Saturday, June 07, 2003
We believe what we want to believe. We happily discard any information which contradicts our views. Engineers do it NASA scientists do it. Juries do it. Politicians do it. We all do it. Each of us have some core beliefs that get established somehow. Once they are there it is almost impossible to shake them off.
I have been involved in many situations where people ignored significant and important data, just because they did not agree with it and they were not open to it.
People in significant positions, where life and death decisions are being made must have a process to deal with this human trait. I would guess that there is a lot of discussion and questions about the topic. Perhaps there are think tanks dedicated to just those kinds of issues. The whole process must also have adequate checks and balances to insure well thought out answers, tactics and strategies.
I know this must exist in all major corporations and in government bureaus. I say I know this, not because I really know, but because I want to believe it.
So, what went wrong. How did the United States and Britain's Intelligence agencies message get so garbled? Their analysis stated the following:
Iraq does NOT have any known Nuclear weapons;
Iraq does NOT have any known connections to Al Queda.
Iraq does NOT have any significant amount of chemical or biological weapons
Iraq does NOT pose a threat to the U.S..
How did all of this information get subverted and converted?
Where did the following mantras come from?
Iraq HAS tones of weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam HAS funded Al Queda terrorists just like the ones that hit the towers.
Iraq WILL use them on us, if we don't act NOW.
This message continues to be driven home. The transport planes of returning troops from Iraq, circle Ground Zero, in New York. They are shown the gaping hole in the earth and are told. "that hole is the reason you were sent to Iraq".
How did the original analysis get so scrambled?
The only thing that makes sense is that, Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney. Wolfowitz and Perle ignored the data they were given and chose to look at the data through hawk biased glasses. They only heard what they wanted to hear, and subverted the message for the American public to ensure our support. They did not want any roadblocks for their roadmap to acquiring the second largest oil fields in the world.
If anyone else has a better explanation, please tell me.
I have been involved in many situations where people ignored significant and important data, just because they did not agree with it and they were not open to it.
People in significant positions, where life and death decisions are being made must have a process to deal with this human trait. I would guess that there is a lot of discussion and questions about the topic. Perhaps there are think tanks dedicated to just those kinds of issues. The whole process must also have adequate checks and balances to insure well thought out answers, tactics and strategies.
I know this must exist in all major corporations and in government bureaus. I say I know this, not because I really know, but because I want to believe it.
So, what went wrong. How did the United States and Britain's Intelligence agencies message get so garbled? Their analysis stated the following:
Iraq does NOT have any known Nuclear weapons;
Iraq does NOT have any known connections to Al Queda.
Iraq does NOT have any significant amount of chemical or biological weapons
Iraq does NOT pose a threat to the U.S..
How did all of this information get subverted and converted?
Where did the following mantras come from?
Iraq HAS tones of weapons of mass destruction.
Saddam HAS funded Al Queda terrorists just like the ones that hit the towers.
Iraq WILL use them on us, if we don't act NOW.
This message continues to be driven home. The transport planes of returning troops from Iraq, circle Ground Zero, in New York. They are shown the gaping hole in the earth and are told. "that hole is the reason you were sent to Iraq".
How did the original analysis get so scrambled?
The only thing that makes sense is that, Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney. Wolfowitz and Perle ignored the data they were given and chose to look at the data through hawk biased glasses. They only heard what they wanted to hear, and subverted the message for the American public to ensure our support. They did not want any roadblocks for their roadmap to acquiring the second largest oil fields in the world.
If anyone else has a better explanation, please tell me.
# posted by Thomas @ 12:44 AM 
