----- Original Message ----- From: "Doug Pensinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <brin-l@mccmedia.com> Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 9:50 PM Subject: Re: "Let's Roll"
> Dan wrote: > > > The reason I bring these examples up is that they help illustrate the > > main points that I hope we can agree upon before considering the issue. > > > > The first is that we should accept the same technique to evaluate > > arguments supporting positions that we tend to favor as we do those > > positions we tend to oppose. We've discussed the bias we all have > > before on this list. I > > have found, both professionally and personally, that reliance on > > technique is one of the best ways to counter this tendency. Feynman's > > comment that > > "science is one of the best ways we have of not fooling ourselves" > > relates to this. Many times I have used technique to arrive at > > conclusions, and > > then said "oh shit" after I arrived at my conclusions. The rigorous use > > of technique was my guard against lying to myself. After 25 years of > > success using these techniques, they are fairly well ingrained in me. > > Then why don't you use technique when examining The Bush administration's > motivation for the invasion of Iraq? I have provided several data points > that suggest that Bush and/or members of his administration were inclined > to invade Iraq prior to 911 and more data points that suggest that they > were inclined to blame Iraq for 911 without supporting evidence. You > provided one (1) data point suggesting otherwise, a campaign promise to > avoid nation building. > I might also add that you failed to respond to the post in which I > provided these data points leading me to believe that either you have no > adequate response or that you would rather not admit that you're wrong. > Or perhaps, more charitably, you missed the post or I missed your reply? I didn't reply in detail because I got distracted with family business at the time. Here it is. As far as technique, I will be happy to accept that someone's viewpoint after a life changing event, like 9-11 was for Bush, can be quite different from what it was before. I'll be happy to agree that arguing for something in 2002 doesn't mean you held that view early in 2001. I'll be happy to agree that thinking country A is a worse risk than county or group B doesn't mean one plans to invade country A. And, as the below shows, I don't think that having a goal of eliminating a government means that one is planning an invasion. > Dan wrote: > > > I did this out of order because I think this exchange fits perfectly well > > with my hypothesis: GWB "knew" Hussein was behind the attack; just as he > > "knew" that Hussein's WMD program was well advanced. I am not defending > > his judgment; I think that his judgment in this case was horrible. If > > he were pushing Clark to find evidence of links between Hussein and the > > attacks of AQ before 9-11, then I think that there would be an argument > > for a pre-set plan to find enough evidence to stage a war against > > Hussein. But, if it only happened after 9-11, and Bush's other rhetoric > > indicated a massive change in attitude, then I think that it is > > reasonable to accept > > his statement that 9-11 changed everything. For him, it certainly seemed > > to. > > First, you're basing your "massive change in attitude" on statements made > about nation building in the heat of a political campaign and as we all > know, the sincerity of campaign utterances is by definition, suspect. No, I made it based on his actions and statements concerning the Balkans immediately after he was elected. A summation of the administrations attitude is at http://www.worldpress.org/0901cover3.htm Bush wasn't interested in nation building....both his statements and his actions indicated that he thought it was a do-gooder waster of effort.....before 9-11. > Second, if you dig deeper into the Clarke statements as well as > allegations made by Paul O'Niel, you _will_ find a greater interest in > Iraq than in Al Quaeda/Bin Laden prior to 911. OK, let me accept that he was more interested in Iraq than AQ. The number of public statements he made on the dangers of appeasing North Korea were significantly greater than the number of public statements made about Iraq. Yet, I saw no indication that he was preparing the nation for an invasion of North Korea. > Third, immediately after 911 you not only have Bush telling Clarke to find > an Iraq connection you have Rumsfeld asking aids to come up with plans to > strike Iraq _despite_ being told that the terrorists were probably Al > Qaeda and not Iraqi. How is this inconsistent with him _knowing_ that there must have been a connection? Why is this evidence that he planned on invading Iraq before 9-11. Why couldn't it just be the perspective that it takes the resources of a country to mount such an attack....and knowing that Hussein has supported other terrorists with cash, him believing that it must have happened again. > Fourth, you have the PNAC stuff - the stated intention by several high > level members of the administration along with his brother t to project US > power across the globe. For instance, in a letter to Clinton in January > of '78 signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Bolton they wrote “The only > acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will > be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the > near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as > diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term it means removing Sadam > Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of > American foreign policy." Well, it was a goal of the Clinton administration to remove Kim from power. They thought that this would provide an opportunity to defuse the Korean crisis. This was after Clinton decided not to bomb the nuclear facilities. But, he had no plans to invade. I know that Bush I had the removal of Hussein as a goal of his policy. Clinton certainly rattled the saber more in 1998 than Bush did pre-9-11. > And finally you have the build up to invasion during which intelligence > was manipulated in a manner that promoted the justification for invasion. Which does not address what was planned before 9-11. > So you have four data points that suggest that the invasion of Iraq was a > priority and one series of general campaign statements that suggest > otherwise. There were four points that you considered suggesting that the invasion of Iraq was a priority before 9-11. I didn't consider them thus. I'd be willing to try to formalize my I also considered negative evidence. For example, Powell stated that the sanctions were working with Iraq early in 2001 and that no military action was needed. You quote Richards stating that Bush was more interested in Iraq than AQ. He also stated that Bush wasn't very interested in AQ....didn't consider them to be a serious threat. If the Bush administration had Iraq as a priority, wouldn't Richards, or Wilkerson, or someone have gotten wind of that pre 9-11? Indeed, if Bush were planning, before 9-11, wouldn't the first step be to rattle a saber in order to start the preparations for such a war? Why didn't we hear some of the speeches about the dangers of Hussein that we heard after 9-11 before 9-11 if that was his plan all along. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
