Re: NYTimes.com Article: Op-Ed Columnist: The C.I.A.:

[Victor Steinbok <victor.steinbok@verizon.net>]

At 10:05 PM 2/4/2004, Peter Majoy wrote:
> I state: Au contraire, not an exaggeration. It is blatantly in support of
> Bush because it reflects the Bush attempt to point the finger of blame at 
> the intelligence community.

W is not the only one pointing the finger and there is no question that 
there was SOME intelligence failure, even if it were not as drastic as W 
people want to make us believe. But, I repeat, simply placing the 
blame--all or in part--at the door of the CIA is not equivalent of 
supporting Bush.

> Additionally, as I
> stated, Bush created his own anointed group that hyped select pieces
> of intelligence and in so doing distorted the intelligence which, according
> to Brooks, was distorted to begin with.

Good--at least, you have the sense to separate the issue of distorted data 
from distorting data-processing. Implying one does not support vindication 
for the other.

> Thirdly, his simplistic assertion
> that we hardly needed intelligence to understand what a criminal Hussein was
> (along with a few others)  builds the case that the invasion was
> right simply based on those gut, unscientific feelings.

Did I miss something? Did Brooks actually state that he supported the 
invasion? And if we were so overwhelmed with "gut feelings" over Saddam's 
treatment of his "subjects", should we interfere every time we sense that 
there are human rights violations? That would certainly contradict W's 
position.

> His article appeared on this list to provide a bit more insight into rash 
> scientific claims around
> testing. Brooks probably approves of NCLB mandates. I don't know. I do 
> know that he has
> written in support of this administration, hence my comments about the
> article published here. In fact, on January 6th, he wrote a lame piece
> called "The Era of Distortion" in which he cast condescending criticism on 
> anyone
> who suggested that neo-cons and Bush had anything in common except their
> aversion to Saddham Hussein.

Actually, he's right--the Bushies and the neo-cons have little in common. 
The trouble is that W is the only non-neocon in his own administration. In 
other words, he's a figurehead, a puppet. And what better puppet than an 
idiot (cf. Reagan, at least in the second term, and Quayle).

On the other hand, I am not disagreeing with you as to where the blame 
lies. Consider the piece in The NYT Book Review last Sunday on The Price of 
Loyalty:

"...The news-cycle4 controversies have obscured the book's central, and 
important, thesis. It is the contention of O'Neill--and of Suskind, a 
Pulitzer Prize--winning journalist...--that in this White House, evidence 
and argument have been routinely pushed aside when they got in the way of 
previously decided political outcomes. That we've heard before. WHat 
enriches "The Price of Loyalty," aside3 from the accretion of persuasive 
detail, is its assertion that in this administration, a time-honored notion 
of public service has been deeply corrupted."

Tomasky goes on to describe the differences between data and opinion 
handling between this White House and that of Nixon and Ford. What is 
relevant to this discussion is that no matter what the issue was and the 
desired outcome, the fact finding involved consideration of different sides 
of the issue--if for no other reason, it was to give practice to refute 
opposition. No such fact-checking occurs in this White House or among the 
neocons in general. Once the desired outcome is determined, all 
evidence--scientific or not--contrary to that position is simply ignored. 
So Brooks is wrong because he faults the intelligence community for 
over-reliance on science--they may not rely on the scientific approach to 
their evidence ENOUGH--but he is not vindicating the White House in doing 
so. The administration still had the obligation to consider alternative 
sources of information. This was simply not the subject of his column.

> You state:
> >On the other hand, objectivity is not quite the same animal as scientific
> >reductionism (or "scientism"). The latter is probably better described as
> >"emotionless" rather than "objective". But accusing an OpEd columnist of
> >lack of objectivity is silly to begin with--it is an OPINION column, 
> after all.
>
> I state: whether it is "objectivity" or "scientific reductionism" isn't 
> the point.
> Many who are supposedly "objective" try to appear "emotionless" too.

You haven't refuted a thing. The fact that there is an intersection between 
"emotionless" and "objective" does not identify one as the other.

> That was part of his point that I agreed with. Lastly, it's fun to accuse 
> someone of a
> contradiction and its silly  to assume that opinions clothed as 
> "objective" don't merit a poke
> in the ribs simply because they are not objective by definition. That 
> approach would
> summarilly shut down debate on the grounds that it's just all opinion anyway.

An opinion that is not based on evidence does not warrant a debate, so it 
would be perfectly justifiable to shut it down. This is neither a rejection 
of opinions nor of debates, but if one hopes to DEBATE his OPINIONS, he 
better have EVIDENCE that his opinion has merit. THAT is the issue of 
objectivity and rationalism.

> Opinions are influential, so it isn't the worst canon of response to 
> illustrate where an expressed
> opinion is internally contradictory.

This, my friend, is one kind of EVIDENCE, so you are actually supporting my 
statement. A scientific theory basically amounts to a well-supported 
opinion and if it is not supported by evidence, it is usually dismissed. 
Quite frequently, it may be dismissed even if evidence does exist to 
support it. However, the point is that such decisions are usually a blend 
of the rational and the irrational, something that Brooks misses entirely, 
as, apparently, you do as well.

        VS-)