.
Whether or how much they deliberately ignored what they didn't want to hear is still open for discussion. But I've heard enough to convince me that they wanteds to believe the worst and ignored the rest. You haven't heard enough. That's fine.
It's called a disagreement of the issues at hand.
A second subject. You said this:
MIB, you're spouting a classic argument regarding all of this. The way you put it, the administration and/or Tony Blair or anybody else cannot win.
According to its' critics, the administration didn't act aggressively enough on intel prior to 9/11, but now the same people complain that they were too aggressive acting on intel after 9/11.
You can't have it both ways. Either we act on the information we have, or we don't.
Which i thought was a good point until I realized that the real point is that Bush et al didn't react (much) all on intelligence and didn't give it much credence until 9-11 when they decided to accept anything and everything.
You say we as a country can't have it both ways, but the Bush administration did.
This is a good and worthy discussion to have. And a rather important one for the country. Nothing is known for sure, but you are acting for the most part (in your comments here) as if it is case closed that because the BBC slipped - whcih they did - everything else associated with their one report is also worthless.
You might believe that. I can't buy that.
I have a sneaking suspicion that Jay does believe that legitimate questions still exist. But he doesn't make that point clear and doesn't want to concede that others who disagree with him have legitimate points.
At least in this discussion - so far - he hasn't called anybody a fuckhead. There's progress.