2 ms·

I liked this as well. > MR PRICE: Matt, there’s a second point. This is derived from intelligence, intelligence in which we have confidence — > QUESTION: Well

I liked this as well. > MR PRICE: Matt, there’s a second point. This is derived from intelligence, intelligence in which we have confidence — > QUESTION: Well — > MR PRICE: — in which we have confidence, otherwise — > QUESTION: The same confidence you had in WMD in Iraq? I mean, what — > MR PRICE: Otherwise – otherwise – otherwise we would not be making it public in the way we are. But here’s the other point: Intelligence and evidence, these are two separate things. It is no — What does he mean, “Intelligence and evidence are two separate things”? Is he saying that claims and evidence are different things?

ivan_gammel 5y ago
To me it looks like it is the way to shift responsibility from intelligence community to a political figure. If intelligence community presents some evidence, they bear responsibility if that evidence is wrong. If they have only some intelligence, they are not 100% sure and Administration must take responsibility for any actions based on it. When Administration says they have confidence, they basically say, ok, we think that this data is correct and we take political responsibility for believing in it. Whether I’m right or not, I do not know for sure. But look at WMD „evidence“ presented by Colin Powell, and it starts looking the same.