Hydrablog: You Showed Me Yours, I'll Show You Mine

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

You Showed Me Yours, I'll Show You Mine

I have no idea if it's inflammatory. But it is strong.

3 comments:

The Unknown Blogger said...: I agree that this is a strong article. However, and I think the other "biased" article does a decent job of pointing this out, what else is out there? Reading anything where parts are blacked out automatically detracts from the evidence presented. If I selectively black out parts of this blog, I can make it look like I'm killing you in debates, not by doctoring arguments, but by selectively presenting what's there. Also, what was the dissenting information? What was in the footnotes that only high level officials (more privileged than congress) get to see? Someone can state something on an official document, but how reliable is the source? I have never doubted that Hussein and Binny have tried to talk, or did talk. But, can the same be said for Iran, Pakistan, Syria, etc? If a motive for war was that Binny talked to Iraq, then what if he did have relationships with governmental officials from those other states? Why weren’t they invaded? One does not have to outright lie to present only parts of information that supports an objective. Dismissing, or not showing, dissenting opinions, facts, truths, rumors, etc is a common objective in any persuasive debate. Lawyers do it all the time in court, politicians do it in elections, teachers do it in class, etc. This is not new ground. I don’t doubt that everything in that article is authentic. But is it all true? Is it the whole story? I doubt it. Look, this doesn’t even have to be malicious to be true. Science is based on double-blind experiments for this very reason. If you’re looking for an outcome, you will find evidence to support it. We know that immediately following 9/11 the White House believed that Hussein was behind it, and kept at that theory the whole way through. When everyone knows you want something, and you have power, people will tell you what you want to hear. When you facilitate this, Cheney going to the CIA to oversee information gathering, Rumsfeld holding his own investigation, well, you can bet people will start to push information to the surface that backs up what the White House wants. If nothing else, it’s a way to advance. When dissenters get fired and supporters get medals, no one dissents and everyone supports. I have no doubt that the White House believed there was a link; I also have no doubt that the White House wanted Iraq to be the center of the war on terror. That’s why I’m not surprised evidence was found for both. If the White House wanted a link between Iran and Binny, and for Iran to be the center of the war on terror, I believe that this would have been “proven.” Again, this White House is not breaking new ground with this. I’m not saying Bush is setting any new levels here; history is rife with similar occurrences. I grant you that this all could have been an “honest” mistake, but it was not a harmless one. I also grant you that this sounds incredibly cynical. This is also not an attack on the GOP or Bush in particular. A dem could just as easily be in a similar spot, and I would be just as quick to note it. A libertarian, however, would never do such a thing.; 12:41 AM
StalinMalone said...: Well, I certainly can't argue with assertions based on assumptions. Granted, this is an imperfect world and we never have complete knowledge, which is why at that point a standard of "reasonableness" is called for. This has been my basic point, if poorly voiced:

The Bush decision to invade both Afghanistan and Iraq was reasonable. Since no one has a shred of evidence to suggest that Bush lied about anything, it is not unreasonable to assume he told the truth. If he told the truth then there was evidence suggesting a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda and WMDs. This makes our military actions reasonable as well. Now, that being stated, being critical of our game plan or concerned about possible intel weaknesses is a good thing. But the current discussion is so far from that as to be pathetically surreal (not the Hydrablog discussion, the US political discussion).

This debate needs to be rescued from the cynical political opportunists and their media accomplices. Honest debate on every issue is the only thing that can preserve a free society, what we have witnessed of late is anything but that. And I think it's a dirty rotten shame.; 5:36 PM
The Unknown Blogger said...: I agree that a lot of the discussion is about Bush's political weakness and is more opportunistic than real. I also believe there is an attempt by some Dems to get the attention away from themselves and why they didn't ask hard questions at the time. However, again, the issue is about Bush since he is the Commander in Chief. In this particular case, the CIC took pre-emptive action. No one questions a "hit back" in response to an attack, which is largely why everyone understood the Afghan action. However, Iraq was not so clear. I believe that one must be absolutely sure when hitting first. With the flow of docs that have come out since the war, it is a muddled picture at best, probably decidedly inconclusive, and blatantly manipulated at worst. Take this article: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10164478/ It shows the problem with "blacked out, blacked out, blacked out, Al Queda, blacked out, Iraq, blacked out." It also demonstrates that congress had access to intelligence, but not the SAME intelligence, and that is a crucial difference. I don’t know much about “rational man” but I am familiar with “prudent man” defined here: http://www.investorwords.com/3927/Prudent_Man_Rule.html , google it for other definitions, it’s generally a moving target as it’s applied to each situation, and the qualifications of the person acting. For example, and experienced fund manager is held to a higher standard than a novice investor. Applied here, it gets to the fact that an observer of the facts coming out may prudently come to one conclusion, while a congressperson may come to another and the President yet another. This is why it’s inappropriate, in a sterile environment, to hold the President and congress to a similar standard. Did he exhaust every option, did he seek to be proven wrong, did he act as devils advocate on new information, and did he encourage dissent? I believe not, and what is leaking out backs this up. I don’t hate the man, nor do I think he’s evil. I do believe he acted in what he thought was the best interest of the nation. However, I don’t need a lot of convincing to believe he may have fudged here and there to get the nation to where his gut was. And that’s where I end up. I simply don’t trust this man as President. He’s proud of the fact that he doesn’t read the news or watch T.V. and relies solely on his briefings to get information. That system sets him up for manipulation and insures he only hears what he wants, or what others want him to hear. I just do not trust that the system he set up delivers the best results. I would completely trust GB as a friend or a neighbor, but not as President. Ironically, if the post invasion went smoother, none of these concerns would matter. I certainly would not have cared as much. Hussein was a very bad man, and I don’t morn his removal from power. But if you are going to go out on that kind of limb, you better be right, or you better be fast. Bush was, in my opinion, neither. It perfectly natural for him to be held accountable, it comes with the gig and the action.; 9:33 PM