P2P-Zone - View Single Post

JackSpratts · 30-01-04, 02:49 PM

Re: TM

Not to mention that the Blair government, assuming they were being truthful and having won the retraction, now owe the people a full explanation of why they thought the “45 minute” assertion was correct in the first place, if for nothing else that it doesn’t recur. There are people who've "outed" themselves claiming “credit.” Are they the one(s) Blair based his assertations on? Why?

I’d be interested in hearing about it.

Here in the U.S. David Kay went beyond his inspection mandate and all but guaranteed that Bush didn’t lie about WMD’s, although his explanations of how he knew Bush was actually being truthful sound more like careerism than the results of a solid inside-the-White House investigation. Be that as it may, assuming (again) that Bush was also being truthful, the President’s refusal to investigate how our intelligence services got it so wrong is beyond curious. It's irresponsible.

- js.

30-01-04, 02:49 PM	#25
JackSpratts Join Date: May 2001 Location: New England Posts: 10,018	Re: TM Not to mention that the Blair government, assuming they were being truthful and having won the retraction, now owe the people a full explanation of why they thought the “45 minute” assertion was correct in the first place, if for nothing else that it doesn’t recur. There are people who've "outed" themselves claiming “credit.” Are they the one(s) Blair based his assertations on? Why? I’d be interested in hearing about it. Here in the U.S. David Kay went beyond his inspection mandate and all but guaranteed that Bush didn’t lie about WMD’s, although his explanations of how he knew Bush was actually being truthful sound more like careerism than the results of a solid inside-the-White House investigation. Be that as it may, assuming (again) that Bush was also being truthful, the President’s refusal to investigate how our intelligence services got it so wrong is beyond curious. It's irresponsible. - js.