Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

'Intelligence' on Iraq: Scientific Misconduct analogy more clear than ever

Mar 6, 2004 1:04AM PST

Hi, All.

Reports that Iraq had no illicit weapons ignored.
>>In the two years before the war in Iraq, U.S. intelligence agencies reviewed but ultimately dismissed reports from Iraqi scientists, defectors and other informants who said Saddam Hussein did not possess illicit weapons, according to U.S. officials. <<

In the scientific arena that approach -- selectively throwing out data that don't support your pre-conceived hypothesis -- is a form of scientific misconduct. For example,
Scientist faked data linking electromagnetic fields to cancer:
>>The results of a federal probe into Robert P. Liburdy's research, which found he had committed scientific misconduct by tossing out data that didn't support his conclusions, were reported by the San Francisco Chronicle today and appeared June 30 in Science Now, the Internet edition of the journal Science. <<

The report on our "intelligence gathering" on Iraq also agrees precisely with Paul O'Neill's contention that the Bush Administration knew from Day One that it wanted to invade Iraq, and was merely seeking a pretext to support the invasion. Evie, at least, should appreciate my point. Of course, the same approach seems to characterize many posts here...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:'Intelligence' on Iraq: Scientific Misconduct analogy more clear than ever
Mar 6, 2004 2:42AM PST
- Collapse -
Apophenia is an interesting quirk of the human brain...
Mar 6, 2004 5:31AM PST

What it is is the ability to see connections where there arent any. Such as Clintons sexual aberrations make Bush's decisions on Iraq correct...and so forth. Seems to be a process which is endemic in this room. It is described in depth in many psychological and neurological journals and may be responsible for UFO and ghost sightings!

However, I wouldnt want to eliminate it as it makes for some nice long threads in which 130 of 140 posts have no connection whatsoever to the original message!

- Collapse -
While perusing those journals ...
Mar 6, 2004 10:20PM PST

... be sure to read up on Multiple Personality Disorder. Far more endemic to this room as you say.

- Collapse -
Re: 'Intelligence' on Iraq: Scientific Misconduct analogy more clear than ever
Mar 6, 2004 12:14PM PST

Hi, Ed.

To quote from the P.S. to that message, which you apparently didn't bother to read, I did "carefully follow the debate and wording of the resolution itself when it was introduced (and unfortunately passed) those many months ago -- and there's passing little relationship between that resolution and Ms. Saunders' revisionist exegesis of same." In other words, I based my conclusions on the primary data, not a biased review of the same by someone with a political ax to grind.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
No Dave, I did note the 'PS' and your 'careful following' ...
Mar 7, 2004 1:36AM PST

and remembrance is of the same order as the attention you paid the article--skimmed and mostly ignored.

In other words you base your conclusions not on data but on expectations. Not a very valid approach.

- Collapse -
Why do you even respond to this type of nonsense post, Dave? -nt
Mar 8, 2004 12:33AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Hate to admit when I agree with you.....
Mar 6, 2004 5:44AM PST

...but when you said 'Of course, the same approach seems to characterize many posts here...', PERHAPS you were referring to many of your own ?

- Collapse -
(NT) Message has been deleted.
Mar 6, 2004 7:16AM PST
- Collapse -
Dupe deleted (NT)
Mar 6, 2004 8:07AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Thanks Dave (NT)
Mar 6, 2004 9:01AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Bottom of the Pile stuff...............
Mar 6, 2004 7:30AM PST

This research into the intelligence aspects leading up to the invasion of Iraq is essential and necessary in determining the scope of Lessons Learned; in improving our collection and analysis of intelligence; improving the probability of value judgements placed on those findings; and preventing recurrance of any actions determined to have been inappropriate or wrong that were based upon the use of that intelligence.

In view of the current situation in Iraq, and elsewhere, it seems to me that the leadership of this country, Executive/Legislative/Judicial, should be concentrating on moving forward from the position of today, not prostituting their time and energy on yesterday.

Once the situation has been stabilized in Iraq, and elsewhere, and a final report of this research is available, then is the time to devote some attention.

As long as time and effort is spent reviewing yesterdays decisions, the decisions of today are not being afforded the full attention they demand.

The facts are that we ARE in Iraq; we ARE in a war with terrorists. Yesterdays miscues, real or suggested, and brought to light, are not going to reverse history. We best spend our time and energy is resolving todays issues. Yesterdays problems, real or imagined, political or otherwise, should be shoved to the bottom of the pile on decision makers desks.

That's the flood water of yesterday. It's here, and we can't send it back. Once we clean up from the flood, then we consider how to preclude a recurrance. Standing knee deep in water, screeching, complaining and pointing fingers is not helping anything.

- Collapse -
Very well said Del - It's exactly how I feel about the current situation NT
Mar 6, 2004 8:33AM PST

NT

- Collapse -
Re:Bottom of the Pile stuff...-- I couldn't disagree more, Del.
Mar 6, 2004 12:10PM PST

>>In view of the current situation in Iraq, and elsewhere, it seems to me that the leadership of this country, Executive/Legislative/Judicial, should be concentrating on moving forward from the position of today, not prostituting their time and energy on yesterday. <<

If it were an honest mistake, I'd agree -- making sure it doesn't happen again would be adequate. But there's increasing evidence that it wasn't an honest mistake -- that as O'Neill said, the Bush team wanted an excuse and set out to find one. That's not "honest," and they shouldn't be given a pass. The Bush Administration are responsible for at three major screw-ups in foreign policy. Two (Iraq itself, and the damage our position has done with our former friends and the world) are related; the third is the mess Bush made in North Korea, a situation that was stabe until he started sword rattling at them almost from Day One. What do the two situations have in common? Bush came into office with a visceral dislike of Saddam and Kum-Jung Il. Neither of them are nice people -- but the leader of the free world cannot be considered competetent if he acts out of personal dislike, or desire for vengeance, to the detriment of the nation and the world. And I submit that Bush has acted in precisely that fashion with regard to both Korea and Iraq.

Before you dismiss this as simply more of my anti-Republican rhetoric, contrast Bush's behavior in this regard to those of his Republican predecessors, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, with regard to Russia and China. Yes, Reagan was tough with them -- but he was willing to negotiate when necessary and possible. Instead, Bush's overly simplistic, black/white approach is "you're either for us or against us." There's no wonder Bush wants to exploit the 9/11 situation -- the only aspect of his Preisdency where he hasn't been a complete disaster was the period from 9/11 until around May 2002, with regard to domestic security and the attack on Afghanistan and Al-qaeda (the latter based on Clinton-era military plans!)


-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

BTW, I don't think you mean "prostituting" their time -- probably "wasting" is enough.

- Collapse -
BS, and you know it........
Mar 6, 2004 12:58PM PST

Regardless of if or not President Bush had preordained
plans regarding Iraq and NKorea, the leadership of the
Congress was privy to the same intelligence briefings as
the President. As Sen Kerry recently implied, Bush misled
the Congress in that he actually did what he said he was going
to do, and that is not the WashDC way.

Got news for you and Ted Kennedy, Bush's tough stand
will fare far better with the American public than Kerry's
flip flopping, which continues today.

Save some fervor Dave, you're going to need it before
this game of sharp elbows is over in November.

- Collapse -
BS is right, Del...
Mar 6, 2004 9:42PM PST

BS is right, Del. The original "Konkel-logic" tried to compare data studies and methods from a cancer study with intelligence information. Based, I guess on calling both "data". Pure anti-Bush campaigning.
What the hey, it at least let him work in his daily mention of Nixon.

- Collapse -
You STILL haven't bothered reading the links YOU asked for...
Mar 7, 2004 1:54AM PST

if you persist in comments such as " that as O'Neill said, the Bush team wanted an excuse and set out to find one. That's not "honest," and they shouldn't be given a pass. "

O'Neill never said that nor did he intend the media to interpret his words that way.

YOU are being dishonest here Dave as well as persisting in what you yourself have described as scientific misconduct. Shame on you for attempting to perpetuate the falsehood!

- Collapse -
Keep that link to the Time piece ready Ed ...
Mar 7, 2004 2:34AM PST

... it won't be long before the planned Afghan invasion line is dragged out again Wink

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
The WayBack Macine
Mar 6, 2004 3:25PM PST
- Collapse -
Thank God ...
Mar 6, 2004 9:09PM PST

... we didn't have a bunch of pinko commies at the helm carrying out their mission from Satan Wink

- Collapse -
woult that be neoPINKO or pinkoNEOs? (NT)
Mar 7, 2004 1:58AM PST
- Collapse -
Re:'Intelligence' on Iraq: Scientific Misconduct analogy more clear than ever
Mar 6, 2004 9:11PM PST

Sorry Dave, but I don't see any correlation between O'Neill's comments and this report. The supposed "scientific misconduct" was on the part of the intelligence agencies or did I read that part wrong? Aside from that, I think I will simply concur with Del's comments.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
Re: 'Intelligence' on Iraq: Scientific Misconduct analogy more clear than ever
Mar 7, 2004 3:42AM PST

Hi, Evie.

It's not yet clear whether the intentional downplaying of all evidence that Saddam didn't have WMD happened at the level of the intelligence agencies, higher up, or perhaps both.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
.....Intentional..... downplay
Mar 7, 2004 4:11AM PST

Perception ?, accusation ?, allegation ?, established fact ?, or just the fun of a political campaign.

- Collapse -
Re:..... Intentional..... downplay
Mar 7, 2004 12:19PM PST

Hi, Del.

If you read the link I posted, it's apparently a leaked conclusion of the investigatory commission.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
No doubt about it, Dave...
Mar 7, 2004 1:27PM PST

Dave, no doubt about it, you could give "crawfishing" lessons to a Louisiana Mudbug.
Note to others: a mudbug swiftly avoids danger by propelling himself backwards.
Note #2: In Louisiana, "crawfishing" means rapidly retreating.

- Collapse -
Actually ...
Mar 7, 2004 4:11AM PST

... if you listen to everything Kay and the others have had to say, not just those bits that support your view, it is abundantly clear.

Evie Happy