RageSk8
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
Read it, seriously.
Read it, seriously.
Last edited by a moderator:
The discussion centers around an article detailing perceived failures in intelligence during the Bush Administration, particularly in relation to the Iraq War. Participants explore themes of information manipulation, ethical considerations, and the implications of leadership styles on decision-making processes.
Participants express differing views on the intentions and actions of the Bush Administration, with some arguing for a more sinister interpretation and others advocating for a perspective of ignorance or self-deception. No consensus is reached on these interpretations.
The discussion highlights the complexity of motivations behind decision-making in political contexts and the challenges of verifying information accuracy within governmental structures.
Maybe this was intentional, to allow 'plausible deniability'?
I dunno...but then again, it works just as well, based on what we know of these folks...the main lie was the one they told themselves?Originally posted by RageSk8
I doubt the Bush Administration is so sinister. I always found, and debated against, the view that the Bush and Blaire administrations concocted lies to defend their stance on Iraq - I found it, and still find it, incomprehensible (and this article reaffirms my stance). They simply heard what they wanted to hear.
the main lie was the one they told themselves?
Thanks RageSk8,Originally posted by RageSk8
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact
Read it, seriously.