Say that the U.S. intelligence assessment (currently being awaited by the President) comes to the conclusion that Iran is responsible for the recent attack on Saudi oil facilities. Can the intelligence assessment be trusted, relied upon? Well, it seems that our leaders - Trump being among them - have been selective about which intelligence they choose to treat as reliable; further, the only serious accountability that would come with acting upon bad intelligence (read: the Iraq invasion) seems to come at the ballot box. (Which intelligence officials were held accountable for the bad Iraq intelligence? Was our intelligence apparatus improved after that debacle? What assurances would we have of any of this? [Edit 9/19: Not to mention the Steele/FISA fiasco.])
In October 2018, journalist Jamal Khashoggi was murdered by members of the Saudi regime, and our national intelligence assessment placed a high degree of probability on the murder being ordered by acting head of state, Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS). In the face of this intelligence assessment, Trump issued a bizarre statement, including:
Our intelligence agencies continue to assess all information, but it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event – maybe he did and maybe he didn’t!
That being said, we may never know all of the facts surrounding the murder of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi. In any case, our relationship is with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They have been a great ally in our very important fight against Iran. The United States intends to remain a steadfast partner of Saudi Arabia to ensure the interests of our country, Israel and all other partners in the region. It is our paramount goal to fully eliminate the threat of terrorism throughout the world!
I understand there are members of Congress who, for political or other reasons, would like to go in a different direction – and they are free to do so. I will consider whatever ideas are presented to me, but only if they are consistent with the absolute security and safety of America. After the United States, Saudi Arabia is the largest oil producing nation in the world. They have worked closely with us and have been very responsive to my requests to keeping oil prices at reasonable levels – so important for the world.
Such skepticism and caution! So, (here goes the philosopher again...) when the Iran intelligence assesment comes in, can we expect the same skepticism and caution? Can we expect him to say, "Maybe Iran ordered the attack and maybe it didn't!" (Exclamation point is apparently necessary here.)
No, we wouldn't reasonably expect this response from Trump. Not when the culpable party is Iran. They're an enemy, and Saudi Arabia is an ally (for what reason besides its vast oil reserves I don't have any idea).
This is just one example of why I don't consider Trump all that credible or reliable, more or less forcing the contrast with the even-worse (perhaps even far worse) Demo rats. It is just one example of how the lack of philosophy and wisdom in our politics corrupts pretty much any discussion in that arena.
Logic, reason, context-keeping, and other such positive epistemic values would say that Trump's previous position in the reliability of our intelligence assessment (in the case of MBS/Khashoggi) constitutes something akin to an estoppel against his accepting the forthcoming one (about Iran) as fully reliable. (Estoppel is a legal concept but shouldn't there be a quick-and-easy term for the same concept in the realm of logic, reason, philosophy, and morality? We can say "be consistent ffs" but that just doesn't seem to carry the same sort of cash value and enforceable effects of legal estoppel. The point in either case is to promote accountability. The only accountability we might see in this case is at the ballot box, but where Trump will probably face an even-worse opponent.)
And, what's more, there is the very palpable sense that the American citizenry have become cynical (or more so than ever before) about expecting much in the way of decency, integrity, intellectual conscience, or other positive values coming from the elected officials. If Trump has a blatant double standard about the reliability of intelligent assessments depending on the target of the assessment, well, that's just more of the usual ol' D.C. bullshit we come to expect nowadays. (Even though he pledged in '16 to Drain the Swamp....) The only question at that point is about whose bullshit is the most ridiculous, dishonest, etc.
If Trump wanted to be more straightforward, and dispense with the bullshit about MBS's culpability, he could have likened his relationship with the Saudi regime to FDR's alliance with the heinous mofo Stalin (i.e., against that other heinous POS Hitler). In other words, some kind of 'pragmatic' realpolitik where you make and shift alliances as needed to (e.g.) fight a common enemy. If Stalin's country were the world's largest oil producer, it would have that much more leverage and provide that much more motivation for American leaders to form an alliance. (After all, some spike in oil prices that might result from MBS's ouster would likely result in a sizable number of deaths around the world....)
Something tells me, though, that this ever-cynical American citizenry wouldn't be comfortable hearing this line of reasoning. (After all, do we hear that line of reasoning explicitly from our leaders?) So perhaps they're getting the corrupt, bullshitty, philosophically-vacuous government they deserve?
