Well, I think there's a distinction between sexing-up the intelligence and sexing-up the presentation of the intelligence.

John Major's quote draws a critical distinction between sexing-up the intelligence itself and sexing-up the presentation of that intelligence. The first part, sexing-up the intelligence, refers to the potential manipulation or distortion of the actual data or facts to make them appear more alarming or sensational than they really are. This is an unethical practice, as it involves altering the substance of the intelligence to fit a specific narrative or agenda, often leading to misinformation or false conclusions.

On the other hand, sexing-up the presentation refers to the way intelligence is communicated or packaged for public consumption. This could involve emphasizing certain aspects of the data or framing it in a way that makes it appear more significant or urgent without altering the core information itself. Major’s point seems to be that while the latter can be questionable in its ethical implications, it is not as damaging as directly falsifying or manipulating the actual intelligence.

The context of this quote is likely tied to debates about the manipulation of intelligence, particularly surrounding the lead-up to the Iraq War, where allegations were made that intelligence on weapons of mass destruction was overstated or presented in a misleading way to justify military action. Major’s distinction suggests a nuanced understanding of how intelligence can be either misrepresented or misused in political discourse, without necessarily being falsified at its core.

Ultimately, Major's statement touches on the ethical concerns surrounding the use of intelligence in policymaking and public communication. While misrepresenting the data itself is a grave issue, how that data is presented also carries significant weight in shaping public opinion and political decisions.