I’m feeling a bit minimalistic, so I’m gonna try to boil this down to its core.
If I assert that something is true, but the intell I used when I said it was true is shown to not support my statement (or something else makes me less sure) and then I retract it, but then later information comes out that indicates my first statement might coincidentally have been true after all, was I lying or not?
This seems to be the unasked philosophical question behind the media’s reports on how Bush’s State of the Union Address claim that Hussein had sought to purchase uranium from Niger might (just “might,” mind you) now actually be true. Only problem is, the newer intel, which is also reportedly “inconclusive,” is not the intel he had when he addressed the nation. It’s assumedly just not as flimsy as the badly forged documents and now discredited earlier British intelligence (as opposed to the newer British intelligence) that formed the basis of the intel he used to make his argument the first time around.
Well, morally speaking, if I say something and I believe it’s not true, I am lying.
Of course, if you are a saint like St Elizabeth of Hungary (whose miracle I remember because it served as a twist to one of the last Hornblower stories) you may hope that God will turn your lies to roses.
But I don’t think that even the most devout of Bush’s admirers would claim him as a saint…
It’s assumedly just not as flimsy as the badly forged documents and now discredited earlier British intelligence (as opposed to the newer British intelligence) that formed the basis of the intel he used to make his argument the first time around.
What British intelligence was discredited, precisely? Don’t tell me it’s the forged documents again. I’ve never heard any argument for this idea that didn’t rely on the completely speculative deduction that the forged documents were the only relevant intelligence. British intelligence has insisted that it is not.
Aquinas speaks directly to this question. For those not interested in wading through the Aquinas-ese here’s the money quote:
The British intelligence was relied upon specifically by Bush in the SOTU and has turned out to be correct. What does the fact that the CIA could not independently confirm the report have to do with anything?
The British intelligence was relied upon specifically by Bush in the SOTU and has turned out to be correct.
No, it hasn’t. There is still no evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein bought yellowcake from Niger in the recent past.
What does the fact that the CIA could not independently confirm the report have to do with anything?
British intelligence has not confirmed the report either: they’ve merely asserted (without evidence) that it’s so.
No, it hasn’t. There is still no evidence whatsoever that Saddam Hussein bought yellowcake from Niger in the recent past.
Bush didn’t say “bought,” he said “sought.” Pay attention to the actual 16 words if you want to make a big deal out of it.
British intelligence has not confirmed the report either: they’ve merely asserted (without evidence) that it’s so.
True. But given that you’ve likely endorsed the opposite conclusion with little or no evidence, I’m not quite sure why I should pick your interpretation over theirs.
Bush didn’t say “bought,” he said “sought.” Pay attention to the actual 16 words if you want to make a big deal out of it.
Actually, I don’t make a particularly big deal out of those “16 words”: there were too many lies in SOTU to worry about one bit of pointless posturing: it’s just kind of interesting that this was one piece of pointless posturing that no one except the Bush cabal at the White House believed could be justified. (And they were wrong.)
That Saddam Hussein sought yellowcake in Niger, when Bush knew that there was no evidence to support his having bought any, and no evidence to support his having the technical capability to process it into uranium, and no evidence to support his having the technical capability to use the uranium once processed, would obviously not have justified the invasion that Bush was advocating.
True. But given that you’ve likely endorsed the opposite conclusion with little or no evidence, I’m not quite sure why I should pick your interpretation over theirs.
Nor am I sure why I should pick your interpretation over mine.
The whole tenuous structure of claims that Iraq had any kind of nuclear weapons capability has long ago been proven to be complete nonsense. Even before the invasion of Iraq it looked tenuous: the Kay report was damning. Trying to defend individual strands of Bush’s claims as not exactly lying is really foolish: it’s like defending the assertion that there was any link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
It’s Reagan’s Defense all over again: either Bush knew that what he was claiming was nonsense, in which case he’s a liar, or he didn’t know, in which case he’s too incompetent to be President.
Actually, I don’t make a particularly big deal out of those “16 words”: there were too many lies in SOTU to worry about one bit of pointless posturing: it’s just kind of interesting that this was one piece of pointless posturing that no one except the Bush cabal at the White House believed could be justified.
No one except “the Bush cabal,” I guess then that Blair and British Intelligence don’t exist all of sudden?
That Saddam Hussein sought yellowcake in Niger, when Bush knew that there was no evidence to support his having bought any…
Bush didn’t say he bought any. This is bizarrely reckless definition of lying, indicative of your apparent fondness of loosely reading anything Bush says to make him out to be a liar.
…and no evidence to support his having the technical capability to process it into uranium…
I suppose Khan’s Centrifuges ‘R Us operation out of Pakistan and Malaysia wouldn’t have solved this particular hurdle should Iraq be in a real pinch.
…and no evidence to support his having the technical capability to use the uranium once processed…
Given that he was close to having the capability twice before – once before Israel bombed in the early 80s, then twice when the coalition invaded in the Gulf War and discovered his programs. Worrying about Iraq and nuclear weapons isn’t the ridiculous folly you make it out to be. You seem to have a standard for intelligence gathering and analysis that is based upon the principles of the criminal justice system – which no credible person working in intelligence would consider reasonable.
…would obviously not have justified the invasion that Bush was advocating.
If the 16 words were the only reason given for going to war, you would have a case. It was not.
Nor am I sure why I should pick your interpretation over mine.
When did I give an interpretation? I don’t have one, because we both agree, we don’t have all the evidence. This is why I’m not hopping on the schadenfreude-laden “Joe Wilson lied!” bandwagon. Wilson gathered information, and came to a conclusion, one that differred than the Bush administration. This doesn’t not mean either lied, no matter how the facts on the ground eventually come out.
Trying to defend individual strands of Bush’s claims as not exactly lying is really foolish: it’s like defending the assertion that there was any link between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.
Again, you come to a stark conclusion in the absence of conclusive evidence. I dare say that your enthusiasm for doing so is entirely based on a partisan agenda, and not informed by an interest in actual matters of fact or issues of national security.
Jes, you continue to focus on Niger, I’m just wondering why? Eh, Africa is a really big place and there are “yellow cake” mines in the Congo. And there two sources for Saddam’s effort to purhase yellow cake from the Congo and no one is refuting it. And I do mean no one.
Wilson lied, Jes is unhappy, too bad.
Finally, Bush knew what he was talking about and the CIA didn’t refute it, they just would have preferred that he wouldn’t have included it in the speech.
Just wondering Jes, have you read any of the report, because given your response so far, I doubt it.
I have always been careful not to play the “lying” card. It is just too difficult to determine whether Bush had knowledge that directly contradicted his statements and that he knowingly ignored that knowledge.
Having said that, I think it is pretty apparent that the administration knew that it was stretching the intelligence that they did have, and did it with the intent to deceive. Is that lying? I am hesitant to say so, but I think their “case” for war was dishonest even if it is difficult to find a clear case of lying.
I should add that I am perfectly willing to clarify and defend my point, but that I may not have access to a computer for the next 18 hours so any silence on my part is not avoidance.
Only problem is, the newer intel, which is also reportedly “inconclusive,” is not the intel he had when he addressed the nation. It’s assumedly just not as flimsy as the badly forged documents and now discredited earlier British intelligence (as opposed to the newer British intelligence) that formed the basis of the intel he used to make his argument the first time around.
The only problem with your analysis Edward is there is no new intel, rather the old intel has been affirmed by two separate “independent” sources (as I did with Jes, a reading of the reports is warranted). In doing so, they buried Wilson, who was the chief cheerleader of the previous deception.
As the Butler Report implies, more new information is on its way to hilight unreported aspects of the M.E. nuclear weapons bazaar. So stay tuned Edward, I don’t believe you are going to be a “happy camper”.
Only problem is, the newer intel, which is also reportedly “inconclusive,” is not the intel he had when he addressed the nation. It’s assumedly just not as flimsy as the badly forged documents and now discredited earlier British intelligence (as opposed to the newer British intelligence) that formed the basis of the intel he used to make his argument the first time around.
The only problem with your analysis Edward is there is no new intel, rather the old intel has been affirmed by two separate “independent” sources (as I did with Jes, a reading of the reports is warranted). In doing so, they buried Wilson, who was the chief cheerleader of the previous deception.
As the Butler Report implies, more new information is on its way to hilight unreported aspects of the M.E. nuclear weapons bazaar. So stay tuned Edward, I don’t believe you are going to be a “happy camper”.
Sorry for the double post.
I don’t believe you are going to be a “happy camper”.
Quite sure I will be Timmy. You see, Bush loses either way on this one. He’s either a liar or he’s an opportunistic flip-flopper.
Your choice.
He’s either a liar or he’s an opportunistic flip-flopper.
Well he is neither (although, he would be much better off being more confrontational) and since you haven’t taken the time to read either of the reports, there really is no point in pursuing the matter.
I’ll get to the reports Timmy.
You’re arguing that there are not two distincts sets of intell. That’s not what the papers are implying.
If you have more time than I do at the moment, perhaps you can share with everyone the bit in the reports that indicates it’s always been the same intell all along, and Bush was wrong to retract.
You’re arguing that there are not two distincts sets of intell. That’s not what the papers are implying.
First, what I am arguing is that the intel is not new.
Second and related, in the Butler Report (“BR”), which dealt with more than just Iraq, there are two distinct sets of intel one dealing with Niger and the other dealing with the Congo (both have more than one source)regarding Saddam’s quest for “yellow cake”. BR deals with information available at the time Bush’s State of the Union speech. The Butler Report is the more important of the two, as Bush’s speech isolated British Intelligence. BR also leaves the door open for additional information, especially as it pertains to Iraq and its nuclear weapons program.
Finally, the Senate Report (IMO) goes out of its way to refute Wilson on whole host of issues Wilson raised in going after the President. The Report also clarifies the CIA position(s) on ‘yellow cake” and Africa.
All in, Wilson is portrayed as an individual who used “literary flair” in attacking the President. For whatever reason, the Bush Admin didn’t push back on the substantial issues, rather they pursued the nepotism track, which rightfully bite them in the a…..
Here I thought I was going to learn something interesting about epistemology and Gettier problems, and you guys are just throwing nit-picky talking points around. I could go read Safire if that’s what I was interested in.
Oh well. FWIW, I thought the issue with the “16 words” (as with so much of the Administration’s case for war) was never whether the claim was an actual lie, but rather whether it was so misleading as to be shameful. I haven’t seen anything to change my mind on that (certainly not the fact that, as even Safire admits, Iraq already had 1.2 million pounds of yellowcake on hand, and that Niger didn’t even control the output of its mines).
I haven’t seen anything to change my mind on that
Well just wait, when it arrives, I’m sure you will have other issues. Oh my!
Well just wait, when it arrives, I’m sure you will have other issues. Oh my!
Timmy, are you channeling Josh Marshall again?
I thought the issue with the “16 words” (as with so much of the Administration’s case for war) was never whether the claim was an actual lie, but rather whether it was so misleading as to be shameful.
Very well. But you have to ask yourself why opposition to admininstration has to depend on them being “misleading” and “shameful,” as opposed to making policies and taking actions you don’t think are a good idea.
I haven’t seen anything to change my mind on that…
How about this from the Butler report:
We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that:
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
was well-founded.
The only thing the Butler Report doesn’t seem to answer, Jonas, is why Bush retracted.
Also, to split hairs (because that’s what we do here), that report seems to be saying that although the intell was likely crap, Blair and Bush had no better intell at their disposal to dispel them from the conclusions they wanted to hear.
The only thing the Butler Report doesn’t seem to answer, Jonas, is why Bush retracted.
You’re absolutely right, it is a mystery. If I had to guess, it was that the CIA could not independently verify Britain’s claims, therefore they didn’t have much to stand on publicly, and they decided to just surrender on the issue.
Also, to split hairs (because that’s what we do here), that report seems to be saying that although the intell was likely crap, Blair and Bush had no better intell at their disposal to dispel them from the conclusions they wanted to hear.
I haven’t seen indications of the “crap” evaluation yet; but I’m open to the idea. I worry that this reflects an uneasiness with the inherent ambiguity of the entire intelligence process in general, as opposed to the intelligence itself being far below the norm.
Nor have I ever been convinced that Bush and Blair’s concern about Iraq and WMD was merely “something they wanted to hear,” as it’s something I heard from Bush I through Clinton as well. Kerry was on the record in 1998 boldly supporting the case for an Iraq WMD threat. Meanwhile, Saddam’s behavior or track record doesn’t support the sort of laissez-faire “innocent until proven guilty” attitude people seem to be advocating towards him retroactively.
Nor have I ever been convinced that Bush and Blair’s concern about Iraq and WMD was merely “something they wanted to hear,” as it’s something I heard from Bush I through Clinton as well.
Yeah, but neither Clinton nor Bush I thought it necessitated an invasion.
Of course, you can retroactively fault Bush I for not having the foresight to know he should have marched into Baghdad in 91, but when you look at dictators who are actually more dangerous (North Korea), or arguably more brutal (Uzbekistan), or a bigger, more long-term thorn in our side (Cuba), the argument that we HAD to invade falls flat. Then it becomes only natural to conclude that there were other factors determining the timing of the choice (and based on O’Neill’s book, it seems to have been predeterminiation to do so, and 9/11 simply provided a convenient excuse), so I disagree. I belief that it was something Bush (if not Blair) wanted to hear.
I belief that it was
Weally, I do.
Eddie,
you need to keep up on the news cycle as well as read the reports. The Butler Report is the better read.
Bill Clinton says that no government could have failed to act against Iraq after the 11 September 2001 attacks in view of intelligence provided.
He called for an invasion? Oh MY!
Actually, despite the way you present that info, you know, at least if you took your own advice on reading more you know, that Clinton said the world was right to demand weapons inspections in 2002:
In fact, reading between the lines, Clinton seems to be criticizing the British intelligence for being too eager to make a case.
Very well. But you have to ask yourself why opposition to admininstration has to depend on them being “misleading” and “shameful,” as opposed to making policies and taking actions you don’t think are a good idea.
Well, my opposition to this Administration doesn’t at all depend on these words being misleading, that’s just “bonus” so to speak. I do think the Administration has been making policies and taking actions that aren’t “a good idea,” and in fact my personal opinion is that if you really think that the Administration has done everything right, then there’s no point in our even trying to have a discussion.
Oh, and by the way, nothing in the Butler report convinces me that the President’s SOTU claim wasn’t misleading (did you miss the part of my post where I said it wasn’t a lie?). Nothing in the Butler report changes the fact that our intelligence agencies thought the story was largely irrelevant, and nothing in the Butler report changes the fact that the story appears in fact to have been largely irrelevant.
IMO, telling the American people in the SOTU that Iraq “had sought uranium” while ignoring the difference between yellowcake and HEU and failing to mention that they already had on hand 1.2 million pounds of yellowcake (and that it was pretty unlikely that any approaches to the government of Niger would result in yellowcake from Niger being sold to Iraq) is so misleading as to be shameful.
Maybe you (or the Wonder Dog) could explain why the CIA believed the claim shouldn’t have been in the SOTU, even though they had access to the claims of British intelligence?
despite the way you present that info
I present the info the same way the BBC presents it. Second, if you take a look at Clinton’s complaint, it is squarely aimed at the Germans and the French. And why war, 180,000 soldiers poised in the Kuwaitie Desert, Clinton understands that, although I enjoyed the shifting of the blame to “old Europe”.
On the CIA’s objection, if I remember correctly from the Senate Report, the CIA’s objection was that there was a better way to make the case against Saddam, than the British Intelligence reference (it certainly puts the CIA into a bad light) but no one at the CIA objected to the implication.
Finally on Saddam seeking “yellow cake” you imply that the delivery was necessarily to Iraq, as compared to some other country. You really ought to read Butler’s Report it gives some nice hints, who that third country might be.
I present the info the same way the BBC presents it.
Can I quote you on that being a good thing?
And we’re now into the kind of mindnumbing hairsplitting with notions like “CIA’s objection was that there was a better way to make the case against Saddam, than the British Intelligence reference … but no one at the CIA objected to the implication.” that beg to be called “misleading.”
If you must convolute the evidence that much to support an invasion, guess what? It’s not supporting the rationale.
Doh,
… and in fact my personal opinion is that if you really think that the Administration has done everything right, then there’s no point in our even trying to have a discussion.
That’s a fairly bizarre notion of discourse – those who hold the opposite view of your own are not worth engaging – but fear not, I am in no danger of granting such a endorsement on this administration.
Nothing in the Butler report changes the fact that our intelligence agencies thought the story was largely irrelevant, and nothing in the Butler report changes the fact that the story appears in fact to have been largely irrelevant.
Some, like Joe Wilson, and others in the CIA believed the Niger to be irrelevant. Some, like MI6, believed it to be relevant. Meanwhile, the statement in the SOTU does encompass the Congo as well, which is another line of inquiry. People can argue which interpretation of the intelligence is the most reasonable one; but I will not fall in to the unreasonable trap of declaring one interpretation to be “true” and one to be “misleading” because such notions are absurd in intelligence analysis.
IMO, telling the American people in the SOTU that Iraq “had sought uranium” while ignoring the difference between yellowcake and HEU…
Bush did not claim it was highly enriched. As I mentioned before, Khan’s firesale on Pakistani centrifuge technology interferes with ones ability to rely upon an analysis that precludes any weapons activity with yellowcake due to technological difficulty.
You want the Yellowcake / Highly Enriched Uranium distinction to preclude one turning into the other.
…and failing to mention that they already had on hand 1.2 million pounds of yellowcake (and that it was pretty unlikely that any approaches to the government of Niger would result in yellowcake from Niger being sold to Iraq) is so misleading as to be shameful.
That was the CIA analysis, some time before the SOTU. Meanwhile British Intelligence, with what seems to be more information, came to a different analysis. Neither is required to be “misleading” despite two different analyses.
Maybe you (or the Wonder Dog) could explain why the CIA believed the claim shouldn’t have been in the SOTU, even though they had access to the claims of British intelligence?
The CIA had access to the claims of British Intelligence; I am not clear that they had access to the intelligence itself. Which is the likely explanation for the CIA’s caution as opposed to British Intelligence’s confidence.
Meanwhile the SSCI report shows that the 16 words themselves were more or less recommended as a “generalization” previously, while the CIA was vetting an unpublished administration report:
The comments suggested a change to the draft language saying “better to generalize the first bullet as follows: Sought uranium from Africa to feed the enrichment process.” The original text from the White House had said “sought uranium oxide, an essential ingredient in the enrichment process, from Africa.” The White House did not publish the paper.
Edward,
Yeah, but neither Clinton nor Bush I thought it necessitated an invasion.
Neither had the political capital to do so. Kerry did recommend invasion in the absence of inspections in 1998.
Of course, you can retroactively fault Bush I for not having the foresight to know he should have marched into Baghdad in 91, but when you look at dictators who are actually more dangerous (North Korea), or arguably more brutal (Uzbekistan), or a bigger, more long-term thorn in our side (Cuba), the argument that we HAD to invade falls flat.
North Korea is more dangerous in their capacities – but not their behavior. Of all the lousy and nefarious regimes around the world, only one initiated two hostile wars of conquest against sovereign neighbors, and of those many who had WMD programs of different sorts, was the only shown brazen enough to actually use them. This is no small matter when evaluating the relative dangers of different anti-American regimes.
Then it becomes only natural to conclude that there were other factors determining the timing of the choice (and based on O’Neill’s book, it seems to have been predeterminiation to do so, and 9/11 simply provided a convenient excuse), so I disagree. I belief that it was something Bush (if not Blair) wanted to hear.
I do think that 9/11 did provide the first opportunity to resolve which was, by all accounts, an outstanding bipartisan concern of national security beforehand. It’s regrettable that previous Presidents were unable politically to realistically consider taking actions to resolve this, but that does not mean that the issue deserves to remain unresolved.
but no one at the CIA objected to the implication.” that beg to be called “misleading.”
See Eddie, if you read the report, you wouldn’t have made the above statement. You need to start reading.