View Single Post
Old 10-14-2004, 06:28 PM   #55
Davros
Takhisis Follower
 

Join Date: January 7, 2001
Location: Mandurah, West Australia
Age: 61
Posts: 5,073
Well - I think MagiK it has a lot to do with how close you are to the information, and your capacity (if indeed any) to distort the issue.

Befoer I develop an answer le me say that I haven't seen proof that either side lied yet.

Back at the start of it all, Bush puts out the word that his intelligence sources say that there are WOMD in Iraq. His claims were widely and implicitly believed. Hell dude - let's remember that 50-70% of the whole world was hoodwinked by those claims. Why would Kerry not take them at face value as the accepted position. Was Kerry in a position to demand access to the proof and cross-question the available intelligence. No Sir - not him and his party - they were not on watch.

Who was recieving the info. Bush of course - it was his watch - or at the least the watch of his administration. There seems to be a developig picture that GW was intent on Iraq - even back to the point of insinuating (and leaving the false perception out there) that they were the real ones behind Sep 11.

We know from the benefit of hindsight that the US (and their allies) trusted this "oh so flawed" intel. When questions of "did sos or so lie about WOMD" it comes back to what influence did they have over the intel. If the available intel looked so good and they followed it and it turned out to be wrong - well that is the intels fault. If the intel was known to be dodgy, but it supported what the administration wanted to do - well then to some degree that constitutes lying to me. In such a case (ie the"dodgy" 2nd case), it matters not to me whether they lied or fabricated evidence or just failed to thoroughly cross check a story they suspected was a house of cards.

So in summary - there is the potential there for Bush to influence the situation, so there is the potential there for Bush to have lied. JK has to take on face value (as did much of the world) that the evidence was true - ergo JK didn't lie. Did Bush lie - I would like to know - hale [img]smile.gif[/img] , the whole world would like to know that. Given the power that he holds I hope the answer is no.

Hope that clears things up for you MagiK.
__________________
Davros was right - just ask JD
Davros is offline   Reply With Quote