Originally Posted By DAR Should we really be laying off the French? <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070514/lf_afp/lifestylefranceireland;_ylt=AqdD1HYr_yVPidf2UgBSX5PMWM0F" target="_blank">http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20 070514/lf_afp/lifestylefranceireland;_ylt=AqdD1HYr_yVPidf2UgBSX5PMWM0F</a> Glad to know that Irish workers don't whine.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Tenet did. And he did at the time.> And you know this how? Can you point to something he wrote or said at the time?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Tenet did. And he did at the time.>> <And you know this how? Can you point to something he wrote or said at the time?> I'm taking him at his word, which is easier to do in this case since he's essentially saying "I screwed up. The qualifications should have been in that letter, but I didn't insist on it. I screwed up." His book includes many other cases where he insists he (and/or the CIA in general) did NOT screw up, and the fault lays elsewhere. But here he's actually saying the fault is his, so I take him at his word. It's more credible, too, when one remembers other CIA officials reporting their qualifications about this material shortly after the war started (which presumably he was aware of).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 You're not defining hindsight correctly. Hindsight is when you see something clearly in retrospect that you didn't see clearly at the time. Tenet is saying that he DID see it clearly at the time, should have insisted the qualifications were included in the response to Congress, but didn't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You're not defining hindsight correctly.> I disagree. Unless you can show me where Mr Tenet said or wrote something at the time, I think I'm defining it exactly right. After all, everything in that letter regarding Iraq's support of terrorism is true.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 First, we were talking specifically about Iraq's ties to al Qaeda, not terrorism in general. Second, even if everything in the letter were true, it wouldn't matter for the purpose of defining "hindsight." Here's an example of hindsight. Someone like Tenet saying "Now we can see that Saddam didn't show us proof of destroying his WMD because he wanted his neighbors, especially Iran, to think he still had them. We didn't see that at the time, but now we can." However, what he's saying is that he knew AT THE TIME that qualifications about Iraq/al Qaeda ties existed and should have been included in the letter. He's admitting he screwed up, because he knew of them at the time. So he's not seeing qualifications now that he didn't then. He DID see them then, and screwed up by not insisting they be included. Hindsight: not realizing something at the time that you now see in retrospect. Screwup: realizing at the time, and having all the info you needed, but not insisting it be included.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <First, we were talking specifically about Iraq's ties to al Qaeda, not terrorism in general.> If everything in the letter about Iraq's support of terrorism is true, then the specifics about Iraq's ties to al Qaeda are true as well. Again, unless you can show me where Mr Tenet said or wrote something at the time, I think I'm defining hindsight exactly right.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<First, we were talking specifically about Iraq's ties to al Qaeda, not terrorism in general.>> <If everything in the letter about Iraq's support of terrorism is true, then the specifics about Iraq's ties to al Qaeda are true as well.> There's "the truth" and then there's "the whole truth." The whole truth would have included the qualifications that Tenet knew of at the time. For instance "the truth" would be "we were told that Atta met in Prague with Iraqi agents." The whole truth would be "however, the source that told us that has proven unreliable in the past." If you just include the first part, it makes it look much different to the audience (in this case, the Senate). And the letter as presented to the senate essentially represented a series of "part ones" without any of the "part twos" that Tenet WAS aware of. So you can continue to fall back on what was presented as being technically true and look like a semantically-based weasly debater, or... oh, what am I saying - that's what you'll do. <Again, unless you can show me where Mr Tenet said or wrote something at the time, I think I'm defining hindsight exactly right.> Again, you simply aren't understanding what hindsight is. Tenet knew at the time the qualifications should have been in there. He wouldn't have to have said or written anything publicly at the time for that to be true. Hindsight is when something appears to be different later than it did earlier. If I work for the Widget Company, and I don't realize that the Zidget Company is cleaning our clock in the midwest market, and so I leave that out of my report to the boss, and then both of us realize LATER what was happening in the midwest at the time - THAT is hindsight. If I know at the time that the Zidget Company is cleaning our clock but I'm just too lazy to put that into my report and then admit later that I screwed up, that's not hindsight. That's a belated admission of screwing up. See the difference?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The whole truth would be "however, the source that told us that has proven unreliable in the past."> The whole truth would have been considerably more detailed than that. The essential truth is what the letter contained - it's not necessary to list all the pros and cons. The CIA believed that there were contacts between Iraq and Al Queda going back at least a decade because there were contacts between Iraq and Al Queda going back at least a decade. <Again, you simply aren't understanding what hindsight is.> Again, unless you can show me where Mr Tenet said or wrote something at the time, I think I'm defining hindsight exactly right.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<For instance "the truth" would be "we were told that Atta met in Prague with Iraqi agents." The whole truth would be "however, the source that told us that has proven unreliable in the past.">> <The whole truth would have been considerably more detailed than that.> Well sure, but it would be nearer the whole truth than leaving that vital detail out. That's the point, obviously. <The essential truth> LOL!!! Nice try. <is what the letter contained - it's not necessary to list all the pros and cons.> Of course it IS necessary to include qualifications if they exist, because to exclude them indicates something entirely different than including them would, just as in my example of leaving out "this source has proven unreliable in the past" example. <The CIA believed that there were contacts between Iraq and Al Queda going back at least a decade because there were contacts between Iraq and Al Queda going back at least a decade.> But to leave it at that and not include the qualifications was misleading. Period. <<Again, you simply aren't understanding what hindsight is.>> <Again, unless you can show me where Mr Tenet said or wrote something at the time, I think I'm defining hindsight exactly right.> By insisting that Tenet writing or saying something different at the time is the salient point, you show you do not understand what "hindsight" means. Hindsight is seeing something differently in retrospect than you did at the time - not what you said publicly about it. Tenet saw things on this matter the SAME in retrospect as at the time, but simply screwed up by not insisting the qualifications be included. If you don't get it at this point, your willfully obtuse side is emerging again.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But to leave it at that and not include the qualifications was misleading.> I disagree. The statement was true. <If you don't get it at this point, your willfully obtuse side is emerging again.> I get it just fine. You can keep asserting the same thing over and over, but it won't change the truth.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But to leave it at that and not include the qualifications was misleading.>> <I disagree. The statement was true.> So is "We have a report that Mohammed Atta met in Prague with Iraqi agents." But if you leave out "The source that told us this has proven unreliable in the past," what you've done is say something technically true, but intentionally misleading. Which fits your MO to a tee (as well as someone like Cheney), so why am I surprised that you would either defend this or indulge in it yourself? <<If you don't get it at this point, your willfully obtuse side is emerging again.>> <I get it just fine. You can keep asserting the same thing over and over, but it won't change the truth.> Just as one is entitled to one's own opinion, but not to one's own facts, one is also not entitled to one's own definitions of words. "Hindsight" means what it means, and you are not using it properly.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So is "We have a report that Mohammed Atta met in Prague with Iraqi agents." But if you leave out "The source that told us this has proven unreliable in the past," what you've done is say something technically true, but intentionally misleading.> The statements in the letter were not misleading. <"Hindsight" means what it means, and you are not using it properly.> Again, unless you can show me where Mr Tenet said or wrote something at the time, I think I'm defining hindsight exactly right.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<So is "We have a report that Mohammed Atta met in Prague with Iraqi agents." But if you leave out "The source that told us this has proven unreliable in the past," what you've done is say something technically true, but intentionally misleading.>> <The statements in the letter were not misleading.> Without the qualifications, yes they were. <<"Hindsight" means what it means, and you are not using it properly.>> <Again, unless you can show me where Mr Tenet said or wrote something at the time, I think I'm defining hindsight exactly right.> Again, by your own attempt at a definition, you are showing you are not. Get a dictionary, fercryinoutloud.
Originally Posted By Wig Interesting discussions... but I thought the topic was about the French and why Americans dislike "them"... ??? I allways feel sad when things are becoming 'generalised'. Anyway: 30 or so messages earlier, 'The French' were accused by 'The American'... from Philadelphia. Have a quiet reading from a source originating IN Philadelphia... : <a href="http://insubordination.blogspot.com/2006/11/rue-mumia-abu-jamal.html" target="_blank">http://insubordination.blogspo t.com/2006/11/rue-mumia-abu-jamal.html</a> Things never are what they seem to be...
