TPMCafe | Talking Points Memo | Slideshow of Horrors

by the same token it's simply not possible to offer definitive proof that something didn't happen

Huh? Sure it's possible. For example, if there were eyewitness accounts that Atta was in the US, rather than the Czech Republic, at the time. But there simply aren't any such eyewitness accounts he was here (and, of course there IS an eyewitness account that he was in Prague).

Posted by helpme
January 3, 2006 9:06 AM | Reply | Permalink

lol! Good point. Nonetheless, we are going to have to address this issue of methodological rigour in the security studies field. If any of you are up for it, all the power to you. Selection bias is the core principle it has seemed.
I have other paths that I want to explore.

Posted by sdanielles
January 3, 2006 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink

The slideshow repeats the mantra that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but by the same token it's simply not possible to offer definitive proof that something didn't happen.

The burden of proof falls on the Bush Administration. A case can not be made without proof. It would be like in a criminal case to say we have no evidence that the defendant was at the scene of the crime but since he can not account for his whereabouts he is guilty because he could have been there. This is beyond circumstantial evidence. The Bush administration's case to go to war with Iraq vis-a-vis their alleged ties to Al-Qaeda is based on uncorroborated evidence. It is completely based on "could have beens"...

Posted by Libertine
January 3, 2006 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink

It's bad enough that what counts as evidence of a connection includes AQ personnel crossing borders from Afghanistan to Iraq to avoid capture in the war. That's hardly a connection.

But the next clause in the sentence undermines even that rationale for invasion: the AQ personnel may only be transiting Iraq on their way to ... Saudi Arabia.

But we can't invade Bandar Bush, can we?

--
Geez, one needn't even read past the first bullet to know not to trust what's to come. Any presentation that begins by claiming that the intelligence agancies have too high a standard for evidence tells you that the evidence you're about to hear is flimsy, right?

& fnally, a note on evidence: I'm with Matt, the fact that there are eye-witnesses is not definitive. They make mistakes, like seeing two people together in Prague when they weren't. Ask any criminologist about the reliability of eye-witnesses.

Posted by sinceimust
January 3, 2006 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink

welcome reminder of the contempt in which the analytic judgments of the intelligence community were held before the war.

OK, so, problemo: Then what do you do with this in tomorrow's paper:

Agency First Acted on Its Own to Broaden Spying, Files Show

By ERIC LICHTBLAU and SCOTT SHANE

The N.S.A. acted without a formal directive from President Bush to expand its domestic surveillance in the weeks after 9/11.

Everything I've read on it so far agrees with that, that this bubbled up from the intel community, not from the top down. Bush just happened to likey.

I think it's like Petey has said elsewhere. This one is not good for the Dems. If it's not bi-partisan, it's not going anywhere. It's all about oversight. It's even about oversight of the intel community by the president, whoever he/she may be, watching for our rights while at the same time being commander-in-chief.

P.S. Aside: You are brave. About two years ago, I'd say, I recognized my folly in trying time after time to valiantly post loads o' logical links, and decided to simply refuse to recognize the Atta Prague story, that it was a truly hopeless exercise. The story's true believers are way more maddening than your worst "how can steel melt" and "what about those cell phones on the flights" conspiracists. They love to be teased into action. I think most of them were just born too late to get the same kick out of the Kennedy assassination as their forebears.

Posted by artappraiser
January 3, 2006 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink

So the Bush administration claims that no proof that something occurred is not proof that it did not. Sounds like they are admitting they have no proof to me or is that just a Freudian slip?

So they are admitting they have no proof but that did not stop these fellows, oh no, these rugged souls would not let a mere thing like no proof get in the way of their master plan.

Now some would admire this wondrous optimism, no proof is not proof, and would admire the administrations tenacity, their blind faith in the face of adverse conditions such as no proof.

On the other hand some would call it dumber than dirt but would probably continue to admire it anyway if for no other reason than its unique place in the universe, there is, and could be no parallel.

Posted by rob payne
January 4, 2006 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink

Even after being waterboarded KSM apparently wouldn't admit to such a meeting! Although I guess that shows he didn't just tell them what they wanted to hear, although it's probably so crazy to him to think that his group, al Qaeda, would work with the Baath and Hussein in Iraq that perhaps he never even thought of the possibility that what they wanted to hear were al Qaeda - Iraq links.

Posted by ohiomeister
January 4, 2006 7:30 AM | Reply | Permalink