Pre-War Intelligence and the Curveball Saga
at Once Upon a Time, via Atrios.
See now, this is what I'm talkin' about. Not so much lies per se as pervasive epistemic irresponsibility from top to bottom. Incestuous amplification, inverse criticism, and selective use of evidence.
at Once Upon a Time, via Atrios.
See now, this is what I'm talkin' about. Not so much lies per se as pervasive epistemic irresponsibility from top to bottom. Incestuous amplification, inverse criticism, and selective use of evidence.
posted by Winston Smith at
12:02 PM
8 Comments:
Epistemic irresponsibility so pervasive that it's plausibly deliberate (cf. Frankfurt on bullshit). Whatever you call it, I doubt that it counts as treating the humanity in others as an end in itself (interestingly enough, whether the war marketers had deceived themselves doesn't really matter on that account).
It fails all the other big tests, too. Utility has not been maximized, nor did the marketing of the war reflect a virtuous character.
Nice kant, TB. I myself have been puzzling upon the wisdom or virtue of casting pearls before swine, or: Why We Are a Republic Instead of Isocrates' Nightmare.
It IS important to note that much in the curveball saga seems to *weaken* the case against the administration. I haven't gone through it in detail, but a lot of it supports the theory that it was the intelligence boys who screwed up. If the administration got flawed info and used it responsibly, then they're off the hook and people like me are wrong.
If the admin pushed the "intellgence boys" to give it what it wanted, and finally the boys did, and the admin ignored warnings about his credibility, I don't see how the anti-admin case is weakened. Say you're running the govt and you realize your case depends on the testimony of one guy, wouldn't you call up your chief deputy, a man named Libby with a reputation for being detail-oriented and smart, and tell him you want to know every last detail about the guy?
It was obvious from here that the Bushists were unwilling or unable to put a compelling case before the American people. They were instead eager to scare us into war. Most of the stuff they offered was impeached in real time; the media were just too chicken to point it out. The Washington Democrats, too.
Well, I agree...but I worry that I'm gettin' unobjective and nutty.
WS, the lengths to which you take the principle of charity speaks well of your generosity, but the media have proven that splitting the difference rewards liars and bullshitters. To be objective, you must have the strength to believe what you see even when it hurts, even if it makes you question what kind of nation America could become.
Well, it's not the painfulness of the conclusion that makes me worry, it's the fact that I've become so enraged about the whole thing. I just worry that my anger is distorting my perception.
Now, I didn't get mad for no reason, and I'm fairly sure I'm right about Bush & co. I just want to try to keep some distance from my own beliefs and emotions.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home