----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 8:50 AM Subject: Re: Re: Seth Finkelstein on 16 words
> > -------Original Message------- > From: Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> QUESTION 1) The British inform us that they have learned that Iraq > has > > >> recently tried to acquire significant quantities of intelligence in > Africa. > > >> > > >> The Bush Administration naturally tries to verify this claim, but > cannot > > >> do so. They tell the British that we can't verify their claim. > The > > >> British respond that they cannot reveal their intelligence sources on > this, > > >> but they assure us that the intelligence is of the highest quality. > > >> > > >> At this point, do you; > > >> a) Call the British liars since our intelligence services have such > strong > > >> reservations about it? > > >> b) Call the British incompetent for giving us intelligence that our > own > > >> intelligence services has not verified, and indeed has strong doubts > about? > > >> c) Ignore the British intelligence as questionable? > > >> d) Accept that the British intelligence services may have > > >> access to other sources > > Why not > e) Both the British and the American governments have overruled the > better judgment of their intelligence services. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > Uhhh.... "e" does not answer the question of "what do you do?" > > Please try again - I am really looking forward to having some of the critics of the Bush Administration's decisions at this juncture to actually answer the question of what they would have done. > Accept the intelligence as given without having your political operative pushing hard to make it say more than it does. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
