Reply #14: The approach is telling, though, isn't it. [View All]

[salin]

In some ways they are between a rock and a hard place. More so in the UK than here.

They can share the intel - and watch it go through the same scrutiny (and given their decision not to do so - have it likely be shown as knowably false as well). To do so would be to have to weather yet another storm - and given their shakey credibility it could fell Blair.

Or

They can try to play the "we know more because we are privvy to intel that you are not privvy to, and we can't share it with you for security reasons" card. Who knows this could actually be true. But the risk here is as great as the risk above, given the lack of credibility they currently have due to the previous storms. To do this means they will continue to have the public speculation and attacks on their decisions and credibility, and the scorn of critics and the public who have just seen how deceptive the public case of the "immenent threat" was who are now being asked to believe the decievers about this other "more reliable" intel information. This tactic leaves the "death of a thousand cuts" process that is going on to continue. It, too, could likely fell Blair.

The thing is - IF they have more reliable information, isn't that what they would have shared in their top "secure" briefings? Wouldn't folks who were privvy to those briefings, who HAVE spoken out about those briefings, be able to verify that "yes, other information was provided" - even if they did not disclose it due to security reasons? Given the absense of anyone claiming this from either side of the Ocean, it is pretty easy to presume that it simply is more subterfuge.

Why is this telling? Two dangerous courses to take. Neither likely to be succesful. Appears to be a very orchestrated (suddenly Condi, Donny are saying the same thing at the same time) and desperate move.