Kay's Senate Hearings on Weapons Inspections

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Agathon
I agree with GePap.

[philosophy pedant mode]One may have a justified belief that someone is lying even if they are not.

Say for example you tell me you haven't been stealing cookies, but I see you have cookie crumbs on your shirt. I formulate the justified belief that you are lying.

As it happens, you haven't been stealing cookies, Ming has and he spat crumbs at you. It still doesn't alter the fact that the most reasonable thing for me to believe is that you stole cookies.

That's what's happening here. If I couldn't make such probabilistic inferences it would be impossible to believe that anyone is lying. That is unless they told me they were lying and that invites the famous paradox.[philosophy pedant mode]

In short, we can't be sure Bush is lying, but it's the most reasonable inference - it's certainly more reasonable than believing he's a complete ******, although that is, on occasion, compelling nonetheless.

The most reasonable inference about Saddam was that he had WMD. Not only the CIA, but the U.N. and almost any intelligence service you care to name believed this as did the commanders of the various Republican Guard units. Tariq Aziz says that even Saddam believed it. There just wasn't much of a case made before the war for what seems to be the truth, that Saddam didn't have much if anything in the way of WMD ready to roll. Interestingly Cheney is partly vindicated in his "Saddam is reconstituting his nuclear weapons program." remarks, insofar as Saddam was paying people to reconstitute those programs and apparantly believed that the effort was underway.

Am I the only one who remembers that Bush strongly intimated that he was going after Iraq during the campaign of 2000? It was perfectly clear to anyone who listened to the foreign policy speech that Condi Rice wrote and he read during the campaign. I have no idea why the press didn't make more of it at the time, but Bush's agenda was clear before anyone voted for him in 2000.

Did Bush "sex up" his claims about WMD in order to get foreign and domestic support for a war that he wanted to fight for numerous reasons?

It sures seems like it. More than Tony Blair did I'm sure. I thought the war was justified for other reasons myself and felt that the WMD thing was overemphasized at the time. I also understood that to make the legal argument in the U.N. WMD were going to have to be the salient point. That nonetheless failed, but Bush and Blair were committed by then, and not unaware of the greater impact that a WMD argument would have to a post 9/11 domestic audience.

Was Bush too reliant on intelligence reports that told him what everyone supposed was common knowledge?

In hindsight yes, but I'm not sure I blame him for not seeing what numerous professionals were not seeing. I blame him more for not seeming to be very curious as to why U.S. intel didn't know that the Iraqi regime was coming apart at the seems, or the degree to which both the Iranian and Libyan nuclear programs were both proceeding apace.

Also, I am vastly amused that Kay, an analyst, blames faulty and skimpy collection of intelligence for the stunning across the board failure of the analysis. That is supposed to be impossible, or only possible when a much more skilled organization runs an elaborate deception program on you. Analysts must be able to say "I don't know" for any system to work at all. Some things never change.

[Patroklos]

Kay pretty much did vindicate Bushes position by chalking i up to an understandable mistake. he DID NOT say Bush was right but instead put most of the blame on the intel agencies. But even at that he wasn't too harsh because he makes it very clear that the evidence available at the time led to a very creditable conclusion that Saddam had WMD, and if fact Saddam wanted us to think that (but not prove it).

I can't see how allowing partisain and incompentent members of the intel agency remain in place or at least unscolded will improve operational effeicency. Granted they are suffering from the tech over human intel fiasco thanks to Clinton, so maybe we should get rid of those guys.

Kay's words are just an opinion. But considering he had access to intel from every agency involved it is a very educated one.

[rah]

Or one more slant.
Let's say we find WMD or find proof that saddam was paying people to research possible nuclear capabilites.
Does that mean Bush Didn't lie?
My arguement would be that it changes nothing, since if he truely believed that that there weren't any, he still lied. But if he did believe there were, he didn't.

More Rahisms.

[MrFun]

Ah-ha!!

So that's what your debate technique is called -- Rahism!!

[rah]

As opposed to Gepapism. If Gepap believes something then it must be fact.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
As opposed to Gepapism. If Gepap believes something then it must be fact.

Lets examine rahism:

lets say in 20 years I am walking with my son, and we go past a Holocaust denier, and we hear him state the holocaust never happened. As we walk away, my son asks if what the man said was true. I tell him , no, the holocaust happened. Then my child asks me why the guy was lying, and I have to say:
"Well, son, you see, that man may believe the holocaust did not happened, so no son, I can not tell you he lied, I can only tell you it is my opinion he lied." Because, of course, since the man may believe the holocaust never happened, obviously when he says it did not happen, I can't say he is lying: the fact the holocaust did happened notwithstanding, the possible political implications of what the man is doing notwithstanding.

This is where rah's statements about the nature of lying lead, and I will be honest and say I think that is absurd.

What exasperates me about rah is that he claims all he did was make a 'simple' statement and is then amazed everyone does not jump and accept it as self-evident fact: well, saying the sky is blue is a simple statement, saying we could never accertain the relaity of the color of the sky is not. And the only arguements rah gives about the validity of his statement is the capitalization of words. Well, sorry, no, if someone is pusing an extreme version of relativism when it comes to the truth, I am not just going to sit back and accept it as self-evident, no matter how many words are capitalized and smileys added. I can acknowledge them just fine (yes Rah, i heard what you said), but I can not accept them, for you have not backed them up.

[GePap]

All you said sikander is reasonable, but it ignores one simple thing: members of the amdin. stated as fact the notions that Iraq still had WMD's, an active nuclear program (as oppose dto one someone was trying to restart who knows when), as opposed to stating things as thier conclusions based on the evidence given. That is why I say it was a lie- becuase by saying "I KNOW", you undercut the ability for anyone to debate your assertions- after all, how can one debate FACTS? All people in the admin. have to say to undercut opponents is to say : "we know more than you, we KNOW what they have, we KNOW what they plan, so we are right". That is being dishonest. They did NOT KNOW. They could not have kown.

Even if some of the claims they were making are shown to be true, they had no proof until after the fact (yes, this sounds like rahism, sounds, but it is not, and if someone wants me to explain the difference, I can go ahead elsewhere), and for them to paint the discussion as on of "we know, you have nothing" was false.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
As opposed to Gepapism. If Gepap believes something then it must be fact.

NO, i view gepapism (with me as the Gepope) as at least trying to provide logical arguements when you make huge assertions, as it where, an anti-BAMing religion. Also, one that is always at wonder that things like the Nedaverse.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by GePap


Lets examine rahism:

lets say in 20 years I am walking with my son, and we go past a Holocaust denier, and we hear him state the holocaust never happened. As we walk away, my son asks if what the man said was true. I tell him , no, the holocaust happened. Then my child asks me why the guy was lying, and I have to say:
"Well, son, you see, that man may believe the holocaust did not happened, so no son, I can not tell you he lied, I can only tell you it is my opinion he lied." Because, of course, since the man may believe the holocaust never happened, obviously when he says it did not happen, I can't say he is lying: the fact the holocaust did happened notwithstanding, the possible political implications of what the man is doing notwithstanding.

This is where rah's statements about the nature of lying lead, and I will be honest and say I think that is absurd.

What exasperates me about rah is that he claims all he did was make a 'simple' statement and is then amazed everyone does not jump and accept it as self-evident fact: well, saying the sky is blue is a simple statement, saying we could never accertain the relaity of the color of the sky is not. And the only arguements rah gives about the validity of his statement is the capitalization of words. Well, sorry, no, if someone is pusing an extreme version of relativism when it comes to the truth, I am not just going to sit back and accept it as self-evident, no matter how many words are capitalized and smileys added. I can acknowledge them just fine (yes Rah, i heard what you said), but I can not accept them, for you have not backed them up.

Who wants to set up bets right now on who will win this round of trollfest?

[GePap]

Originally posted by MrFun



Who wants to set up bets right now on who will win this round of trollfest?

MrFun: if you have nothing to say, don;t say it.

Of course, if you think a debate on the nature of truth is a "troll", well, you have issues.

And No, I don't give a damn there was a " " at the end. That was not a "funny" statement, that is a statement of why I do not accept rah's "simple statement".

[rah]

"Well, son, you see, that man may believe the holocaust did not happened, so no son, I can not tell you he lied, I can only tell you it is my opinion he lied." Because, of course, since the man may believe the holocaust never happened, obviously when he says it did not happen, I can't say he is lying: the fact the holocaust did happened notwithstanding, the possible political implications of what the man is doing notwithstanding.

The man wasn't lying, he is just wrong. Got it.
You're just too stuborn to admit that your's is just an opinion and not necessarily fact. You look more foolish everytime you resist.

So it's your opinion then that if they find WMD, Bush didn't lie? Answer that.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
So it's your opinion then that if they find WMD, Bush didn't lie? Answer that.

Yes, he did lie, he lied about his amdinistration having KNOWN, as a fact, that these weapons existed given the nature of the information he had access to. That is the nature of the lie: the amdin. misinterpretated the nature of the debate- they did not allow for an honest debate by stating that they KNEW weapons existed, anyone who argued that the information that existed was not enough to make that determination was wrong-and there were people stating that the types of information available were not enough to honestly state that anyone had factual proof of the existance of weapons.

In short, the admin. lied about the nature of their information, as a way to undermine any honest debate about going to war.

Answer that.

[rah]

I have no problem with anything you said except the that you're not saying it's just your opinion. You state it as fact. While I question Kay's motives for what he's saying, he contradicts you considerably, and he has more access to information then you do. Who is more credible? There is some room for doubt it, no matter how little that is.

It is not proven fact yet. You're backpedaling off your original statement that BUSH lied and now you're saying the administration lied and that Bush is responsible for his administration. This is different despite your feeble efforts to say it's not.

Heck, just say it's your opinion. I might even agree with you.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
And you never answered my question.

Yes, he did lie, he lied about his amdinistration having KNOWN, as a fact, that these weapons existed given the nature of the information he had access to.

and

In short, the admin. lied about the nature of their information, as a way to undermine any honest debate about going to war.

Those two look to me like answers.

And I have stated directly to you that your explination for what is simple a mistake vs. a falsehood does not wash with me and that you need to substantiated for me to accept it.

[GePap]

Originally posted by rah
It is not proven fact yet. You're backpedaling off your original statement that BUSH lied and now you're saying the administration lied and that Bush is responsible for his administration. This is different despite your feeble efforts to say it's not.

You know, you never answered my questions about Guynemer's quote, did you?

And you talk about "feeble".