4 ms·
>The evidence of weapons of mass destruction was not verifiable by anyone else. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies-flawed-information
by prolikewh0a 8y ago
>The evidence of weapons of mass destruction was not verifiable by anyone else.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies-flawed-information-saddam-wmds-iraq-chilcot https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/06/spy-agencies...
From article:
>The Chilcot report identifies a series of major blunders by the British intelligence services that produced “flawed” information about Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), the basis for going to war.
So again, why trust intelligence agencies that have been untrustworthy throughout US history?
- untog 8y agoWhen I said "anyone else" I wasn't referring to government inquiries, which very obviously have a much higher level of access than any member of the public, including the press. So, again, Is everything stated by an intelligence agency true? No. Is everything false? No. So you evaluate the claims they make. This isn't complicated.