[CLUE-Talk] Another Bush Lie v2.0

[Jed S. Baer]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2003 11:59:02 -0500 (EST)
black at galaxy.silvren.com wrote:

> More agreement! The reason I originally posted was to disagree with
> whoever posted the thread about why we couldn't all just accept that
> Bush surrounded himself with a bunch of unbiased, impartial people.

I didn't say that. Everyone has some bias, and nobody is completely
impartial. However, intelligent people can, and do, put aside their own
opinions, and reports facts to the best of their ability to do so. I've
done it. I'm sure everyone on this list has done it.

To address Jeff's earlier comments: as a project leader on a large
software implementation, what is it you want to hear? a) Hey Jeff, we're
still OK, it'll be ready by Friday, b) Hey Jeff, we're having some trouble
with the cross-posting in the AR module, and it looks like we'll miss the
Friday deadline, or c) Hey Jeff, we're having this problem, but I think
we'll still make Friday's target? If you're a good project leader, what
you really want to hear is whichever of these is the real story. If for no
other reason, than it's in your own self-interest, because your boss is
going to blame you if you give him an innacurate progress report.

Sure, there are cases of dishonesty. But to address Jeff again, what if
Bush has made it clear to his staff that if they wish to keep their
prestigious jobs, they better talk straight? Does the CEO of your employer
wish to be mislead about how the corporation's products are doing? Sure,
there are those who, when proposing a course of action, will tend to
highlight the facts supporting it. But you can't conclude, from Bush's
comment, that such are his exclusive sources of info. We don't know, from
that statement, the extent of the "staff" he's referring to. Is it just
Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Powell, and Tennet? Does it go further than that?
Does he have staff whose function it is to present an adversarial
argument? If I were president, I'd make sure I had some of that.

So in the end, in the larger context, what I'm hearing here is:

  1) The war is bad, therefore;
  2) Bush lied, therefore;
  3) He must be being deceived by his staff.

Except, of course, that that isn't the whole story, and any particular
point is debatable (or the sequence). But, IMHO, you can't logically
conclude that Bush is ill-informed from that statement, or that he's being
a bad President.

Only because I have it handy, here's something interesting:
http://chudogg.blogspot.com/2003_10_01_chudogg_archive.html#106677959970330975

And: http://techcentralstation.com/103003A.html

jed
p.s. Jeff: I'd rather have her latest book.
-- 
... it is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday
facilitate a police state. -- Bruce Schneier