So, lemme get this straight.
Selectively choosing facts to prove the argument that the Bush Administration was warned about likely horrors in post-invasion Iraq is bad, because it lends too much credence to "what seem[s] to be important now". No one wants us to make a big deal of the fact that the President had two pictures of post-invasion Iraq painted, and obviously picked the wrong fucking one to believe in.
Selectively choosing intelligence to prove the argument that we had to invade Iraq, didn't need a large number of troops to sustain the aftermath, and that sectarian violence would be light... all that's ok because "everyone" thought Saddam was a threat. That's Medal Of Freedom material.
Selectively choosing 1 or 2 "scientists" who deny that climate change is a problem is fine. No matter the many thousands of scientists that agree that it is a problem and that we are hurrying it along and Florida will be waist deep in 50 years (I guess it'll look more like Florida then, won't it?). Anyway, lending equal weight to 2 shmoes against thousands of educated scientists is a fun David v Goliath/Rudy/Hoosiers underdog Disney story the viewers just love. It's just making sure "the science" is in before making any rash decisions. But I think the 2 shmoes in this movie wind up paralyzed after a seemingly meaningless oversight (Permafrost) and a cheap shot (Greenland). They wind up getting their ass handed to them in the form of their colossal wrongness, but the unfortunate collateral damage is everyone else's ass and the biodiversity of the planet... no biggie. Pass the popcorn.
I guess I'm having a hard time knowing when it's ok to selectively choose. Or should I say I'm having a hard time knowing when to choose to select? Or I'm selecting a time to make the hard choices? Perhaps we should just let the Bush Administration to choose for us?