Really? PIty they were not used. larry
>While it may very well have been "group think", we need to have mechanisms >in place to counter such psychology. >-----Original Message----- >From: Larry C. Lyons [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 5:34 PM >To: CF-Community >Subject: RE: US Intelligence report analysis.. > > >The more I hear and read the more it looks like there may not have >been any weapons of mass destruction. So what happened. Aside from >the comment that the administration used WMD as a way of getting the >Bush team to agree on a single reason for going to war, I am >beginning to suspect that a social psychological phenomenon called >group think >happened in the Bush administration. > >Here's the definition of Group think taken from Hilgard's >Introduction to Psychology > >Necessary Conditions > >A cohesive group. >Isolation of the group from outside influences. >No systematic procedures for considering both the pros and cons of >different courses of action. >A directive leader who explicitly favors a particular course of action. >High stress. > >Symptoms > >Illusion of invulnerability, morality, and unanimity. >Pressure on dissenters. >Self-censorship of dissent. >Collective rationalization. >Self-appointed mind guards. > >Flaws of Decision Making Process Under Groupthink > >Incomplete survey of the group's objectives and alternative courses of >action. >Failure to examine the risks of the preferred choice. >Poor and incomplete search for relevant information. >Selective bias in processing the information at hand. >Failure to reappraise rejected alternatives. >Failure to develop contingency plans in case of failure. > >Going over this list it would appear that the Bush administration >fits the conditions, symptoms and decision making process flaws very >well. > >There have been numerous accounts of this decision, and when I read >over them (taken from the Washington Post etc), I was struck by how >much it does apply to this situation, a very cohesive group, a >leader who very much wanted to invade Iraq, high stress (almost goes >without saying). As for the remaining points a lot of it we cannot >determine simply due to the secretive nature of the Bush >administration, but the media accounts of parts of the process also >note that there may have been poor and incomplete searches for >relevant information (the recent controversy about the intelligence >on Iraq for instance), the selective biases are probably quite >obvious, and the failure to develop contingency plans and the lack of >reappraisals of alternatives. > >I hazard a bet that in 10 years or so the Iraq war and the WMD >decisions involved with it will probably be used as very good >examples of group think. > >regards, > >larry > > >>Anyone with a sense of balance should take any single sentence extract from >>large report with a degree of skepticism, unless that sentence was in the >>summary. Even then, why only one sentence, not a paragraph or a sentence >>with some supporting details? Perhaps it is because all of the other >>sentences diminished the impact or in fact completely changed it's meaning. >>Frankly, if the report was all that much in support of Bush shenanigans, >>more would have been leaked out. A wonderful part of our system of >>government is that it is incredibly hard to hide things. Not impossible, >>just hard. >> >>Hopefully, I have/had have the same approach even when it is/was convenient >>to do otherwise. >> >>Andy >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Sunday, June 08, 2003 10:53 AM >>To: CF-Community >>Subject: Re: US Intelligence report analysis.. >> >> >>A reasonable position. I thought the "one sentence" was the one Gel quoted, >>but you are saying the story only quotes one sentence of the report? I >>guess if I were an agnostic leaning pro Bush rather than an agnostic >>leaning to not believiing Bush I would not rush to change my position based >>on that either. >> > >Dana >> >>On Sun, 8 Jun 2003 07:06:41 -0500, Andy Ousterhout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >wrote: >> >>> Dana, >>> The Chicago Trib had an article on this as well and unfortunately, only >1 >>> sentence of the report was released. For the record, my opinion is >that: >>> >>> 1. We had no "hard" intelligence that they had WMD's. By hard meaning >>> our >>> own people on the ground who saw the stuff. I believe that the >> > administration said something similar in the September time frame. >>> >>> 2. We had intelligence that indicated that they didn't have WMD's as >>> well >>> as intel that indicated that they did >>> >>> 3. That only the supporting information was either filtered up or was >>> believed by the administration >>> >>> The fundamental question for me is did the administration properly >>> question >>> the information that it received to create a balanced view and go into >>> this >>> situation with a solid understanding. If the information that they >>> received >>> was balanced in that it had both supporting and dissenting views and the >>> supporting views outweighed the negative then I'm ok with the way they >>> sold >>> the war (I am using this approach to try to isolate the repetitive >>> discussion on whether the war was right even without WMD's). If they >did >>> not get a full picture from which to base there decision, either they >>> weren't asking or the intelligence community wasn't was passing up all >of >>> the information at hand or asking enough why's. In this case, we need a >>> thorough analysis of the intelligence community and the Bush >>> administration >>> should be held responsible for a lousy decision making process. If Bush >> > believed that there were no WMD's but decided not to tell us because he >> > believed we still needed to overthrow Saddam, then he also needs to be >> > held >>> responsible for lying to the American people. Fundamentally, I do not >>> believe that the ends justifies the means. >>> >>> I just try not to react as each side in the political battle leaks out >>> one >>> thing or another. We just don't know yet what really happened and may >>> not >>> know until latter when an insider decides to speak out about the >process. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Dana Tierney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 9:31 PM >>> To: CF-Community >>> Subject: Re: US Intelligence report analysis.. >>> >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> If you follow the link there is a whole special feature there. The >>> initial >>> story looks substantial and to my eye fairly balanced. You and I >disagree >>> about balance however :) Anyway, I haven't read the whole thing so I am >>> not >>> prepared to discuss it, but I think it says somethng when MSNBC starts >>> questioning the process. Likewise the Albuquerque Journal, which as I >>> have >>> previously noted is pro business, pro war and pro Bush, recently came >out >>> against a nuclear production facility in NM, the stated reason being >more >>> or less distrust of the feds and of the current administration in >>> particular... >>> >>> Dana >>> >>> Andy Ousterhout writes: >>> >>>> Gel, >>>> >>>> Interesting sentence. Not saying that this isn't important, it is >just >>>> unfair to pull out one sentence and then define it's meaning in the >>> context >>>> of the whole. This is just one item that is helping create the >picture >>> of >>>> the decision making process. Not saying the process isn't flawed. >Just >>>> saying that we don't know enough to say it was. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Angel Stewart [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2003 3:42 PM >>>> To: CF-Community >>>> Subject: US Intelligence report analysis.. >>>> >>>> >>>> "The Pentagon's intelligence agency had no hard evidence of Iraqi >>>> chemical weapons last fall but believed Iraq had a program in place to >>>> produce them, the agency's chief said Friday. The assessment suggests a >>>> higher degree of uncertainty about the immediacy of an Iraqi threat - >at >>>> least with regard to one portion of its banned weapons programs - than > >>> the Bush administration indicated publicly in building its case for > >>> disarming Iraq, with force if necessary." >>>> >>>> http://msnbc.com/news/923165.asp?0si=- >>>> >>>> Well there ya go. >>>> >>>> -Gel >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
