I still believe we should have gone to war even without WOMD's alone.
That a fair opinion that I can respect even if I strongly disagree.
But I still read your post like you think its okay to bent the truth a little when arguing for war (which has huge consequences) than when reporting about the moral about the armed forces (with comparable smaller consequences).
Is the "interpretation" of the soldiers statements worse or better than the "interpretation" of the intelligence?
Comments
Originally posted by kraig911
I still believe we should have gone to war even without WOMD's alone.
That a fair opinion that I can respect even if I strongly disagree.
But I still read your post like you think its okay to bent the truth a little when arguing for war (which has huge consequences) than when reporting about the moral about the armed forces (with comparable smaller consequences).
Is the "interpretation" of the soldiers statements worse or better than the "interpretation" of the intelligence?