You don’t. He scored a 1206.
But then, playing fast and loose with facts to make debate points is just following the example set by the administration, I suppose.
elucidator:
Of course. And I beleive that you have the right to expect that this should be so.
What you don’t have the right to do is to analyze the sensitive intelligence from which this truth (if that it is,) is derived.
That is why we have a system of checks, balances, and accountability both before and after the fact, such as the one that occured this morning.
The one fact that you have here is that the C.I.A has allegedly said one thing at one level, and something else at another level.
There are several possibilities as to why this occured. You seem to have used no other criteria than to select the one you find most personally appealing.
You suppose wrong. I’d seen that cite before. The SAT test has gotten easier over time, and people who’ve taken the test in the past are supposed to adjust their score by a multiplier depending on when they took it in order to reconcile it with today’s scores.
Those scores are not adjusted.
A. The CIA, just like every other government beaurocracy, is highly political. That they are downplaying facts in order to cover their own asses is not a given, but certainly plausible.
B. There is no requirement that Bush or the CIA be dishonest in order to explain a disagreement between them. Occam’s Razor doesn’t apply very well here, because there is no one, simplest explanation.
Incorrect. A complete idiot could not score extremely high on an SAT without an extraordinary amount of lucky guessing. Similarly, someone brilliant would not get a 400. While not the best indicator of intelligence, it does tell you something about a person. Second, nobody said he was a genius, just that he was moderately intelligent, and certainly not the imbecile that his detractors like to paint him as.
[aside]
May I ask why it is that liberals can’t just say they disagree with the policies of republicans, they need to paint them as complete idiots? If you buy into this, every single republican president in the history of the US, with the possible exception of Lincoln (whose only saving grace is that he freed the slaves) must have been a blithering fool barely capable of tying his shoelaces. Thoroughly annoying.
[/aside]
Lastly, I’d like to see a cite for that “Do you have blacks here?” quote. It smells like a standard-issue liberal urban legend to me.
Jeff
That’s what I SAID Scylla, Jennings is being “falsely attributed” as the one who is conflicted with Bush, when IN FACT he is only reporting that the CIA has conflicted with Bush. Here, take a look at part 2:
- straw man. The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000.
…1. A person who is set up as cover or a front for a questionable enterprise. 2. An argument or opponent set up so as to be easily refuted or defeated
How is this different from how I have used the term?
My definition of Occam’s razor is the commonly used paraphrase of what you just wrote. Here is the defintion from the American Heritage Dictionary:
VARIANT FORMS: also Oc·cam’s razor
NOUN: A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. Also called law of parsimony.
What we KNOW is that Bush and the CIA are contradicting each other. The simplest explanation is that the the POLITICAL entity (the one with a MOTIVE) is not being honest. Hypothesizing about double-super-duper-extra-secret information would qualify as “needless multiplication.”
SAT scores have very little to do with innate intelligence. Virtually anyone can be coached to score well on them. I got almost perfect scores on my own SAT’s 20 years ago. I guess I must be a genius.
Asking if there are “blacks” in Brazil is not a verbal miscue or one of his (many) malapropisms (e.g. "terriers and baliffs) it was a fucking retarded question.
Scylla, do you actually have anything to say that is on topic now or do you want to continue with this childish semantic nitpicking?
The first “level” is Mr. Tenets report to Congress, who are my elected representatives. Are we to assume that the Executive Branch is privy to a “higher” level of information? And that it should not surprise us if that “higher” info is in direct contradiction to that which is proferred to the non-Elite? Now, I might understand that the “higher” level of info has more detail, more “sensitive” information. But to be in direct contradiction? No, I think not.
[aside: nice use of “alleged”, by the way. No one speaks Spinish like you.]
There are? Well, what are they?
No, it is quite easy to understand. It is somewhat harder, coming from you, to believe.
The only possible explanation for any discrepancy between what the news media tells you and what Bush tells you, that you seem prepared to accept, is that Bush is lying. Matters relating to national security, the safety and continued operation of sources, possibly biased or misleading statements from interested parties other than Bush, simple disagreement on matters which are other than obvious - none of these seem to receive a moment’s consideration. Someone said something different from Bush, Bush is a liar, end of story.
This is a possible rhetorical, or even a political, opinion. I can think of circumstances in which it is appropriate to assume that someone is lying until proven otherwise. A certain prominent politician has given us many recent examples of times when discounting every word out of his mouth makes excellent sense.
But most serious-minded people do not take this track until it has been shown to be appropriate. You seem to think that it is. Well and good for you.
But I rather suspect that if and when the absolute truth comes out, it will be difficult for you to accept, if it contradicts in any way your automatic assumption that your personal bete noir is anything other than Satan incarnate.
If you are so committed to “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” as you say you are, you may want to take a more balanced view.
Regards,
Shodan
I no longer explain the obvious to you over and over.
Here is a link which should amply demonstrate the intellectual deficiency of GWB. It includes the Brazil story. (although I got it slightly wrong. He asked the question to the president of Brazil, but he wasn’t IN Brazil at the time)
**
No assumption necessary. It’s a fact.
Correct.
Information from an inside informer in Saddam’s heirarchy would be precisely the sort of information that would be too sensitive to share with the Congress, or the Public.
It is also the source that would be most likely to dramatically change the intelligence picture.
Your assumption that this would not be so is exactly wrong.
Scylla says Bush scored over 1400 on his SATs.
Time Magazine says Bush scored 1206.
How do we explain the discrepancy? The possibilities:
-
Scylla is spouting off without worrying too much about whether what he says is factually correct, because he is motivated to win a debate.
-
Scylla knows Bush didn’t score over 1400 on the SAT. He is purposely exaggerating Bush’s test-taking skills to score debate points. Scylla knows Bush scored reasonably well, so what’s the harm if he adds a couple hundred points?
-
That damn Time Magazine is just spouting off liberal claptrap again.
-
The testing board gave one level of information to Time Magazine, but secretly passed along a “higher level” of information to Scylla. (Never mind that they have no discernable motive to pass out conflicting data.)
Hmmm. Which should I believe…
Oh yeah, thanks Diogenes. Great cite. Wow.
Leaving the newscaster culdesac aside: I find it difficult to believe, personally, that al-Qaida is intertwined in any meaningful way with Saddam’s administration, simply because I cannot reconcile Saddam’s well-known hostility to Islam (and religion in general) with the overtly Islamic identity of bin Laden’s group. Unless someone can show that Saddam has had a change of heart on this issue (and no, the politically opportunistic payments made to suicide bombers’ surviving relatives don’t count; that’s obviously more about stirring up trouble for Israel than supporting holy warriors), I’m going to stick with my serious doubts.
Spoke:
What’s your problem?
The Collegeboard website itself should show you the recentering graphs.
IIRC, there’s a score inflation adjuster he gets to multiply by to bring his scores to the 1995 level and then there’s a chart to recenter the adjusted score to today’s level.
I said over 1400 because I didn’t recall specifically, but I know the recentering alone gets him about an extra 100 points.
If I’m off, it’s not by much at all, and certainly the point is valid, which is that his scores were very good.
There is a cite floating around on this board showing his adjusted score north of 1400, unless my memory is very much in error.
The wonderful thing about arguments like this one is that because nobody really knows anything and the people who should know are saying precious little, every body gets to make stuff up – that is just what is going on here. We can speculate all we want about the President receiving privileged and sensitive information and getting more detailed information than, for instance, select members of Congress, BUT we cannot escape the FACT that the CIA has publicly said that it has no persuasive information showing a connection between Sadam and Osama. That is a fact and it can’t be spun out of out consideration by what are fundamentally made up and conjectural theories about how it happened that the CIA says one thing and the President, with all the confidence of a Christian holding four aces, says another. Sooner or latter the difference will either be explained or forgotten.
In the mean time it seem to me that it is most likely that the President is playing fast and lose with the truth because the truth is subject to further evaluation and the truth he asserts fits into his conclusion (Carthage must be destroyed) better than the competing truth.
Scylla, it may be time to climb down off your high horse and conced that this is a matter on which reasonable men may differ. You take-my-ball-and-go-home approch is not winning you any friends.
Sure, Scylla, it’s a biased cite, but that doesn’t make the incidents of dumbass behaviour any less true.
Spoke:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/010622.html
There’s Cecil on the subject. He makes mention of the recentering, but erroneously states that it occurs for test takers prior to 1994.
According to www.collegeboard.com, the recentering occurs for the class of 1996.
I’m looking for the renorming index which gives you the inflation adjustor, that you multiply to bring your tests to the 1995 levels, but I found that that was not officially endorsed by the college board (though it may be statistically salient.)
Hence, I’m off by about 120 points, and Bush’s actual score is only about a 1280 or so.
I stand corrected, but so do you. We appear to have met in the middle.
Good catch.
Yes, it does. Bias makes uncorroborated assertions less credible.
This is apropos of nothing, but is Scylla really a man? Scylla as described in THE ODDYSEY was a female sea monster. She clung to a rock and snatched sailors off of ships. Just wondering if he knew he has a girl’s username.
sorry about the hijack
Scylla, I think you missed the point of my little parable.
Imagine it’s not an SAT score we’re talking about, but an al-Qaeda connection…