From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

George Sherwood wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:38:34 +0100, Adam wrote:
>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101
888.html
>>
>> purposefully ignored ......"don't tell that which I do not
wish to know &
>> I can tell the truth as I know it..."
>>
>
> Way over simplified, but hey it makes a better headline right?  At the
> time, two of the three teams felt there was evidence the trailers were
> used as mobile labs. One did not.
>   At the time the Bush spoke of this, there was no conclusion.
> Turns out the minority team was correct, but this doesn't lead to the
> conclusion that was reached by the headline.  The Washington Post at its
> best.
>
> George

Chuckle. That is all well & good except for the fact that the admin
were making definitive statements wrt their Bio-WMD role even though at
least one team came back saying no way....

Firstly your point is made in the piece:

"Intelligence analysts involved in high-level discussions about the
trailers noted that the technical team was among several groups that
analyzed the suspected mobile labs throughout the spring and summer of
2003. Two teams of military experts who viewed the trailers soon after
their discovery concluded that the facilities were weapons labs, a finding
that strongly influenced views of intelligence officials in Washington, the
analysts said. "It was hotly debated, and there were experts making
arguments on both sides," said one former senior official who spoke on
the condition that he not be identified."


As to the other groups well

(A) How definitively affirmative were they (i.e. as affirmative as this
group were definitely negative). i.e. as positive as this is negative:

"But interviews reveal that the technical team was unequivocal in its
conclusion that the trailers were not intended to manufacture biological
weapons."

(B) How much were they "questioned" in the same way as:

"After team members returned to Washington, they began work on a final
report. At several points, members were questioned about revising their
conclusions, according to sources knowledgeable about the conversations.
The questioners generally wanted to know the same thing: Could the report's
conclusions be softened, to leave open a possibility that the trailers
might have been intended for weapons?"

(C) They were there just after the invasion had ceased & were
desperately looking for a smoking gun at speed. Pressure & a lack of
time & a need to see something are not always conducive to valid
analysis.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5