Great Article Detailing the Bush Administration's Failures in Intelligence

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter RageSk8
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    article Intelligence
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around an article detailing perceived failures in intelligence during the Bush Administration, particularly in relation to the Iraq War. Participants explore themes of information manipulation, ethical considerations, and the implications of leadership styles on decision-making processes.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that Bush's approach of relying on staff for information reflects a lack of intellectual curiosity, potentially leading to 'stovepiping' of information.
  • There is a proposal that this information control could have been intentional to create 'plausible deniability'.
  • Others express skepticism about the idea that the Bush Administration deliberately concocted lies, arguing instead that they may have simply accepted information that aligned with their beliefs.
  • A participant reflects on the notion that the primary deception may have been self-deception within the administration.
  • Concerns are raised that basic protocols for information verification were not followed, contributing to the spread of misinformation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the intentions and actions of the Bush Administration, with some arguing for a more sinister interpretation and others advocating for a perspective of ignorance or self-deception. No consensus is reached on these interpretations.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the complexity of motivations behind decision-making in political contexts and the challenges of verifying information accuracy within governmental structures.

RageSk8
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

Read it, seriously.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I think this ties in directly to Bush's assertion that he doesn't follow the news, but rather allows his staff to tell him what he needs to hear. It is this utter lack of intellectual curiousity, often brought up pre-election, that has manifested itself in what the article refers to as 'stovepiping': channeling selected information directly to the top, without passing it through the customary filters. This tendency makes it very easy to manipulate knowledge, by controling the information flow. Maybe this was intentional, to allow 'plausible deniability'?
 
Maybe this was intentional, to allow 'plausible deniability'?

I doubt the Bush Administration is so sinister. I always found, and debated against, the view that the Bush and Blaire administrations concocted lies to defend their stance on Iraq - I found it, and still find it, incomprehensible (and this article reaffirms my stance). They simply heard what they wanted to hear.
 
Originally posted by RageSk8
I doubt the Bush Administration is so sinister. I always found, and debated against, the view that the Bush and Blaire administrations concocted lies to defend their stance on Iraq - I found it, and still find it, incomprehensible (and this article reaffirms my stance). They simply heard what they wanted to hear.
I dunno...but then again, it works just as well, based on what we know of these folks...the main lie was the one they told themselves?
 
the main lie was the one they told themselves?

Yeah, pretty much. And all of this misinformation could have been weeded out had the administration followed BASIC protocol.
 
Originally posted by RageSk8
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

Read it, seriously.
Thanks RageSk8,

That's serious. :/
It's shows a lot about ethics.
I hope a lot of people read this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 88 ·
3
Replies
88
Views
14K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 96 ·
4
Replies
96
Views
12K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
8K
Replies
39
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K