While I know that this group is NOT meant to be a political forum (per se) - where such viewpoints are expressed, I must wonder at the "determinate" * blinders* that one *must* have welded to one's perceptual & inferential capacities... blinders of such magnitude that would enable *anyone* to consciously "exonerate" the former president (& his cronies) freeing them of any real culpability... and *realistically*, the "lion's share" of the blame: Obvious 'hindsight' motivations of the executive branch aside... the history of that administration's calculating steps, selfishly taken to needlessly embroil America in two wars, is *undeniable*.
>>> To* further* the insult to this nation, there are those who would attempt every trick of deceit & "slight of hand" to further their "revisionist" agenda. What's even more galling, is their capacity for self-deception, as *some* evidently, *truly* believe the hogwash they are tying to push unto others as the "righteous" truth. Luckily, most in this nation have awakened from their post-9/11 shock, and the lunacies of the Fox News devotees are now pathetically transparent. To be sure, all of the US citizenry *must* share responsibility for being too ready to accept the dictates of a seriously flawed intelligence system, but even the collective gullibility of that time *pales* in comparison to the rancor & obfuscations presented to the public as 'undeniable findings' for WMDs in Iraq. The "prudent" thing to have done. given hindsight, would have been to adopt less Draconian measures toward Iraq (pro-tempori) and play more protracted & watchful game of intensive surveillance. >>>> Wrapping up, *assessment of adopted* *"epistemological standards" is* *a perfectly fine, predictive way to assess the relative health (and efficacy) of the subsystems & subsequent impacts felt with the eco-cultural matrix of any culture. >> For humanity to succeed in the coming decades, there willneed to be reliable epistemological architectures/ models, * formulated to cut through & expose the many maladaptive forms of cultural "BS," entrenched in every human culture! On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 6:08 PM, aruzinsky <[email protected]>wrote: > > > On Sep 6, 12:17 pm, chazwin <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sep 6, 4:01 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 5, 3:47 pm, abcdefz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Since I got a response, I guess I'll chime in again... > > > > > > Too verbose and wrong? I tend to try not to waste a lot of > time > > > > making broad generalized statements, so I'll limit myself to two > > > > points. "Too verbose" is a subjective judgement. There are > doubtless > > > > many people out there who would come down on either side of that > > > > issue, so, there is no way that I can fault your opinion. Opinions > > > > being what they are... > > > > I have no idea what to do with the reference to some > Wiki-whatever > > > > article. It didn't seem to address the issue that _I_ was speaking > > > > of, which stated, fairly simply, that there were miskakes made with > > > > intel that various 'movers and shakers' had access to at that time. > > > > > > ****** Now, I'm going to quote from an article you can find on the > > > > Cato Institute site: > > > > "https://www.cato.org/research/articles/reynolds-040620.html"; > > > > > > This is merely one article of many that visits the issue of > WMDs and > > > > Iraq. I'm more likely to believe something that I got off of Cato, > > > > rather than wiki-whatever: > > > > > > *****Quote > > > > Ironically, a few writers attempting to defend the White House and > > > > Pentagon also claimed Mr. Tenet should not be blamed. These Iraq war > > > > supporters ended up claiming -- as did war critics -- Mr. Tenet did > > > > nothing wrong. > > > > > > Michael Barone of U.S News & World Report wrote Mr. Tenet's infamous > > > > "slam dunk" remark " > > > > *****was the conclusion as well of every other competent intelligence > > > > agency in the world.***** > > > > Tenet was right. Given that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had possessed > > > > weapons of mass destruction [mustard and nerve gas before 1991]... > and > > > > given that Saddam's regime had not accounted for WMDs he had > > > > [reportedly] possessed, any prudent intelligence agency would have to > > > > have concluded that he still had them. > > > > > > Moreover, there was no evidence that could have been obtained which > > > > would have convinced a prudent intelligence agency that Saddam did > not > > > > possess them." > > > > > > We cannot prove Unicorns do not exist either. But requiring skeptics > > > > to prove the nonexistence of invisible objects is an imprudent > > > > definition of prudence > > > > *****End Quote > > > > > > On Sep 4, 4:29 pm, aruzinsky <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Sep 4, 12:16 am, abcdefz <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Too vebose and wrong. Don't you remember the "Freedom Fries" > > > > > propaganda campaign? The French wanted to gather more information > > > > > before waging war with Iraq. Seehttp:// > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_fries > > > > > . > > > > > > > Not that it matters because, when a group is unanimously wrong, it > > > > > just means that they are in bad company- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > "Too verbose" is an objective judgment because I can paraphrase you > > > much more succinctly. > > > > One wonders at your Philosophical standards. "Too verbose" is > > subjective, as you have not applied any standards as to what > > constitutes a properly verbose response to the original posting. > > Is this succinct enough for you, or would you like me to explain > > further? > > > > > > > > > The purpose of the Wiki reference was not to > > > give you new information, but to refresh your memory of news reports > > > from that time. You incorrectly said, "the powers that be, in _EACH_ > > > of our 'allies' respective governments, decided that the information > > > was 'actionable'." That statement is wrong because the government of > > > France, which is a USA ally, did not decide that that information > > > justified invading Iraq. > > > > > BTW, what is the meaning of "_" in your writing and why do you expect > > > anyone to know?- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > It is not a philosophical standard. Needlessly verbose is too vebose. > (period) The more briefly you (plural) speak/write, while maintaining > clarity, the better, because bandwidth, paper, energy and/or time are > saved. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Epistemology" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<epistemology%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
