11 ms·

Consider that when acting under uncertainty, intelligent, informed people of good will can examine the same set of facts and reach different conclusions. It ha

by JackFr 13y ago

Consider that when acting under uncertainty, intelligent, informed people of good will can examine the same set of facts and reach different conclusions. It has become an article of faith that the Bush administration acted in bad faith about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while all that really has ever been shown is that they were tragically, woefully and extraordinarily wrong. How intelligent, well educated people be so wrong, unless they were secretly evil? Groupthink for one, and in particular a failure to consider alternatives because of assumption of bad faith on the part of those who disagree with them. I really don't care one way or another whether Condi is on the board of Dropbox or not, and I applaud you for refusing to do business with a company you believe is immoral. But I would be surprised (pleasantly) if this was a standard you were applying consistently, thoughtfully and evenly.

efectomendi 13y ago
What he said
Touche 13y ago
The problem we have with our society today is that we gravitate towards absolute positions on every contentious issue. When you are absolutely certain about something it is a small leap to then believe that those who disagree are doing so maliciously. To fix this we have to find a way to reward tempered opinions. The absolutism in our society is becoming stronger over time and it's further dividing us.
- icebraining 13y ago
  If the action is destructive, and the person hasn't regretted it, does it become acceptable just because s/he has done it with the best of intentions? On the contrary: "those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience". If anything, it's even more dangerous to trust in someone who believed and continues to believe in what they were doing, than in someone who did it maliciously but has since truly regretted it.
  - Touche 13y ago
    But regret is incompatible with our society's love affair with absolute certainty. One cannot simply admit that they were wrong (even to themselves) because we so value perfect intuition.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
vdaniuk 13y ago
So were they uninformed about torture and widespread spying on general population, too?
tommo123 13y ago
It's pretty firmly established that Bush lied and had been gunning for Iraq long before WMD became his casus belli and you have a wonderful resource called the world wide web if you have any interest at all in confirming that.
mikeash 13y ago
It becomes difficult to draw that line when you're talking about hundreds of thousands of human lives. When you're talking about preemptively invading an entire country then it is your moral imperative to do everything possible to 1) ensure your justification is correct and 2) ensure you carry out the decision in the best way possible. For whatever reason, this did not happen. Decisions were rushed, conclusions were reached with insufficient evidence, alternative possibilities were not considered, dissenting voices were not listened to, etc. Perhaps they still had good will throughout all of this. But does it even matter? The outcome was terrible and that is directly because they failed to do better when they most certainly could have. You're also ignoring the other points made by the article. Are you going to make the same excuse about her approval of torture?
sp332 13y ago
I'm going to feel really bad if I've been wrong about this, but I thought Bush admitted in his autobiography that WMD's were a made-up reason to invade Iraq. He thought he had the moral high ground in invading to depose Saddam Hussein, but his advisors convinced him that no one would support that reason for invasion.
- mikeash 13y ago
  If you're "going to feel really bad" if you're wrong, why don't you go look it up and make sure before commenting?
  - sp332 13y ago
    That would take a long time :) But seriously, I thought it would be helpful to note a widely-held belief, and I was wondering if someone could post evidence (either way) more quickly than I could.
chez17 13y ago
One thing I can't stand is about our hyper-partisan culture is that attacking someone from one side is seen as 100% political and there are posts like these that are trying to be "even" when, in fact, it's you yourself that is being partisan here. >It has become an article of faith that the Bush administration acted in bad faith about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while all that really has ever been shown is that they were tragically, woefully and extraordinarily wrong. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html?_s=PM%253Cimg%2520src= http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html?... It has been shown, conclusively, that they lied, that they lied knowingly, and that they lied a lot. Don't white wash history in an attempt to be "even" or see "both sides". There is objective truth here.
- talmand 13y ago
  So, no chance they were simply wrong? Making a false statement doesn't necessarily mean lying. I seem to recall that at the time EVERYBODY was making the same mistake or, in your words, lying about it.
  - subsection1h 13y ago
    > I seem to recall that at the time EVERYBODY was making the same mistake Your recollection is wrong. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
    - talmand 13y ago
      You're right, I didn't recall the totals. I'll revise my statement to be that most everyone in a leadership position was making the same mistake.
- JackFr 13y ago
  The article you point to, to be clear, relies on reports from two non-profit (not not non-partisan) journalism watchdogs. And what they come up with is 'false statements'. They won't go so far as to call them lies, because to be a lie the statement has to be believed to be false by the speaker. You seem to reach the conclusion that it is inconceivable that the Bush Administration believed their own arguments. I not only find conceivable, I think its probably likely. Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. There's certainly room for moral revulsion for the Bush Administration -- negligently acting to cause destruction and loss of life at such a scale makes one culpable nonetheless. I am not interested in arguing the WMD in Iraq debate. I ask you to please assume good faith on the part of your ideological opponents. Try to understand their arguments on their terms, and see where you differ fundamentally.
grannyg00se 13y ago
"informed people of good will can examine the same set of facts and reach different conclusions." Except they weren't talking about available facts to be examined, and their conclusions. What they were doing was presenting a falsehood as a new fact. Without any evidence. It's one thing to say "because of x,yz, we think they have WMDs". What they did was: "THEY HAVE WMDs!!!" (evidence to be examined will be provided soon, promise)
- jebblue 13y ago
  >> What they were doing was presenting a falsehood as a new fact. Without any evidence. Clinton stated they had WMD's long before Bush. There are mass grave sites in Iraq which proves they had them. The truth the anti-Bush people need to face is ... where are those weapons today? http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcript...
  - subsection1h 13y ago
    > There are mass grave sites in Iraq which proves they had them. Yes, Saddam used chemical weapons in the 1980s. But Rice argued that if Iraq wasn't invaded, Saddam might use nukes.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    The question was not so much "do they have WMDs?" as the answer was clearly yes, they had chemical weapons we gave them. The question was, do they have any substantial quantities, do they have the ability to make more, and most importantly, do they have the ability to use them to attack us? The answer to that last question was always clearly "no". Having a nuke does you no good if you can't get it to your target.
smutticus 13y ago
Then why did the Bush administration go out of its way to destroy Valerie Plame's career at the CIA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair People at the CIA were telling the administration that they had it wrong. They just didn't want to hear it since it didn't fit with their narrative, and didn't align with their goal of war. The truth was irrelevant at that point.
- JackFr 13y ago
  It seems to me you're agreeing with me.
rbanffy 13y ago
> while all that really has ever been shown is that they were tragically, woefully and extraordinarily wrong. I find it very odd that, despite the fact they had access to allegedly better intel than everybody else, they were the only ones who were that substantially and, adding to the oddity, conveniently wrong.

by JackFr 13y ago

efectomendi 13y ago

What he said

Touche 13y ago

The problem we have with our society today is that we gravitate towards absolute positions on every contentious issue. When you are absolutely certain about something it is a small leap to then believe that those who disagree are doing so maliciously. To fix this we have to find a way to reward tempered opinions. The absolutism in our society is becoming stronger over time and it's further dividing us.

icebraining 13y ago
If the action is destructive, and the person hasn't regretted it, does it become acceptable just because s/he has done it with the best of intentions? On the contrary: "those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience". If anything, it's even more dangerous to trust in someone who believed and continues to believe in what they were doing, than in someone who did it maliciously but has since truly regretted it.
- Touche 13y ago
  But regret is incompatible with our society's love affair with absolute certainty. One cannot simply admit that they were wrong (even to themselves) because we so value perfect intuition.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]

vdaniuk 13y ago

So were they uninformed about torture and widespread spying on general population, too?

tommo123 13y ago

It's pretty firmly established that Bush lied and had been gunning for Iraq long before WMD became his casus belli and you have a wonderful resource called the world wide web if you have any interest at all in confirming that.

mikeash 13y ago

It becomes difficult to draw that line when you're talking about hundreds of thousands of human lives. When you're talking about preemptively invading an entire country then it is your moral imperative to do everything possible to 1) ensure your justification is correct and 2) ensure you carry out the decision in the best way possible. For whatever reason, this did not happen. Decisions were rushed, conclusions were reached with insufficient evidence, alternative possibilities were not considered, dissenting voices were not listened to, etc. Perhaps they still had good will throughout all of this. But does it even matter? The outcome was terrible and that is directly because they failed to do better when they most certainly could have. You're also ignoring the other points made by the article. Are you going to make the same excuse about her approval of torture?

sp332 13y ago

I'm going to feel really bad if I've been wrong about this, but I thought Bush admitted in his autobiography that WMD's were a made-up reason to invade Iraq. He thought he had the moral high ground in invading to depose Saddam Hussein, but his advisors convinced him that no one would support that reason for invasion.

mikeash 13y ago
If you're "going to feel really bad" if you're wrong, why don't you go look it up and make sure before commenting?
- sp332 13y ago
  That would take a long time :) But seriously, I thought it would be helpful to note a widely-held belief, and I was wondering if someone could post evidence (either way) more quickly than I could.

chez17 13y ago

One thing I can't stand is about our hyper-partisan culture is that attacking someone from one side is seen as 100% political and there are posts like these that are trying to be "even" when, in fact, it's you yourself that is being partisan here. >It has become an article of faith that the Bush administration acted in bad faith about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, while all that really has ever been shown is that they were tragically, woefully and extraordinarily wrong. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html?_s=PM%253Cimg%2520src= http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/23/bush.iraq/index.html?... It has been shown, conclusively, that they lied, that they lied knowingly, and that they lied a lot. Don't white wash history in an attempt to be "even" or see "both sides". There is objective truth here.

talmand 13y ago
So, no chance they were simply wrong? Making a false statement doesn't necessarily mean lying. I seem to recall that at the time EVERYBODY was making the same mistake or, in your words, lying about it.
- subsection1h 13y ago
  > I seem to recall that at the time EVERYBODY was making the same mistake Your recollection is wrong. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
  - talmand 13y ago
    You're right, I didn't recall the totals. I'll revise my statement to be that most everyone in a leadership position was making the same mistake.
JackFr 13y ago
The article you point to, to be clear, relies on reports from two non-profit (not not non-partisan) journalism watchdogs. And what they come up with is 'false statements'. They won't go so far as to call them lies, because to be a lie the statement has to be believed to be false by the speaker. You seem to reach the conclusion that it is inconceivable that the Bush Administration believed their own arguments. I not only find conceivable, I think its probably likely. Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. There's certainly room for moral revulsion for the Bush Administration -- negligently acting to cause destruction and loss of life at such a scale makes one culpable nonetheless. I am not interested in arguing the WMD in Iraq debate. I ask you to please assume good faith on the part of your ideological opponents. Try to understand their arguments on their terms, and see where you differ fundamentally.

grannyg00se 13y ago

"informed people of good will can examine the same set of facts and reach different conclusions." Except they weren't talking about available facts to be examined, and their conclusions. What they were doing was presenting a falsehood as a new fact. Without any evidence. It's one thing to say "because of x,yz, we think they have WMDs". What they did was: "THEY HAVE WMDs!!!" (evidence to be examined will be provided soon, promise)

jebblue 13y ago
>> What they were doing was presenting a falsehood as a new fact. Without any evidence. Clinton stated they had WMD's long before Bush. There are mass grave sites in Iraq which proves they had them. The truth the anti-Bush people need to face is ... where are those weapons today? http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcript...
- subsection1h 13y ago
  > There are mass grave sites in Iraq which proves they had them. Yes, Saddam used chemical weapons in the 1980s. But Rice argued that if Iraq wasn't invaded, Saddam might use nukes.
- mikeash 13y ago
  The question was not so much "do they have WMDs?" as the answer was clearly yes, they had chemical weapons we gave them. The question was, do they have any substantial quantities, do they have the ability to make more, and most importantly, do they have the ability to use them to attack us? The answer to that last question was always clearly "no". Having a nuke does you no good if you can't get it to your target.

smutticus 13y ago

Then why did the Bush administration go out of its way to destroy Valerie Plame's career at the CIA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair People at the CIA were telling the administration that they had it wrong. They just didn't want to hear it since it didn't fit with their narrative, and didn't align with their goal of war. The truth was irrelevant at that point.

JackFr 13y ago
It seems to me you're agreeing with me.

rbanffy 13y ago

> while all that really has ever been shown is that they were tragically, woefully and extraordinarily wrong. I find it very odd that, despite the fact they had access to allegedly better intel than everybody else, they were the only ones who were that substantially and, adding to the oddity, conveniently wrong.