Wait, wait. I wanna get in on calling Bush a bad president. He was baaaaaad.

This makes me edgy and perceptive. I'll say it 'cause I'm a dangerous rebel and I just don't give a fuck!

More edgy than perceptive, but that's just the kinda guy you are. Living on the edge. Like if Split has a sudden yearning for a little banana syrup in his coffee, then god dammit, he'll have em put some banana syrup in his coffee. He doesn't care the looks it gets him at Starbucks.

He don't care!

That's right, slick. I'm gonna call you slick now, 'cause I feel like it.

'Cause I'm edgy, and in your face. Know what I'll do sometimes? I'll go to Amazon.com and cruise for home electronics. And I'll sort by the popularity of the item and then buy the least popular item. That's right.

'Cause I just don't care what you think, slick. I play by my own rules.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is our biggest, most powerful corkscrew, for those really big bottles of wine. 6 hp, 120v, color: lavender only

quote:

Originally posted by Witness:

I can't believe, at this point, that the U.S. administration would respect such a statement from Iraqi heads. They/we have bases there. Plural.
I think the "fuck you" attitude from the administration will prevail. I am not happy about this point of view I harbor.

I tried and failed at including Witness' quote.

Which bit?

At first I thought it was intended as an insightful critique of my opinion, but now I'm not sure what to make of it and I'm no longer convinced I should be insulted.

quote:

Ahh, I see. So, say in the realm of clandestine intelligence collection, which will cover nearly all matters of real import, what would you consider to be 'indubitable verification'? If it cannot be opened to public debate, testing, and commentary, then surely 'indubitable verification' must be hard to come by?

"Open to public debate" is *your* red herring, split.

I recall the intel, on which many of our most significant foreign policy actions of this decade were based, being expressed at the time as iffy (except by those in on the process of glossing it over).

The result: the intel proved largely false. A nation's populace was stirred to war on the basis of iffy intel sold as verified.

I think that, generally speaking, not trying to make an adamant rule of it, attempting to be flexible and all that... generally speaking, I think that when we invade a foreign nation based on intel, that intel better be pretty damned good.

But that's just me pissing on that red herring you tossed out.

Back to the original premise: quality intelligence systems take a LONG time to establish. Our CIA has wasted most of the 61 years it has had to do that on covert ops, propaganda ops, all kinds of change the world and promote security stuff... but mostly passed by the opportunity create a real solid intel org that can dig deep and find real dirt.

This is no secret in the world intel community, nor in the USA intel community. The CIA has had to overhaul its ass so many times since Truman asked for a 'daily newspaper' of basic intel, and Foster Dulles and crew took it and turned it into a rogue paramilitary. Still to this day, we prefer action on events over action to understand and predict events. The former is so much easier, you see. Like the buzzard in the cartoon tree: "Fuck waiting! I'ma go kill something!"

Or at least torture it.

quote:

The result: the intel proved largely false. A nation's populace was stirred to war on the basis of iffy intel sold as verified.

Again. My question. What would you consider to be 'indubitable verification'?

"Open to public debate" is no red herring. When you expand the group of people who can research and debate a question from a couple thousand in windowless rooms in northern Virginia to the world's entire scientific/research community, and all the data is available to all of them, you get better at verifying or discrediting a given conclusion. When you can't go open for one reason or another, verification becomes trickier. In essence, you're almost never going to achieve a level of confidence in your answer that would be acceptable for action in normal, open fields of human endeavor. Yet sometimes, action is still thought necessary.

You know this subject matter so well, why not give examples? And not just examples of failures. These other people who are so much better, tell us about their successes.

Instead, I suspect we will get more rum-soaked fortune cookies.

How's this for slick and edgy:

There's no such thing as a good president. Finding the worst of that lot is an excercise in splitting infinities.

quote:

Originally posted by Anabel:

Sorry Witness, it was Oddmanrush's quote:
Iraqi prime minister: Iraq will not be used to 'damage' Iran

quote:
TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on Sunday tried to allay Iranian fears over a planned U.S.-Iraq security pact, saying his government would not allow Iraq to become a launching pad for an attack on its neighbor.

"Iraq today doesn't present any threat as it used to be in the times of the former regime," al-Maliki told Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during a Sunday meeting between two leaders, according to a statement from the prime minister's office.

"Today's Iraq is a constitutional state based on the rule of law, and it seeks to develop its relations with the regional countries based on cooperation and mutual respect," al-Maliki said.

I can't believe, at this point, that the U.S. administration would respect such a statement from Iraqi heads. They/we have bases there. Plural.
I think the "fuck you" attitude from the administration will prevail. I am not happy about this point of view I harbor.[/QUOTE]

quote:

My question. What would you consider to be 'indubitable verification'?

That's subjective. Doubt is like that, yes? However, insofar as many of the intel entities, providing the data for Bush's causus belli, themselves felt the intel was "iffy", well, that is certainly one end of the 'indubitable intel' container: when the providers themselves doubt its veracity.

quote:

"Open to public debate" is no red herring. When you expand the group of people who can research and debate a question from a couple thousand in windowless rooms in northern Virginia to the world's entire scientific/research community, and all the data is available to all of them, you get better at verifying or discrediting a given conclusion. When you can't go open for one reason or another, verification becomes trickier. In essence, you're almost never going to achieve a level of confidence in your answer that would be acceptable for action in normal, open fields of human endeavor. Yet sometimes, action is still thought necessary.

Nice of you to explain something I already know. Words and expressions like clandestine, security clearance, need to know, yea, even secrecy, are in my vocabulary.

quote:

Originally posted by Boogerhead:
How's this for slick and edgy:

There's no such thing as a good president. Finding the worst of that lot is an excercise in splitting infinities.

Au contraire, it's easy peasy. In your model the worst resident is whoever holds that office. If they're all bad, then it's the current toxin spew that is the worst.

lol...whoever takes the office is the worst. Seems like that's what our election process guarantees.

quote:

In essence, you're almost never going to achieve a level of confidence in your answer that would be acceptable for action in normal, open fields of human endeavor. Yet sometimes, action is still thought necessary.

One serious problem with this operative model is it invites delusion, even derangement. For example:

"We don't know what's happening but we've got to do something!"

"Why?"

"We don't know!"

This has rarely, RARELY, led to wise action and beneficial results.

quote:

Seems like that's what our election process guarantees.

I don't think it guarantees anything (including an honest and accurate tally of votes).

Typically, however, a candidate cannot honestly address the most genuine problems pressing the electorate. He must pander to what the people are most responsive to.

The process of living is itself very poor at creating human beings capable of good self-governance. Those rare exceptions are... AMAZING.

"You're not all fucked up?!? How'd you do that?!?"

This however does not exclude great men. Lincoln certainly didn't run on a manumission platform. But he was a great soul who found himself in great times and did great things.

quote:

One knows indubitably verified facts.

I said that.

Example: the kind of work done by MOSCOM.

Example: pictures of Soviet missiles in Cuba 4+ decades ago.

example: Soviets shot Gary Powers down.

It does exist, indubitable intel.

quote:

I can't believe, at this point, that the U.S. administration would respect such a statement from Iraqi heads. They/we have bases there. Plural.
I think the "fuck you" attitude from the administration will prevail. I am not happy about this point of view I harbor.

Assume that Iraq signs a nonaggression pact with Iran (I suppose they already have?)

USA paints itself seriously black if it violates that pact.

quote:

It does exist, indubitable intel.

I suppose it must.

Thanks for the insight.