[QUOTE=Voyager]
You forget that we do know that Bush chewed out Tenet for a similar infraction.
[quote]
That’s true enough. But it’s still circumstantial in this instance. I suppose that’s sufficient for the court of public opinion, though.
Well, I work in the world of engineering & engineering consulting - a world where explicitness, specificity and precision are the commonly sought currency. So, yeah, my habits are to, particularly when dealing with the guys higher up the corporate chain since they often overlook the important little pieces which are crucial to a successfully executed consultation, strongly request that they elucidate clearly exactly what it is they wish investigated. One of the most difficult tasks of my project management activities is determining client expectations. And I spend a lot of time doing that; and then managing their expectations throughout the process. In fact, the first document I generally produce after winning a bid, is a scope of work where the specifics are described in detail. Before any actual work then begins, my client must approve this scope document.
There are, of course, consulting gigs where some corporate ape just wants a review of the options available to him, but reports of this nature are generally spun to be as solution-agnostic as possible.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
You forget that we do know that Bush chewed out Tenet for a similar infraction.
I’m an engineer also, and I fully agree. I’m sure you’ve run into case where the client doesn’t know what he wants, right? I don’t know if you do software, but in software it is commonly the case that the client signs for one thing, sees the first results, and then changes his mind. I suspect this is what you mean by manageing expectations.
But the situation in question would occur long before the client ever calls you. The person I was talking about was an engineer also, and quite a well-respected one. But the political stuff (in the broad sense of the word) is not amenable to specs - even in big engineering companies, where I’ve worked. I kind of enjoy maneuvering through that stuff. I was an acting second level manager once, but hated it. I’ve never been laid off, so I do it pretty well, I must say. I suspect you hate this kind of crap, which is part of the reason why you’re a consultant. Trust me though, in playing politics nuances are everything and lots of stuff doesn’t get written down.
Usually, when the title and the original post are different, the poster’s intent is in the post. That’s how I played it, and I was a little irked that most posters were ignoring the post. In fact, the discussion has strayed far from the question in the title, too. You folks aren’t arguing about “Does anybody really believe torture in the US isn’t authorized from the top?” In over 100 posts, hardly anyone addresses whether anybody really believes…from the top. The title question isn’t any more compelling than the one in the post. The answer is, “Yes, quite a few people believe that.” Wasn’t that exciting?
The question in the title is the one to answer. I wanted to see if anyone would actually try to maintain that the Bush Admin. isn’t backing the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. And not even the conservative posters are takig that position. Basically I wanted to see if someone could come up iwth a sound defense of the “not supported” thing, and I have my answer here. No one can.