You are having your cake and eating it too. You are an international citizen, a unique individual voice in your opinions about the actions of the US government. But… you are never responsible for the actions of your own government but are free to criticize the US (your pet cause). When you travel, what documents do you use, when you vote, where are the benefits of your support seen?
The fallacy of this whole line of reasoning is this: In democracies, we vote for our leaders and then the citizens take responsibility for better or worse for paying for those actions. If enough are turned off, guess what, the leader is not voted in again. But for you to criticize the actions of the US government as an individual is a rare luxury indeed. After all, you can live in a very utopian world, in which negotiations and 20-20 hindsight are always possible. AND no one is allowed to criticize you or your positions because they are made in an ivory tower vacuum. Yes, you are entitled to your views but they are so unrealistically high-minded and lofty that no one and certainly no government could ever hope to meet them. The concern I have about moral equivalence is that people like you raise their voices loudest to complain about miniscule gradations of the US coulda, shoulda, woulda while making nary a comment when someone like Saddam sticks people feet first into a chopper or allows his sons to rape and murder women at their sadistic will.
Selective outrage? Seems like it.
We have already determined to our satisfaction that the US has not in any way acted outside the norms of international diplomacy. You as an individual can think so but then where are the governments that would uphold your lofty ideals? Germany and France? Russia and China? Venezuela and Chile? Nigeria and Zimbabwe? Unless there are practical, tangible examples of international actors not high-minded individuals that have in fact implemented these lofty ideas and where we can see the results of said implementations, such discussions are well I don’t know.
You crack me up: if it’s disproven it’s not a called a fact anymore.
Your first source is pretty weak, perhaps written by some student, but certainly does not compare to a dictionary. And while it’s claimed that facts can be disproven all the examples that are linked to happen to be proven / correct facts. Dismissed.
The second source compares fact and opinion, it does nowhere say facts can be proven wrong. Dismissed.
Probably you also think a lie is, by implication, not always untrue but it could also be true … ? :?
Yeah, it doesn’t matter that you are wrong because you just change your argument.
The statements even included the word ‘fact’, so don’t tell me we are talking about opinions.
The first sentence of the 2nd link provided by you blows your argument out of the sky, because Bush claimed to know and to have the facts, he did not say this is an opinion based on subjective judgement or personal values. Also most if not all of the statements miss the qualifiers for it to be called an opinion, i.e. comparision, adjectives or evaluation as explained there.
Since you can’t be wrong about something called a fact I hold him (and the others) accountable for a) claiming to state facts and b) for lying since it weren’t facts they stated. They knew there was doubt about the intelligence and as such I conclude they knowingly made false statements, i.e. they lied.
The last part on it’s own might be correct but it doesn’t apply here.
Do you notice the use of the term “erroneous facts”? This is a fact that has been verified/proven false. It is still a fact, as opposed to an opinion.
Now, here is a form used by the US Department of Justice in connection with violations of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7207 (tax violations):
[quote]The United States Attorney charges:
That on or about the ________ day of ______________, 19, in the ____________ District of ____________, [Defendant’s Name], a resident of [City], [State], did willfully deliver and disclose by submitting to an Officer(s) of the Internal Revenue Service, United States Treasury Department, at [Place], [Location], a [Describe Document, e.g., List, Account, Statement, or Other Document],2 which was known by the defendant to be fraudulent and false as to a material matter in that [Describe the [color=red]False Fact(s)[/color]], whereas, as he [she] then and there well knew and believed, [Describe the [color=red]Correct Fact(s)[/color]].
In violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7207.
Do you notice here the use of the term “false facts”? This is a fact that has been verified/proven false. It is still a fact, as opposed to an opinion.
Fred, give it up. If nobody knew I would be German you wouldn’t have an argument or probably attack me on whatever you come up with (religion perhaps?).
As well I never held you, Tigerman or anyone else here personally responsible and I tried very hard not to attack you all as American (citizens) or the American public in general.
Whatever passport I use, whomever I vote (if I vote), whatever benefits I get - what does it matter when I criticize the US? What if “I” is someone else? What if that person is an American? How does your argument work then? (Must be a lefty or democrat then, right?)
I actually don’t want to go there, but perhaps you are just to parnoid or take things too personal, perhaps it’s even worst if it comes from an “evil” German. Some of you even seem still to live in the past and think we are all Nazis. Well, that might be an opinion but hardly a fact, and I don’t think I fall into that bracket. In fact I go as far to claim that some people here show tendencies to what they claim to hate so much - but I guess they didn’t notice because they are just ‘better’. Sucks.
In the end, and I mentioned this before, it’s not selective outrage, but it relates directly to the present situation in the world and to those who have the most influence - and the e.g. US isn’t really subtle in what it does but puts itself repeatedly into the limelight with a big bang (pun intended).
It does not matter if such a country exist - it still does nowhere excuse what the US (and others) does wrong, the same stupid argument (based on a similar comparision) Tigerman tried to make. None of you have ever explained what the answer to such a question would prove / show.
As such I exercise my right to criticize anyone at anytime when I see fit. You may not like it, but then I don’t care - all I would hope that you are fair and accept other peoples position and stop accusing them of being anti-American. That’s just the “easy way out” and somewhat shows your ‘tolerance’ while at the same time talking about free speech and democracy for the world. But it’s hypocritical at best.
No - and I never claimed so in case you want to imply that and make an argument out of it.
You wanted to play semantics with the word fact and my reply was limited to that (semantics) in the above quotes.
You have taken this entirely out of context so the answer does not relate to the earlier argument of lying - concluded from the statements and, most importantly, how the statements were made / phrased.
All you do is pick out words and then construct an argument while ignoring the context it was made in. Lame times 2.
That reminds me: wasn’t it you who claimed that one word can have only one meaning? Well, then take it that fact can only mean something known to be true, correct and verifiable.
No, it’s a statement that someone claimed to be a fact but turned out to be untrue. In case you didn’t notice - there are now two words and they (whoever they are) happen to call it erroneous facts.
As opposed to argument, statement, claim etc. - which means nothing really.
Cut the crap, you are clinging to the last straw: “erroneous” clearly indicates that something claimed to be a fact is not true (as per definition of the word ‘fact’) - which you could also substitute with another word applicable to the circumstances, i.e. lie, missinformation, false statement etc. if you wanted to.
You cannot call something proven false a ‘fact’ by itself, as you can see from both examples you have given, it always has an adjective in front, and neither source qualifies as proof since they lack the authority to provide defintions, just using the terms doesn’t count. For all you know they could have made it up.
This whole thing is getting ridiculous, just citing from some random websites and claiming this to be correct while dictionaries tell another thing … you may continue this discussion with yourself, I am out of here …
And I am truly amazed by your ignorance to accept credible sources (like dictionaries) and your failure to follow a simple argument.
The qualifier for lying was not the statement being false, but knowing it can’t be correct while stating so (that it is correct, that it’s a fact, that they know etc.)
[quote]Let’s try this:
Suppose that I am colorblind but that I don’t know that I am colorblind.
I look at a sign that is actually green and I state, “I know for a fact that the sign is red”.
Am I lying? Or, am I wrong?[/quote]
I would say
.
.
.
you are color blind.
[quote=“Rascal”]No - and I never claimed so in case you want to imply that and make an argument out of it.
You wanted to play semantics with the word fact and my reply was limited to that (semantics) in the above quotes.[/quote]
I am not playing semantics. You have accused Bush of lying and I am trying to illustrate to you that such a charge is flawed without proof of intent.
[quote=“Rascal”]You have taken this entirely out of context so the answer does not relate to the earlier argument of lying - concluded from the statements and, most importantly, how the statements were made / phrased.
All you do is pick out words and then construct an argument while ignoring the context it was made in. Lame times 2.[/quote]
No. I am trying to put this into context for you… but you are too stubborn to admit that claiming that Bush lied when at most all you can actually prove is that he was wrong is stupid.
Why do they use the term “fact” then?
It means everything in relation to your allegation of lying.
Again, why did they use the word “fact”?
Nonsense. I can and many people do. The European Patent Office calls untrue facts “erroneous facts” and the US Department of Justice calls untrue facts “false facts”. I don’t think the EPO or the USDOJ is just “making it up”.
Its not ridiculous. You don’t want to answer the questions… that’s ridiculous.
The cites I provided above refer to “erroneous facts” and “false facts”. I can show you uses of the term “wrong fact” too. The words “erroneous”, “false” and “wrong” are all adjectives describing types of facts.
You failed to answer my question regarding my statement of fact if I were colorblind. This hypo is directly relevant to your stupid allegation that Bush lied about WMD because his facts may have been “wrong”.
Seeing as you insist on using the dictionary definition… let’s look at the definition you cited:
So, the term “verifiable” is a part of the definition of “fact”. What does “verifiable” mean?
[quote]verifiable
adj 1: capable of being verified; “a verifiable account of the incident” 2: [color=red]capable of being verified or disproved[/color] by experiment or observation [syn: confirmable]
Source: WordNet (R) 1.6, (C) 1997 Princeton University
So, let’s go back to your statement above and replace “verifiable” with the credible dictionary definition of “verifiable” that I cited:
You lose.
[quote][color=red]ver i fy[/color]
To prove the truth of by presentation of evidence or testimony; substantiate.
[color=red]To determine or test the truth or accuracy of[/color], as by comparison, investigation, or reference: experiments that verified the hypothesis.
So, Bush was presented with conflicting intelligence regarding Iraq’s WMD. Bush chose to act on the intelligence that would present the worst case… He didn’t have the luxury of perfect intelligence. All he had were two conflicting sets of facts.
Per your statement above, unless Bush KNEW that the set of facts he chose to act on were incorrect, he did not lie.
Now, can you PROVE that Bush KNEW for a Fact that the set of facts he acted on were incorrect?
If yes, please do so. If no, then you should stop calling Bush a “liar”.
[quote]Let’s try this:
Suppose that I am colorblind but that I don’t know that I am colorblind.
I look at a sign that is actually green and I state, “I know for a fact that the sign is red”.
Am I lying? Or, am I wrong?[/quote]
[quote=“Rascal”]I would say
.
.
.
you are color blind.[/quote]
When you acquiesce to such bullshit, even as a single citizen, you’re far more dangerous than Bin Laden himself.
In the case of your example you aren’t lying, but you’re wrong and have a difficency called color blindness so Rascal was right. Perhaps at a stretch (of the truth) you could make the same argument for Bush regarding the presence of WMD in Iraq. He was blinded by his lack of intelligence on the ground - and then some how justify his WMD message to the ding bats. But then you would be wrong, because when he discovered these egregious intelligence failures did he do anything to rectify them, or prevent them from happening again?.. Nothing.
Which goes to credibility. If he were to wage a war based on dubious intelligence then why when he discovered this intelligence to be so flawed, doesn’t he do something about it?
Credibility, if the WMD story is to have any relevence to the hegemonic war on Iraq, is at the very core of that issue. Afterall it was Saddam’s lack of credibility not his WMD that were his undoing. His use of strategic ambiguity will have to go down in the annuls of war as the mother of all bungles.
Right, just pick the one defintion of many that fits your side of the story.
(What happened to your one-word-can-only-have-one-meaning argument? )
However Tigerman once again takes things out of context, because I clearly wrote:
You lost. Again.
I argued two points:
Phrasing statements as a fact when you know they are not facts (as opposed to stating an opinion based on assumptions, guesses etc.)
Making statements pretending to be facts which are not correct
The latter has already partially been proven, e.g. some sites they “knew” about turned out to be blanks.
As such I maintain that Bush & Co. lied.
Pointless because you stated you don’t know you are color blind.
But I earlier argued that Bush & Co. did know that intelligence is not a 100% sure business, that it’s a lot of guesses and assumptions - so when he made his statements based on that knowledge he should not have phrased it as facts but as opinions, i.e. he should have highlighted it (We think Iraq has WMD, we assume they do this and that). But that ain’t what they said.
It’s funny that you keep to turn this around, construct some arguments and examples but you entirely fail to show that (if) I am wrong based on the quotes which are there to see for everyone and my line of argumentation (‘knowing about the quality of intelligence’ and that some “facts” were already proven wrong, i.e. they weren’t facts in the first place).
Rascal, this is pathetic. You have been arguing that we must use the dictionary definition. I give you the dictionary definition and you refuse to accept the same because it proves you wrong.
[quote=“Rascal”]However Tigerman once again takes things out of context, because I clearly wrote:
Rascal, you added the part about “can’t be proven wrong”. The dictionary definition YOU provided stated that a fact must be [color=red]verifiable[/color]. The word [color=red]verifiable[/color] means, according to the dictionary, [color=red]capable of being proved true or false[/color].
Thus, a fact is something that can be proved true or false, as opposed to an opinion, which cannot be proved true or false.
Give it up.
[quote=“Rascal”]I argued two points:
Phrasing statements as a fact when you know they are not facts (as opposed to stating an opinion based on assumptions, guesses etc.)
Making statements pretending to be facts which are not correct
The latter has already partially been proven, e.g. some sites they “knew” about turned out to be blanks.
As such I maintain that Bush & Co. lied.[/quote]
Are you nuts? Read again your statement no. 1. Unless Bush KNEW the facts he stated were false, he didn’t lie. I am using your argument and proving you wrong.
Exactly! How do you KNOW that Bush KNEW his facts were false? Unless you KNOW that Bush KNEW that his facts were false, you cannot call him a liar.
You’re grasping at straws. Bush was presented with two conflicting (or partially conflicting) sets of facts. He has admitted this. If, as we all know, one cannot be 100% certain regarding most intelligence, why should Bush be faulted for choosing the set of facts that indicated the most risk to the US? Why should Bush have accepted the validity of the facts that indicated a lesser risk? You argue that Bush knew that intelligence was not a 100% certain thing… so why should he choose the intelligence that indicated lesser risk… per your argument, that intelligence could not have been perfect or 100% certain. Why should Bush not err on the side of safety?
Bullshit. I’ve already shown that they were facts. I did so according to your requirements for proving such.
Its funny watching you reject the dictionary definition, which you originally demanded and insisted on, now that it proves you wrong.
OK, I read it. I still didn’t see where it said that Clinton didn’t have the veto power.[/quote]
Yes, he had veto power, which he did not use.
Believe me, I’m not making excuses for Clinton; he signed the act–which had overwhelming and bipartisan support–in part in order to bolster his chances with the US electorate just prior to 1998’s Congressional elections. Clinton was under heavy fire from the GOP at this time due to the ongoing impeachment hearings (in fact, there is some evidence that Iraq was bombed in December of 1998, by order of Clinton, in order to dull the GOP’s impeachment blade). The neocons pushed the ILA through Congress (for example, it’s passage followed closely the famous Open Letter written by the neocon’s own PNAC to Clinton in 02/98, and by all accounts it was lobbying by the INC and neocons that ultimately convinced Congressional Democrats that only regime change could bring an end to sanctions against Iraq and thus save innocent Iraqis). It was submitted to Clinton, who thought regime change was necessary, and that it was a good way to keep Starr’s dogs at bay and maybe the only way to save lives (potentially American military lives, and Iraqi lives, perhaps among others). And there is no doubt that the flyover sanctions, enforced by US and UK, were breaking down. In fact, after the Dec. 1998 bombings of Baghdad, bombings that were loved by the neocons even has the GOP cried “political expediency”, Iraq kicked out the UN weapons inspectors. They didn’t reappear in Iraq until Bush forced the Iraqi’s to let them back in, in a completely hide-saving action by Saddam Hussein in 2002.
So if Clinton signed the ILA partially to stave off the GOP attack dogs, what’s the other part? Did he agree with the ILA in whole, or in part?
[quote=“Cato Institute on 9/17/99”]The Clinton Administration Exhibits Only Lukewarm Support for the ILA
President Clinton claims to support the ILA:
[i]Over the long term, the best way to address that threat is through a government in Baghdad
Then do so IN THE CORRECT CONTEXT and don’t rip single words out of the quotes. (see below)
You have given the defintion of the WORD ‘verifiable’ without relating it to the rest of the quote.
a) I did highlight the relevant part in bold and red, so don’t divert by referring to the last part now. Lame * 3.
b) The entire part was my summary based on the dictionary defintion provided with the logical conclusion “= can’t be proven wrong” (as to show your “can be disproven” argument is wrong) added.
What does this have to do with being German or French? My point is that nowhere in the world is foreign policy “voted” on by individuals. It can be voted on indirectly through national elections if this is a major concern but there is no place where the high-minded Rascal can vote for or against US policy. My point is therefore that being such a high-minded individual with such lofty ideals as yourself is well a moot point. You MUST vote in certain elections either German or EU and only in this way are you able to influence foreign policy as the world currently works. You have constantly said the US was wrong for two major reasons:
No wmds have been found and then you incorrectly extrapolate that Bush lied. This debate is one that holds little interest for me since it only factored in about 20 percent of my support for the war. Regardless, we KNOW that Saddam and Iraq will not be trying to get wmds again any time soon. So that is a factor as well. Maybe the fact that to date we have not found any wmds would therefore rate as 5 percent in my overall decision since I am satisfied that there will be no such threat in the future and there is still an offchance that in fact they did exist but we have not found them. You are assuming that because there are none that there were never any and that he would keep his word and never try to develop them again despite having the knowledge of how to do so. We are running into the same problem with North Korea and Iran. They can get rid of their ACTIVE nuclear programs but what is to stop them from restarting them in an hour if they “change their minds?” Only regime change can do that.
That the US actions have set a dangerous precedent for international law and relations. I have proved repeatedly that not only have they not set a dangerous precedent and that the precedent existed far prior to this conflict but that in fact no major world actor opposes the US policy. In fact, they have all ADOPTED said policy as national policy.
My final point is that international relations are not determined by individuals but by governments. Hence, you can believe anything you want but in this whole fiasco, the actors that were behaving irresponsibly and going against achieving rational, realistic outcomes were the German and French governments. Their actions were a total refutation of sensible foreign policy and look what they have to show for it today. Who after all has lost most from this whole conflict? The US or Germany, France and Belgium? Think that over very carefully when you ponder the 180 degree turn that Germany and France did to sign on to a treaty requiring preemptive action against wmd threats as well as the fact that both nations signed onto the treaty to intercept such wmds on the high seas or in the air. AND consider that the US ultimately has been very successful in Iraq and because of this Libya and Iran and Sudan have all made motions about getting rid of wmds. So … apparently there is no deodorant like success and there is no greater foreign policy tool for influencing such idealistic and high-minded nations as Germany, France and Belgium as shutting them out of making money on reconstruction contract. Hmmm very curious no? Meanwhile, the selfish, bullying, unilateralist, all about oil is paying money out of its own pocket for the reconstruction. Strange, huh? It would appear (though it could not possibly be true!) that the US was the high-minded, idealistic nation all along and Germany, France and Belgium were just craven, cynical, dishonest, posturing, hypocritical, duplicitous, back-stabbing, scum-sucking, filthbags, but I would never want to insult anyone by saying so myself.
Saddam’s regime was a major source of instability in perhaps the most important and fragile region of the planet. Disregarding Saddam’s invasions of Kuwait and Iran, and the wars Saddam threatened to wage against Syria and Israel, his conduct in the 1990s was quite threatening. In 1993 he tried to assassinate George Bush, in 1994 he threatened Kuwait, in 1996 he attacked Irbil and then he provoked Clinton’s Desert Fox in 1998, and he attempted to move Iraqi ground forces to the Golan Heights to instigate an Israeli military reaction in 2000.
Is that recent enough for you?
And we KNOW now for a FACT that he maintained and retained his capability to restart WMD programs.
The deliberate obfuscation by Saddam, linked with Dr Kelly’s (Mr. T’s post) 'commonsenseical" point that true verification required regime change, and then Saddam’s own recent acts of provocation and agreesion (since the Gulf War), along with the undisputed fact that he had the ability quickly to mix up a new batch of stink bombs at short notice…
All of this seems to suggest that there was no good option except to invade.
Between them, i think Fox and MR T put the case for war quite convincingly… and i am left wondering what the blazes Rascal is arguing about.
When you acquiesce to such bullshit, even as a single citizen, you’re far more dangerous than Bin Laden himself.[/quote]
That’s plain nonsense.
Can’t for the life of me figure out how you reach this conclusion. Indeed, in my hypo I am “wrong”… not “lying”. Thus, Rascal is wrong in asserting that Bush is lying.
Its no stretch at all. Its precisely the same. And as such, its ridiculous to claim that Bush was lying. Bush might have been wrong… but its hogwash to state that he was lying unless you know for certain that he knew with perfect knowledge that the facts on which he chose to rely were incorrect.
It wasn’t a lack of intelligence. It was conflicting intelligence. Bush prudently relied on the intelligence that painted the worst picture. Can you imigine how the Bush haters (and those of us who support him) would have howled had he relied on the intel that painted a less dangerous picture, only to discover later that such intel was incorrect?
And those dingbats include the Bush opposition that claimed invading Iraq was wrong because the Iraqis possessed WMD? Come on, your assertion paints most of the world as dingbats.
[quote=“tigerman”][quote=“Christopher Hitchens”]Another way of phrasing this is to remember the line taken by the late Dr. David Kelly, sad subject of the Hutton inquiry in Britain. In an article written just before his death, this experienced inspector stated that you could have genuine inspections only by way of regime change. This essentially commonsensical view, which has been seconded by other veteran inspectors such as Rolf Ekeus and David Kay, takes account of the notorious Iraqi deception and concealment programs; the failure to comply at any point with U.N. resolutions; the sequestration of Iraqi scientists; and the preservation of secret funds, documents, and resources in Baghdad against the day when sanctions might be lifted and another bid for superpowerdom be made. Taken together with the secret bargaining (now exposed) with North Korea, this entitles us to speak of a Permanent Threat if not precisely an Imminent One. “Imminence” might have come when Saddam gave way to the Odai/Qusai regime: a prospect that need no longer concern us but that did not concern the antiwar forces even when it was a possibility.
I don’t know of anyone who completely disagrees with this position, except possibly those who are against any war for any reason. The problem with Bush’s war was in its timing, its level of pre-war support, and the post-war execution, not with the need for regime change in Iraq.
[quote=“tigerman”][quote=“Christopher Hitchens”]…But I was not an elected officeholder in a democratic government in a post-9/11 atmosphere. If I had been, I would certainly have decided to make [color=red]the worst assumption about any report[/color] on Saddam’s capacity for lethality, and I would have been operating at all times on the presumption of guilt. As a civilian, I would have wanted to criticize any Western government that did not err deliberately on this side.
I don’t buy this, though. Hitchens’ argument is that, when presented with a national-security-level threat in the face of imperfect information, the only presumption to be made is one of guilt. This is an argument that has been presented before, in this forum. For instance:
You’re grasping at straws. [color=red]Bush was presented with two conflicting (or partially conflicting) sets of facts. He has admitted this. If, as we all know, one cannot be 100% certain regarding most intelligence, why should Bush be faulted for choosing the set of facts that indicated the most risk to the US? Why should Bush have accepted the validity of the facts that indicated a lesser risk? You argue that Bush knew that intelligence was not a 100% certain thing… so why should he choose the intelligence that indicated lesser risk… per your argument, that intelligence could not have been perfect or 100% certain. Why should Bush not err on the side of safety?[/color][/quote]
If Bush and his supporters were consistent, you wouldn’t see arguments like this:
[quote=“fred smith”]As to global warming, we have seen from the reaction to Bjorn Lomborg’s very detailed statistical analysis of global warming that the sources of the warming are not clear, it is not necessarily bad to have global warming and third, there is no proof that we can do anything to stop it. [extensive third-party studies exist to show that, based on a war fought outside the UN, fought bilaterally in effect, fought outside the bulk of world agreement, the chances are poor that a pro-UN democracy can be established in Iraq]
When presented with a treaty such as Kyoto which will postpone global warming by six years in the next century and will involve a severe economic impact, what are we to do? [it will take 1 or 2 decades to establish democracy in Iraq] If we refuse to sign on despite the lack of convincing evidence that we can do anything at all to stop global warming [terrorism], does that make us unconcerned with the environment or just skeptical regarding a poor plan [does that make us “appeasers” or “anti-American” or “Bush haters”]?
Now as to this Texas factory, I have two questions: first what is the “toxic” substance? Smoke can be classified as toxic. Gases can be labeled “toxic” but how serious is the “toxic” substance in question? I believe that there is an awful lot of hysteria that goes hand in hand with discussions of the environment. This may or may not fall under that category.
[Note: bracketed stuff inserted into fred’s post by me][/quote]
I think that this line of reasoning vis-a-vis global warming is pretty much formulaic among the Rove/Bush people, as well as their supporters. The cases aren’t exactly the same (global warming and Iraq), but that actually makes things worse for Bush, imo. For example, I think a global environmental disaster surely outweighs WMDs in terms of “bad outcome.” If Bush truly accepted the worst-case scenario as the outcome of national-security-level event about which there was imperfect information, his environmental policy would be much different.
But my point is not one of enviromentalism. I happen to agree with this idea, that cost/benefit analysis precedes, or should precede, Big Policy decisions. I agree strongly, in fact. However, the value of such a policy depends fundamentally on the quality of the information used. In other words, the facts must be objectively reached, and not slanted, in any way, one way or the other, in order to minimize the bias in the result. Ideology must not trump objective fact-finding. If it does, then you’ve gone from objective analysis to something considerably less.
But that’s exactly what has happened in Iraq–ideology has trumped the process. Certainly this explains both the Iraq war and the Rove/Bush environmental policy better than “when you don’t know, take the worst case” argument. That is,
[ul]1) Assume Bush follows a “under conditions of imperfect information, assume the worst scenario” policy at all times
2) Given: Bush’s actions to date concerning global warming
3) Given: Bush’s actions to date concerning Iraq
==>Then: The net effect is a world less safe, since the outcome of global warming is so much more dire than that of WMDs in Hussein’s hands.[/ul]
If you assume that Bush places ideology over all else, instead of #1 above, then both actions by Bush, with respect to global warming and Iraq, make sense.
And there’s extensive additional evidence to show that, under Bush, in the Bush administration, ideology is placed ahead of all else. For example:
[quote=“Seymour Hersh in the 10/27/03 issue of The New Yorker”]The point is not that the President and his senior aides were consciously lying. What was taking place was much more systematic
that the set of facts he acted on were incorrect?