megaman79 said:
|
jv103 said:
Well-it depends. I think there is around a 90% chance that Pelosi is lying -she had everything to gain to pretend she was unaware. There's probably a 0% chance of the CIA lying. I mean the president does appoint the CIA director (correct?) and information about Iraq having WMDs was quashed from the CIA themselves (see proof regarding yellow cake purchases in africa- pbs cutting edge) and other intelligence agencies (who were biased bcoz of political involvement, see PM Blair's involvement in MI6 intel edits or Cheney's constant CIA visits demanding some "proof" for the Iraq war -pbs again) claiming they had WMDs.
Even though this is the case, I still have a hard time believing the CIA would like - not to mention I don't think they would need to because I beleive Pelosi's "bleeding heart" is an act to continue to represent her district. I think she feeds on power (every poltician) any way she can.
Verdict: Pelosi (at least I hope so - if the CIA is lying, God help us)
|
fixed. Do your research please, the rest of the world did and that's why so many countries were not "alies".
|
You edited my thing to say 0% chance of the CIA lying but then go on to show how bad intelligence is presented as "good" intelligence. That's not misleading at all? I see apparently you did the research. Somehow you seem to believe that MI6 and the CIA either didn't have any contrary evidence (because apparently some of the best intelligency agencies in the world are morons and as you say other countries are not) or minimized it due to political pressure. Apparently, misrepresenting isn't "lying" but rather an "oversight" - at least that's what I get from your cute edit.
