Hydrablog: Interesting Read on Intellegence

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Interesting Read on Intellegence

Thought this was a fair piece that makes its points without being inflametory.

5 comments:

StalinMalone said...: I've always found it perplexing how you don't see bias in news stories. Forgive me if things have changed, but there was a time when you wouldn't grant the left leaning of the news media. That you found this story fair and balanced (if you indeed did), leaves me pondering why things so clear to one person can be invisible to another. One of life's unanswerables I guess.; 12:18 PM
StalinMalone said...: This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.; 2:25 PM
StalinMalone said...: Just making certain my comment is not misinterpreted. I didn't mean to imply that I find it unacceptable that you don't see the bias that I see. I simply find it interesting that we can honestly see something so different. If I was taking a shot, I would have pointed out your misspelling of "intelligence". But I didn't do that so as to prove my good will...idiot.; 2:27 PM
The Unknown Blogger said...: Look if you want to fight, we can just meet behind the 7-11 right now.

I reread the article and used the “find” tool to look for words like “war monger,” “evil,” “vindictive,” “liar,” and the like and couldn’t find them. I’m not saying this was a pro-Bush article, but I don’t see how comments like, “Intelligence estimates are unwieldy documents, often studded with dissenting footnotes. Legislators and analysts with limited security clearances have often thought they had "access to intelligence," but unless they could see the footnotes, they didn't.” is anything other than a factual statement. Applied here as a way to try and figure out how intelligence was used, misunderstood, and acted on. The points laid out in the article hardly seem like the spastic rants of a liberal media hell-bent to use lies and whatever other means necessary to destroy the president.

It might be helpful for my own edification if you could point out where this guy goes completely nuts. Not just where he disagrees with the president, or where he’s making mistakes, but where he’s obviously slanted. Seriously.; 5:53 PM
StalinMalone said...: He starts out by asserting that Bush's "policies are failing". Oh really? What policies and how are they failing? The fact that he feels he doesn't have to present the reasons shows an assumption and an angle...not pure propoganda...but hardly unbiased.

The first quote he sites of Bush, the one saying the investigations found no evidence of srong-arming, he calls "not true". If you read it, even after accepting the author's explanation that those investigations weren't designed to find strong-arming, he is dead wrong. Bush said it didn't find any evidence...it DIDN'T find any evidence. Just because it wasn't looking doesn't make it an untrue claim...however, you could say it was a misleading claim, that would have been a fair critical conclusion.

He picks at the next quote by taking offense at Bush's statement that intelligence agencies from "around the world" agreed with our assessment of Saddam. That is an absolutely true statement, and even truer in the context of the speach (which the author then pretends to not be aware of) that of dicsussing Saddam's threat to the world. Then he tries to say that since "several countries" didn't think Saddam posed a threat that makes Bush wrong. Huh? That defies any logic. Bush didn't say EVERY intelligence agency around the world...if he had, then Captain Fairness would have won his point. The conclussion by the author here is truly rediculous.

His point about Clinton destroying the last of the weapons plants is equally irrational. He says the UN didn't talk about WMD production because it didn't know if Saddam had the weapons or the means of production. Then he says that Bush should have know that Clinton got rid of all the means of production. Pick one talking point and stick with it...when they contradict each other you don't use them both.

He then goes on to say Bush shouldn't have said that all those politicians supported the war because of this intelligence when its obvious that they wouldn't have taken the time to read that long report!!! (I know he said more, but even advancing this defense shows a weak mind at work). I'm sorry, but this was not a good article. It was not fair, and it wasn't even informative. This is exactly the kind of opinion based and poorly reasoned piece that the media churns out like Hollywood bombs.

Trust me, I don't think Bush is above criticism. But this was a very poor attempt by a very poor journalist to do what is very possible...be critical of the president.; 7:27 PM