I was reading the normally sensible Steve Bainbridge when I came across this post that seems to have come from the planet Zebulon in the galaxy Warblogger. Bainbridge offers his interpretation of an intelligence memo in parallel with Kevin Drum's. I was struck by the complete disconnect between Bainbridge's interpretation and the actual words of the memo.
I emailed Bainbridge to see if I could get an explanation. With his permission, I post our correspondence:
- TL:
- Your interpretation of:
"Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials."
is
"Learning something that might contribute to national security isn't even on the rader screen."
The only way I make sense of your interpretation is if you somehow believe that national security requires that improper conduct by the administration be covered up. Is that what you believe?
- SB:
- My point was that nothing in the memo is addressed to actually learning anything about national security. It's all about partisan advantage.
- TL:
- In a war on terrorism, intelligence is the primary weapon. It is not true that intelligence has nothing to do with national security.
- SB:
- Yeah, but they don't want to learn about intelligence failures, they just want to spin.
- TL:
- Forgive me, but you seem to be just making stuff up here. Where in the memo do they say that they don't want to learn about intelligence failures?
- SB:
- Look, the point I was trying to make was that the memo is all about partisan spin. The whole tone of the memo is: How do we maximize our ability to castigate the majority? Do you really think that the democrat staffers are selflessly concerned solely with promoting national security?
- TL:
- I don't think that is their sole concern. But your claim was that they did not care at all about promoting national security. Uncovering improper conduct by the administration will both embarass the administration and promote national security.
- SB:
- So your point, I take it, is that I spun it too hard to the "Democrats are evil, give them no credit" side. Fair enough. I don't admit it, of course, but I'll concede it is a plausible argument. If so, however, should you not also acknowledge that Kevin Drum spun it just as hard to the "Democrats are patriots who care nothing for partisan advantage" side? You could then make some apt (albeit commonplace) comments about the the red state/blue state divide in American politics, perhaps pointing out with sympathy that I am a misplaced red stater who not lives in a blue state, but also a red county thereof.
- TL:
-
No, my point is not that you spun it too hard. "Spinning" implies that you are offering your interpretation of the facts. Instead, you seem to be making up your own set of facts. You have failed to provide any evidence for your claim that they did not care at all about promoting national security. This claim appears to be your invention and not to be based on the content of the memo. If you can point to the spot where they said or implied that they did care, please do so.
Furthermore, you have misrepresented Kevin Drum's position. He did not claim that "Democrats are patriots who care nothing for partisan advantage", but rather:
Obviously, both sides are interested in using this for political advantage, but it strikes me that if there's a party to accuse of not being interested in truly investigating the full scope of our intelligence failures, it's the Republicans.
Next, you try to claim some sort of moral equivalence between your interpretation and Drum's. There is none. Drum's position is that the Democrats are interested in investigating the full scope of the intelligence failures. This is supported by the actual words of the memo. Your position is that they don't care. This is contradicted by the actual words of the memo.
Finally, I don't understand why where you live is relevant to the discussion.
- SB:
-
At this point there is nothing left but to let our readers decide. Which is fine by me.
BTW: I don't think I'm "making things up." I think I'm drawing inferences on the basis of the text of the memo. Whether or not they are plausible inferences, I leave to my readers to decide.
- TL:
-
It's only an inference if there is some basis in the text for it. I've tried quite hard to get you provide such a basis but you have failed to do so. You dismiss the actual words of the memo that contradict your interpretation apparently because you believe that "Democrats are evil" and don't say what they really mean. This lets you invent an interpretation unconstrained by the actual language of the memo or any notion of fairness. "Making things up" is perhaps too mild a term to describe what you did.
Update: The next round is here.