This is kind of a rant, kind of a question, kind of a poll. I didn’t know where it should go, I picked here)
The taunt from the title used to drive me crazy when I was a kid. It was a sure fire way to get me to go bonkers. And, it turns out, it still works.
At a recent family (in-laws) gathering, discussion turns to politics, which is not something that typically happens. My MIL is a staunch conservative (mostly for pri-life reasons), while I am much more liberal. I think of myself as moderate. Anyway, we talked a little about abortion, the war in Iraq, an Michael Moore. I was the only one who had seen “Farenheit 9/11”, and while I do not believe the Bush family started the war in Iraq to make money for themsleves and those they are close too, the realtionships that exist between the Bushes and Saudis make me uncomfortable. My sister in law, who has a “Secret” clearance for her job (making maps), was extremely upset at this insinuation (that the war was started to make money) and her refutation of that argument was “I know from the work that I do that Bush is not tied to the Saudis”. I’m sorry for being cynical, I like my SIL, I don’t think she’s on the take from the GOP or the Saudis or the Bush campaign, but I am not convinced by information I can not read/see/hear myself. And it maked me absolutely crazy that there’s no way for me to get to see it. We need a “jumping up and down mad” smilie. It’s rather childish, but ooooo, it makes me nuts. And this is why I never seriously pursued a job in government.
“Trust me, but that’s not the way it is. I know, I’ve seen it, and no, I can’t tell you any more about it.” What’s the response to something like that?
Well, it would depend a lot on how close you are to your sister-in-law. Clearly, you aren’t close enough to simply take her at her word. So I’d go ahead and say so: “Sorry, but if you can’t give me the data you have and let me make my own conclusion, I’m not going to be convinced by your ‘secret information.’ I can only make a judgement on this issue from the information available to me: if you legally can’t tell me what you know, how can I know if it’s more reliable than other sources I’ve heard that indicate the opposite? I don’t mean to impugn your judgement, but you and I don’t always see eye-to-eye. This certainly wouldn’t be the first time we looked at the same data and came to very different conclusions.”
Or, if you don’t like her very much, you could try, “Put up or shut up, bitch.”
There was a Doper that claimed to work for some secret agency (which was supported by other Dopers who knew him) who basically said the same thing about WMDs in Iraq. Wish I could remember the name, IIRC he was being really obnoxious about it too. “I know they exist, but I can’t tell you anymore, and you are twits to doubt my superior knowledge” type stuff. The point is, “inside info” obviously turned out to be almost certainly wrong.
Anyway, it seems strange that someone could have inside information that there are no ties between Bush and the Saudis; did she really mean the ties were not the cause of the war? It seems the ties are pretty well documented, and I never heard anybody doubt them before. The typical defensive argument from the right is that the ties are inconsequential, not they they don’t exist.
The proper answer is “put up or shut up”. Frankly, people that have any kind of restrictions on them regarding information that they can or cannot disclose should not be getting into conversations where there is a danger of inadvertant disclosure of sensitive information. Either she has the straight dope and should not be discussing the issue or she is trying to trump the discussion with her insinuations that a geographer might know what the Bush-Saudi connection might be. Unless her maps have legends indicating that George Bush and Bandar whathisname signed a secret agreement to take over Iraq’s oil for their personal gain right there on the little black X, then she will know shite about the issue.
I too am bothered by the whole I know something you don’t know approach. My mother in law is a wonderful woman that does this from time to time and it drives my wife and I nuts. She truly believes that she is “protecting” us from whatever she is hiding. 99% of the time we already knew the news and found it to be trivial crap.
I’ve also seen at least one of the posters on this board use the old “I’ve seen the secret stuff” argument when it came to the whole issue of whether the invasion of Iraq was justified. Drives me batshit.
People like that are dying to be noticed. Drives me up a wall, too. But, I’ve found that showing you really don’t give a damn drives them nuts more. “I understand you can’t talk about it; I wouldn’t expect you to discuss it if it violates your security clearance.” And leave her out of the discussion. After all, if she can’t talk about it, she shouldn’t involve herself in your discussion.
I wish I could remember exactly what was said bedore her announcement, but I can’t. I didn’t take her attitude as smug. It was more as exasperation that she really did know something that she couldn’t share. I suppose, also, that it’s that her information supports the “other side”, so to speak, that annoys me.
And I wonder what exactly maps could tell her about the situation. I don’t think she’s lying or just looking for attention, but I wish she’d just stay out of these discussions. So, Maureen, I’ll take your approach if it pops up again. And Miller’s, and cj finn’s and …
REevtim, her argument was more that Bush didn’t start the war to make money, not that Bush and the Saudis had no connection. My OP was misstated.
I have a lot of family in the military, and I’ll let you in on a little secret. Spewing utter bullshit and claiming authority from behind security clearance is to the military what swimming is to fish. If you think that what you heard was a crapfest, you should hear some of the godawful idiocy my halfwit uncle tries to pass off. I’m talking shit like “Bill Clinton was a Chinese sleeper agent” here. Strangely this was available to the intelligence community, and they never did anything about it…
Anything that’s actually classified they wouldn’t be telling you about. If they’re talking about it and pretend they can’t divulge the source, they’re lying. There’s no need to reason it out, debate the point, ask for verification. If they pull the line, it’s bullshit, just ignore them because it’s only going to get more childish from there. It’s like arguing with someone using tortured numerology to prove that the world is going to end next Tuesday, they don’t care about facts or logic, the argument exists merely to taunt others and inflate their ego.
PS - I think you’re referring to Bluesman, Revtim.
Speaking as someone who had high security clearance (and thankfully not as the doper mentioned by Revtim it can be very inviting to reveal titbits of information without having any way to back it up. Also I am sure it is tempting to pretend knowledge and insight that you don’t have. This is part of the reason that it really is best to avoid any comments on what secrets you know, not only are you breaking the law revealing them even in slight detail, but also you can easily make yourself look a prat. For the OP tell your SIL that you respect that she cannot give details but that you also realise that she is far from knowing the entire truth of the situation (presuming she is not the head of CIA NSA etc) and what extra she knows is not enough to absolve Bush of any possible connection with Saudi Arabia.
Well, in some cases, the best response is to wait until the whole issue becomes much clearer. The whole question of the “imminent danger” posed by Saddam Hussein with his alleged WMDs is a case in point.
Exhibit 1: Bluesman (all quotes from this thread, from February 2003)
and
Exhibit 2: Airman Doors, USAF
and
That classified knowledge they had sure was reliable.
I think the best response is a hearty “sure you do” with as much sarcasm as you can load onto it. If they do have classified information, they shouldn’t, because they’re obviously incapable of keep that information to themselves (the fact that they do have classified information, not the classified information itself). If they don’t have any classified information, they’re just spinning bullshit. OK, possibly a simple, “Don’t they teach you people anything about security where you work?” might work.
