Re: OT - Iraq photos too shocking for the main stream media to show!

"sttp" wrote in a message

Your position seems to keep changing John. It's difficult to follow. And
the thread format only confuses things more. Perhaps a summary
is in order....

I think I have been consistent. If it appears otherwise, then I just suck at
making my point via this forum. :-)

1) This branch of the thread tree was started when I said "What if the
votes [by Representatives, to go to war in Iraq] were based on faulty or
manipulated
intelligence?" Your reply was that, well, those representatives had then
"failed in their duties." Such a statement makes sense only if the
representatives had
access to the same intelligence that the executive did ...<snipped>, and
makes sense
only if the representatives were equipped to independently verify that
intelligence.

Given that it is known that most of those who now speak against the war
chose to not read the intelligence information they *were* given, by their
own admission, any other data they may or may not have had access to becomes
an irrelevent point. You could have given them a billion pages of data to
not read, and it couldn't possibly influence their vote *if they didn't read
it*.

For all we know, they may have changed their vote if they had simply read
that which *was* given to them.

That Congress had access to all of the same intelligence as the executive
has clearly been shown to be false, by portions of the official documents
whose links I provided earlier.

I think I understand why we differ on this point, and, in my opinion, I
think it is because you are nitpicking. You are correct that they weren't
handed ever single piece of paper that had intelligence data on Iraq.
However, I think you keep missing my point that no one with access to all
the data (now) quite agrees with you, in that they *did* have access to all
the *information*. ... and I'm sure that doesn't help to clarify what I
mean, so, I'll try an analogy (and these usually blow up in my face, so, be
kind please)

I have, in my possesion, 100 sheets of paper.
20 of them say, in some manner, "John is wearing a black shirt" - they might
say "John's shirt is black" "John has a black shirt on", etc.
20 of them say, in some manner, "John is wearing black pants" (same as above
on the variations - work with me here!)
20 of them say, in some manner, "John is wearing black shoes" (... work wid
it baby!)
20 of them say, in some manner, "John is sitting in a black chair" (...)
20 of them say, in some manner, "John is sitting at a black desk"

<hold on, checking my math... have to get undressed... OK>

Now... via intelligence analysis, we can come up with "John is wearing a
black shirt, black pants, and black shoes. He is sitting in a black chair at
a black desk." You start there. You can then add things like "I believe John
likes black" and say that you have a high level of confidence that this is
true. Even then, it may not be true. It might be that John actually prefers
blue, but he got such a superdeal on black stuff at a big K-Mart sale, he
couldn't pass it up.

Now... our intel guy wants to pass this information on to you. He could:
a) Hand you all 100 pieces of paper
b) Hand you one piece of paper (a summary report) that says;
"John is wearing a black shirt, black pants, and black shoes. He is sitting
in a black chair at a black desk. I believe John likes black. I estimate he
will wear black tomorrow. - confidence level high"
c) Hand you all 100 pieces of paper AND the summary
d) Hand you all 100 pieces of paper, the summary, a written explaination of
how I know what John was wearing and doing, photos of John wearing and doing
those things, a report on the thought processes I used and experience I've
had that cause me to assess that John likes black and will probably wear
black tomorrow, and a bar graph showing my degree of accuracy on previous
estimates.

Now... I fully understand your point that law makers were given, and have
access to 'B', and that you are saying they were not given and did not have
access to 'A', 'C' or 'D'.

I do not disagree with you on the first part of that point, and I am unsure
of the second part (i.e., I think they might have access to that information
if they asked for it - but I don't know, so I won't disagree with you on it)

Finally, *here* is where we disagree, and is the crux of my point that I
think you keep missing; I believe that once they have 'B', they have *all*
the information. I think that if they had 'A', 'C' & 'D', they would not
know anything more than they learned from just having 'B'.

Are you still with me? ... don't feel bad, I'm not with me a lot of times
either. :-)

OK... so let's get back to Iraq, Congresscritters and Senators;

There is no disagreement (I don't think) between you and I, that these
lawmakers were given 'B+' (a detailed report, preceded by a summary of
itself). There should be no disagreement that most of them chose to not read
'B' beyond the summary pages, as they have admitted this themselves.
Further, those that have read the report AND have/had access to the intel
that provided the basis for that report all agree that the report did not
omit or skip any information that would be gleaned from that intel. Ignoring
the fact that given them additional information to ignore would not likely
have changed anything, given all of the above, I think it is more than
obvious that Senators and Congressmen *did* have access to all the
*information* that was available (including information that suggested the
intel might be faulty).

SO... they can attempt to now blame faulty intel, but doing so is
disingenuous in that they failed to read the information that was available
to them prior to voting to support sending our military into Iraq. They had
a simple choice to vote 'Yes' or 'No'. If they felt they didn't have enough
information or enough time to digest the information they were given, the
responsible choice would have been to vote 'No'. They are now attempting to
blame others for their irresponsible choice.

In my opinion, they voted yes, and ignored the opportunity to read the
intelligence estimate because they felt like they already knew what they
needed to know. I have quoted (in this forum) a number of these same people
commenting that Iraq was a problem, Sadam was a problem, Sadam had WMD,
Sadam supported terrorism, etc. - long *before* GW took office.

That Congress is itself equipped to verify the details in the work of
independent executive agencies who specialize in areas requiring high
expertise... I think most all of us can agree that that's a dubious
prospect.

They certainly could, at the very least, read what *is* given to them, don't
you agree?

2) The points made in the next posts have to do with whether the
intelligence presented in support of the war was faulty. You said the
intelligence was not faulty. ("[T]hese hypocritical
Democrats have no justification for trying to lay this on Bush or faulty
intelligence", and others....] I calmly replied that the intelligence was
most definitely faulty (and that I couldn't comment on whether Bush
"manipulated" intelligence, for lack of information....) You, after
replying that you never said the intelligence wasn't faulty ["I don't
think I said quite that."], agreed that the intelligence was faulty....

If these are my words; "[T]hese hypocritical Democrats have no justification
for trying to lay this on Bush or faulty intelligence" ... then I can see
that I was saying (perhaps not clearly enough), that those who voted 'Yes'
without reading the report or findng out all they needed to know, cannot now
blame faulty intelligence for their shortcomings (even if the intelligence
*was* faulty). Given that the report included indications that the
intelligence might be faulty, had they read it, they may have decided to
vote 'No'.

3) Your (new) "central point" has changed. (What happened to the central
point about 'the legislative and executive had indentical intelligence'
(with
"intelligence" not so stealthily changed to "information" somewhere
above)?

What changed? As explained above, I stand by my point that they were working
from the same intelligence. As to why it changed, I was simply trying to
clarify my point as it seems you haven't understood it when I only used the
word "intelligence". ... intelligence *is* information. I suppose I could
use "raw data" and "summary data" just as well. Or, if you prefer to see a
consistant use of the word "intelligence", I could go with "raw intelligence
data" and "summary intelligence data". ... whichever. My point is still the
same - they were working from the same place. There was nothing available in
the raw intelligence data that was available to the White House that wasn't
contained in the report that was given to the senators who didn't read it..

Or what happened to the central point that 'the administration didn't
try to use links between Al-Qaeda and Iraq as a reason to go war'?

What happened to it? You disagreed, posted a link, I looked at the link,
admitted I was wrong, admitted you were right on that point, and added that
Cheney, as late as 2004, was still making that link.

The "central point" now apparently has devolved to essentially "the
Democrats
did not read what was available to them," and thus they (presumably) are
themselves responsible for not having all the information, and are
therefore responsible for the war.

I don't know that would be the central point. It seems to me to be an
offshoot, maybe even a restating of the original point ... as if I had any
idea what the original point was. ;-)

I read, I respond, you read, you respond, I read, I respond, etc. ...
whatever point I am making is in reference to whatever point you made that I
am responding to.

[You said: "I also know that the report they were given to read,
which 99% of them failed to do beyond the summary, included
information that there were indications that some of the intelligence
might not be accurate."] In response to your new central point...

Yes. That is my statement, and I agree with it. :-)

How about the fact that reps couldn't discuss with the public the
discrepancies between the NIE (the document many of the reps got) and the
White Paper (the document the public got), because they couldn't legally
have done so, and would've necessarily divulged classified information in
making their point?

How about it? This is a military operation we're talking about. Surely you
are aware that many parts of military operations are classified and not to
be divuldged to anyone who lacks the proper clearance *and* a need to know.

Since they didn't bother to read the report, the had no idea if there were
discrepencies between what their report said and what was given to the
public.

How about the fact that the reps may actually have felt compelled
to REPRESENT their constituents' opinions on Iraq, opinions which were
fueled by a publicly released White Paper which most agree (Senate
included) is very different from the NIE the lawmakers saw.

Again, How about it? How well are the representing their constituants if
they fail to read and understand *important* classified information that is
given to them?

How about the fact that 5 of 9 Democrats on the Senate Select Intelligence
Committee voted AGAINST invading Iraq?

Those that read the report voted against the war? Wow. What do you suppose
our current situation might be if everyone who voted had read the report?
Heck, we might not even be in Iraq right now. We might not have Democratic
Senators looking for someone to blame for their inability to do their jobs
properly. That would be something.

I think this strongly hit on my original point (or one of my original
points, or my central point on last Tuesday or something) :-)

Or that their enunciated reasons for doing so have to do with
incompleteness
of and inconsistency in the intelligence?

Same as above. Once again, we can all be amazed to learn that those who read
the report, saw enough that they chose to vote 'No'. That speaks very loud
an clear on the irresponsibility of those lawmakers who chose to ignore the
report and voted 'Yes' for unkown reasons.

That seems to take the wind out of the sails of your argument that they
can't now "go back" and question the motives for war or whether the public
was mislead about the intelligence.

Takes the wind out? If I was on a cat, I'd be up on one pontoon, laying over
backwards, hoping the harness didn't break and trying to keep the damn thing
in the water! It'd be worse than trying to sail through a hurricane.

(Many have been questioning the latter since October 2002. It is not a new
or revisionist issue just because it's been on CNN or Fox a little more as
of late, or just because you say so.)

Yeah, well, as for "the latter", I don't care what was fed to the public.
Every single war time administration has lied to the public about classified
information. Most of the public doesn't bother to be informed enough to have
any idea how to process the information anyway. Perhaps that is why they
elect representatives who willingly choose to remain equally as clueless,
eh? ;-)

4) At another point in the thread, discussing the delegation issue to the
CIA (and this seems to be central to some of your arguments), when you
were speaking of the representatives being foolish to rely on that
agency's expertise, you said: ["The captain of the ship is responsible for
everything that happens under his command.... They can delegate all they
want. In the end, the ultimate *responsibility* lies with that elected
official."] I didn't call you on this then, but... given your shifting
central point, and given that you've been trying to shift blame FROM the
executive TO the legislature, and given that the intelligence
organizations are executive department "ships" captained by the
President, do you want to reconsider the wisdom of such a rigid statement?
It seems to me you're trying to have it both ways.

Yes. It *is* both ways! I completely hold GW and his administration
responsible for their decisions and actions. I *also* hold Senators
responsible for *their* decisions and actions. Our whole system is set up on
a series of checks and balances that become completely useless when those
who are supposedly checking and balancing can't be *bothered* to check!

.... and let's be clear here... I think we *should* be in Iraq. I think the
president and everyone else made the right choice, even if it was for the
wrong reasons initially (and I'm not sure that it was).

My problem with this group of Democrats is that *they* are saying a bad
decision was made, but somehow ignore the fact that they played a *large*
role in making that bad decision.

- I agree with your remarks that it IS disappointing that all of the reps
did not have perfect information at the time of their votes. It's just
that I'm inclined to be a little more understanding here than you are,
given the volume of data, the short time in which to digest it, the
restricted access to the NIE, the dispute over which reps had access to
which pieces of intelligence, and so on.

I am unforgiving and lacking in understanding when the decison to be made
involves sending American military troops into harms way. There are few
decisions a politician can make that are as important. *Every* effort should
be made - *every effort* - for those politicians to place such a vote from
as an informed a position as they can possibly be. Those that would
willfully admit to doing less, while at the same time claiming that American
troops are dying for a bad decision - on *their* part - earn no forgiveness
or understanding. In another time, I'd say they should be strung up in the
town square.

I suppose that suffices. I do not expect to make you or anyone agree with
me, but I do think it's important to get the arguments and (especially)
the good information out there.

I agreed with you on one point so far. Now, you just need to realize that I
am right on all the rest of them.
:-)


Oh, and BTW, the REASON I remember the climate change discussion with you
is exactly what I already said: I'm lately reminded of the very things I
recall thinking then. Things having to do with your stubbornness and
unwillingness to concede
even the most basic of easily verifiable facts, the back-peddling, the
re-phrasing of the issue to support your new and revised central points...
things like that. ;-) (Said with affection and a touch of humor, of
course.)

Like I said... maybe I just suck at communicating here, or assume too much
is understood without being said. What you view as "backpedaling", and
correctly view as "rephrasing" is simply me trying to help you understand my
position.

One of the common flaws I see in newsgroup discussions is the mistaken idea
that you (anyone) completely understood the point being made in the initial
post, and anything that doesn't fit your initial interpretation is
"backpedaling" or, in some other manner, disingenuous. That isn't how people
usually do it when verbally communicating. Why do they do it here? (not just
you, almost everyone)


.