The Uranium Fiasco: Incompetence or Disinformation?

[xenophon41]

Scylla: Apparently your tactic in deconstructing Hersh’s article is similar to the one employed by the administration in presenting the uranium intelligence in the first place. By which I mean you’re saying some things which you seem to understand aint exactly so.

I’ll illustrate…

(from Scylla)

Admittedly, according to Mr. Hersh’s own article the suggestion concerning the contents of the President’s PBD is both indirect and hearsay. The speculation is founded on anonymous source who does not claim any personal knowledge of the documents, but only claims to have overheard snippets of conversation (possibly unrelated to the PBD) from people who did have knowledge. Not only is this hearsay, it’s unsubstantiated anonymous inferred hearsay. The claim is basically that it was understood by some form of social osmosis.

Here you seem to be conflating two different anonymous sources cited by Hersh. The first, a “former high-level intelligence official”, says the intelligence was “important enough” to be included in the PDB. The second, a “State Department analyst”, is the one who tells us that lower echelon types surmise PDB contents indirectly from conversational snippets of those included in the briefings.

However, later in the post you show that you know very well that two different sources were quoted, and that one of them claimed first hand knowledge. You even break down their statements! Your argument boils down to a semantic one: “Strongly suggestive, but what is this anonymous source actually saying? Is he saying that it was included, or simply that it was judged serious enough to be potentially included, or that he would have judged it serious enough?”

Now, the semantic argument has a valid basis; Hersh’s phrasing is ambiguous. Contextually, I believe it’s clear that the source alleges it was included, but it’s not explicitly stated that way by Hersh. (It’s a pity you didn’t just present this argument without the preceding disingenuous tap dance.)

(from Scylla)

Hersh has not come out and said that the “yellow cake” from Niger was part of the classified briefing. He does not say that his two sources say so. He simply states that the yellow cake data would have strongly supported the argument that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program…
It appears the Hersh has constructed this part of the piece in such a manner that the yellow cake was a major part of the briefing while in fact he presents no evidence that it was so, and indeed presents evidence to show that it was not.

False portrayal of the article. As you yourself requoted, Hersh cites two anonymous sources “who were there” at the briefing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as verifying that “this time” in addition to the story of the aluminum tubes, the intelligence regarding Nigerian uranium was offered to buttress the argument that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program underway. Hersh later quotes CIA spokesman William Harlow as denying that Tenet briefed the senators on the Niger connection, which contradicts but does not negate those two anonymous sources (presumably senators on the committee).

(from Scylla)

The implication being sold here, and I think “sold” is a fair word is that this clearly false and erroneous piece of information is the keystone of the intelligence that went into the decision to make war on Iraq.

Well, I guess one could get that impression from the article. It’s certainly the impression you are trying to “sell” us. However, what are we to make of Hersh’s own penultimate paragraph?

from the article by Seymour Hersh:

Washington’s case that the Iraqi regime had failed to meet its obligation to give up weapons of mass destruction was, of course, based on much more than a few documents of questionable provenance from a small African nation. But George W. Bush’s war against Iraq has created enormous anxiety throughout the world—in part because one side is a superpower and the other is not. It can’t help the President’s case, or his international standing, when his advisers brief him with falsehoods, whether by design or by mistake.

(Bolding added for emphasis by xeno.)

It looks to me as if Hersh, far from claiming that the Niger calumny was the key component in the decision to go to war, is making a case that this kind of dissembly propogated all the way to the level of the PotUS is bad diplomacy, bad international PR and bad performance on the part of those who are required to advise and consent to foreign policy.

[Scylla]

elucidator:

Kind of skipped over a couple of things. Like how this was referenced in the State of the Union Address. By the President. In support of his contention that an immediate war with Iraq was posolutely, absitively urgently necessary. Transcript is available online, I’m pretty sure, if you’d like to try to contest that.

Why would I contest that? I did acknowledge, twice I beleive, that this fallacious report was considered credible was indeed a very bad thing, so I really don’t see why you’re calling me to task on the issue.

My issue is not with the clear facts, which are known, but the allegations which are supported solely by anonymous informants, presenting hearsay and unverifiable evidence.

Xenophon:

Scylla: Apparently your tactic in deconstructing Hersh’s article is similar to the one employed by the administration in presenting the uranium intelligence in the first place

That’s one.

It’s a pity you didn’t just present this argument without the preceding disingenuous tap dance

That’s two

False portrayal of the article. As you yourself requoted, Hersh cites two anonymous sources “who were there” at the briefing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as verifying that “this time” in addition to the story of the aluminum tubes, the intelligence regarding Nigerian uranium was offered to buttress the argument that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program underway. Hersh later quotes CIA spokesman William Harlow as denying that Tenet briefed the senators on the Niger connection, which contradicts but does not negate those two anonymous sources (presumably senators on the committee).

That’s three.

You’re right. I’m lying and falsely portraying the article. Go blow bubbles and don’t waste my time until you can debate without being a jerk.

[xenophon41]

Dear mostest excellent Scylla, what are these “bubbles” you wish me to blow? -And why present a deconstruction you are unwilling to defend? You say I’m being a jerk, but you don’t supply specifics, and more importantly, you don’t dispute my points regarding your own perfidy. One might think it’s a personal thing. I would feel wounded if I had an iota of respect for your opinion.

[Scylla]

Xenophon:

And why present a deconstruction you are unwilling to defend?

Because you’re being an insulting jerk.

You say I’m being a jerk, but you don’t supply specifics,

I gave you three.

and more importantly, you don’t dispute my points regarding your own perfidy

I don’t need to defend myself from your points any more than I need to get into a pissing contest with a skunk.

Right off the bat you’ve accused me of dissembling and being disingenous without cause. You’re being a jerk, and wasting my time.

[London_Calling]

Okay, that’s it ! I’m confiscating all hand bags.

[xenophon41]

Easy way to duck the argument, innit, Scylla? I take it then you don’t dispute that your analysis of Hersh’s article was incorrect?

[Scylla]

It doesn’t merit dispute. You’re just being insulting and wasting my time.

[El_Kabong]

As Mr. Hersh put it: “Was the Administration lying to itself? Or did it deliberately give Congress and the public what it knew to be bad information?”

I think l’ll take #2, Elucidator.

[ElvisL1ves]

Typical Scylla, isn’t this? Anyone with the temerity to show how he’s wrong, and is therefore not an adoring acolyte, is simply beneath his recognition as a fellow human being. That, to him, is sufficient response to any challenge. It’s called narcissistic personality disorder, I believe, and xeno, you have no reason to take his contempt seriously - but you seem well aware of that.

S, ol’ bean, better step back and reconsider just who you’re trying to convince, and of what. More people read these threads than you think. When you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and it isn’t insulting to an adult. GD is based on facts and reasoning, and if you can’t use them adequately, that’s no one else’s problem but your own, ya know?

[Shodan]

Not to get into the middle of our latest pissing contest, but is there a reason why I need to accept Mr. Hersh’s allegations that someone else claimed that they heard something?

I can understand Hersh’s reluctance to name names, but I can think of at least two reasons for this reluctance:
[ul]
[li]He doesn’t want anyone to be able to identify his sources[/li][li]He doesn’t want anyone to be able to evaluate his sources[/li][/ul]It’s rather difficult to say, “Cite?” to Mr. Hersh, but that is the proud tradition of the SDMB.

What does he have to show? A smoking gun? White House tapes? A stained dress?

(Sorry about that last -I didn’t want to disappoint Revtim).

So what we seem to have is an intelligence failure - that Bush apparently believed what British intelligence told him. OK, that’s a bad thing. But it hardly discredits the entire basis for the war with Iraq, as seems to be assumed - Saddam’s disinclination to abide by the terms of the cease-fire are a matter of public record.

I guess the only thing I have to add to the discussion is that, unless there is considerably more to show than what Seymour Hersh says somebody told him that they overheard, this doesn’t really resonate. At least not with those who are not already spring-loaded to believe that Bush is the Anti-Christ.

Regards,
Shodan

[xenophon41]

But it hardly discredits the entire basis for the war with Iraq, as seems to be assumed - Saddam’s disinclination to abide by the terms of the cease-fire are a matter of public record.

Again, Hersh said as much in his article. The allegation is not that this false information discredits the bases for the war (there are many), but that the purveyance of false intelligence by the United States government, specifically by the President and by the Secretary of State, is more than a minor embarrassment; it’s an indication of serious problems of either competence or honesty (or both) within the intelligence community and the Executive branch.

[hawthorne]

Goodness, when did Scylla and xeno start this public jousting? I don’t think this is worth it. Desist, please, both of you.

Scylla
The fact that the documents cited are not particularly credible is indeed a very disturbing piece of information, and has been since it became public.

One of Mr. Hersh’s main points is that these documents were accepted with very little critical analysis.

If we take this at face value, it behooves us to examine the scenarios and questions Mr. Hersh raises critically as well. In doing so, it immediately becomes apparent that besides the bare facts that the documents are not credible(which we already knew,) there is no other significant verifiable information to be gleaned from this article.

Mr. Hersh’s scenarios, questions, and implications hinge on about a dozen unnamed sources.

This is all fine.What this means is a mystery. Who did it and why is unclear.

Not to doubt Mr. hersh’s words or integrity, but he can hardly chide the administration for accepting unverified intelligence at face value, and then expect the reader to accept his unverifiable and unverified intelligence from anonymous sources at face value.

I think this is a little overstated. The intelligence was an obvious fraud. One may doubt the motives of Hersh’s informants. I don’t take their statements at face value, but what they have to say is at least not a known fraud.

The implication being sold here, and I think “sold” is a fair word is that this clearly false and erroneous piece of information is the keystone of the intelligence that went into the decision to make war on Iraq.

But, it’s not actually being said. None of the sources are saying it, neither is Hersh. It’s just being implied.

I think this is where we really differ. The feel of thread (as I read it) is that this information had nothing whatsoever to do - let alone was the keystone - with the decision to invade Iraq. One way or another it became part of the sizzle that was used to try and sell the sausage. That it seems to have been known that once it saw the light of day it would be exposed as a fake is what’s intriguing.

[xenophon41]

originally posted by hawthorne:

Goodness, when did Scylla and xeno start this public jousting? I don’t think this is worth it. Desist, please, both of you.

I try to check my position, when dealing with posters I dislike, to make sure it is based on a sincere disagreement with the arguments expressed and not with the poster him/her self. I specifically checked my position in this thread, and I believe it is based on sincere disagreement with Scylla’s presentation, and my observation of the contradictions embedded in that presentation.

In the interest of peace on earth, good will toward men, all of that, I’ll try and avoid any further direct comment on the construction and presentation of my opponents’ arguments (however fatuous or false I believe them to be), and stick to my disagreements with them. I must note, however, that some highlighting of contradictions within specific arguments will continue to be a part of my modus operandi.

[Scylla]

Xeno:

Scylla: Apparently your tactic in deconstructing Hersh’s article is similar to the one employed by the administration in presenting the uranium intelligence in the first place. By which I mean you’re saying some things which you seem to understand aint exactly so.

I’ll illustrate…

Here you say that I am deliberately lying when I state:

Admittedly, according to Mr. Hersh’s own article the suggestion concerning the contents of the President’s PBD is both indirect and hearsay. The speculation is founded on anonymous source who does not claim any personal knowledge of the documents, but only claims to have overheard snippets of conversation (possibly unrelated to the PBD) from people who did have knowledge. Not only is this hearsay, it’s unsubstantiated anonymous inferred hearsay. The claim is basically that it was understood by some form of social osmosis.

You say:

Here you seem to be conflating two different anonymous sources cited by Hersh. The first, a “former high-level intelligence official”, says the intelligence was “important enough” to be included in the PDB. The second, a “State Department analyst”, is the one who tells us that lower echelon types surmise PDB contents indirectly from conversational snippets of those included in the briefings

You have attempted to deliberately misconstrue my quote just so you can call me a liar. Hersh uses different anonymous sources to say different things about the PBD, and what may be in it. Which anonymous source I am referring to in my quote is not clear. You have chosen to assume that I am insisting there is only one (though God knows why or what advantage it would give me,) and using this as the basis to argue that I am deliberately prevaricating.

Later when I refer to the different source, you claim that this somehow proves that I know there’s two and was deliberately lying to make it seem like one.

This is why I dismiss your accusations as beneath rebuttal. You’re not engaging in serious or honest debate. You are just looking to find something wrong, or create something wrong with my arguments so that you can make baseless accusations and cast aspersions at me.

it doesn’t appear to me that you’re interested in having a genuine discussion. You’re just playing games.

This is especially apparent because the point is moot. There is no advantage rhetorically to me from pretending that one anonymous source is actually two. Why would I do it? how does it further my argument?

It does not. My thesis is simply that Hersh’s arguments rely overly on anonymous sources making ambiguous and unverifiable statements, and that this hardly lives up to the level of skepticism he is holding the intelligence community to.

Now, the semantic argument has a valid basis; Hersh’s phrasing is ambiguous. Contextually, I believe it’s clear that the source alleges it was included, but it’s not explicitly stated that way by Hersh. (It’s a pity you didn’t just present this argument without the preceding disingenuous tap dance

There is no disingenous tap dance. You have attempted to falsely create one.

False portrayal of the article. As you yourself requoted, Hersh cites two anonymous sources “who were there” at the briefing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as verifying that “this time” in addition to the story of the aluminum tubes, the intelligence regarding Nigerian uranium was offered to buttress the argument that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program underway. Hersh later quotes CIA spokesman William Harlow as denying that Tenet briefed the senators on the Niger connection, which contradicts but does not negate those two anonymous sources (presumably senators on the committee).

I don’t understand what your objection is and how you claim that I’m falsely portraying the article. I did address (and you seemed to agree) that there it was ambiguous what the two people present were saying. Now you seem to say that I’m ignoring it in order to portray the article falsely.

Which is it?

This is wearying to me. It’s not worth it. You are calling me a liar frivolously, and you’re not thinking or responding to what I say. You are instead just looking at the words so that you can find a way to twist them around and rebut them. Your objections don’t even make sense.

You make these frivoulous accusations, and then you expect me to spend the next 3 pages in a meaningless semantic debate defending myself.

I’m sick and tired of having to defend myself against your frivolous attempts at character asassination.

[xenophon41]

Very well.

My specific charge, Scylla, was that your analysis of the article contained contradictions and misrepresentations, and that in my opion you “seemed” (direct quote) to be aware of this. I went on to provide quotations in support of that charge. I am pleased that you’ve decided to assay a refutation which, to be effective, must either show that the contradictions are not in fact contradictory or that the misrepresentations are in fact accurate.

Hersh uses different anonymous sources to say different things about the PBD, and what may be in it. Which anonymous source I am referring to in my quote is not clear. You have chosen to assume that I am insisting there is only one (though God knows why or what advantage it would give me,) and using this as the basis to argue that I am deliberately prevaricating.

Your exact phrasing was as follows:

“…the suggestion concerning the contents of the President’s PBD is both indirect and hearsay. The speculation is founded on anonymous source who does not claim any personal knowledge of the documents, but only claims to have overheard snippets of conversation (possibly unrelated to the PBD) from people who did have knowledge.”

I assume, as I said, that you intended to give the appearance, in the quoted passage, that the speculation that Bush was briefed on the Nigerian intelligence via a PDB was founded on one anonymous source. Whether your neglect of the specific article an for “anonymous source” was intentional, I’ve no idea, but if your reader is to assume from your later argument that Hersh’s ambiguity is deliberate, why should we not assume the same about yours? You could’ve meant “one of Hersh’s sources admits no direct knowledge of the PDB”, but then, why did you then state that Hersh’s speculation was “founded” on that particular source’s information, when obviously –from both context and explication- it was founded on the other source? Looked odd to me, which is why I said that you “…seem to be conflating two anonymous sources.”

When later you described both sources, it was made clear that your earlier language was not an indication that you had misread the article, or accidentally conflated the two sources, so I was left to assume that the earlier language had been deliberate.

But then, you made the extremely valid argument, although absolutely irrelevant to Hersh’s thesis, that the information imparted by Hersh’s unnamed “former high level intelligence official” is ambiguous. Well done! You’ve shown that Hersh has no proof that Bush was briefed via a Personal Daily Briefing. Of course, as we know, Bush was briefed at some moment prior to his SOTU address, by someone, in some manner. Or else, he’s psychic. (You pick.)

I don’t understand what your objection is and how you claim that I’m falsely portraying the article.

Well then, let me go over it again.

You said: “Hersh has not come out and said that the ‘yellow cake’ from Niger was part of the classified briefing. He does not say that his two sources say so. He simply states that the yellow cake data would have strongly supported the argument that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program…”

That’s false. Hersh explicitly says his two sources claim they were told of the Nigerian intelligence in that classified briefing:

from the article:

…but this time the argument that Iraq had a nuclear program under way was buttressed by a new and striking fact: the C.I.A. had recently received intelligence showing that, between 1999 and 2001, Iraq had attempted to buy five hundred tons of uranium oxide from Niger…

Hersh later, and quite fairly, acknowledges the C.I.A. denial that Tenet had shared that intelligence with the Senate committee.

I did address (and you seemed to agree) that there it was ambiguous what the two people present were saying. Now you seem to say that I’m ignoring it in order to portray the article falsely

I agreed that Hersh’s language concerning a different source (the “former high level” guy) was ambiguous; I did not agree, nor did you assert, that the language describing the security briefing was ambiguous. In fact, you said “It appears the Hersh has constructed this part of the piece in such a manner that the yellow cake was a major part of the briefing while in fact he presents no evidence that it was so, and indeed presents evidence to show that it was not.” (Bolding added by me.) Nothing in your statement there about ambiguity; you flat out deny that Hersh had testimony that the briefing contained the Nigerian intelligence, when clearly his sources say just that.

You make these frivoulous accusations, and then you expect me to spend the next 3 pages in a meaningless semantic debate defending myself.

Oh, no; I expected you to do much as you have done, and you’ve neither surprised nor disappointed me. However, the larger questions which have been obscured by your protestations of “character assasination” remain: was the major point of your deconstructive post a valid criticism of Hersh, and if so, is Hersh’s thesis (that the inclusion of such false intelligence in the official statements of the highest representatives of the United States government merits investigation) therefore invalid?

I will leave the answer to those questions as an exercise for the readers of this thread (presumably, non-frivolous respecters of your character).

[IzzyR]

*Originally posted by Shodan *
So what we seem to have is an intelligence failure - that Bush apparently believed what British intelligence told him. OK, that’s a bad thing. But it hardly discredits the entire basis for the war with Iraq, as seems to be assumed - Saddam’s disinclination to abide by the terms of the cease-fire are a matter of public record.

I wouldn’t say it discredits the entire basis for the war in Iraq, but it certainly has an impact. Saddam’s disinclination to abide by the terms of the ceasefire or go along with inspections are legalistic matters and not something to go to war over. They matter only to the extent that they have a bearing on the likelihood that he is indeed developing WMD. If the evidence which says he is doing so can be shown to be weak it undermine the rationale for the war. And the evidence is primarily what has been turned up by US and British intelligence (AFAIK). If these allies have been passing along bogus info - even unwittingly - it suggests that perhaps the other evidence that they have is not so reliable either.

[elucidator]

Quite.

Our Fearless Misleader says over and over he “knows” that Saddam has WMD’s. He knows, mind you, not “suspects”. And if you keep up with this stuff, you read how the inspectors are complaining about bullshit intelligence they keep getting from the US. Which, as I recall, is after a very long song and dance from US about protecting sources, etc.

Don’t know about you, but just about one of the worst things that could happen in our current situation would be that a total pustule like Saddam turns out to be telling the truth.

But more to the point: way, way back when this long march began, Fearless Misleader was making a major deal about nukes. Nukes was the big enchilada. I was still dubious,but the thought of a nuclear armed Saddam bin Laden, well, serious scoobies, to be sure.

Remember how he stood there with Tony “The Poodle” Blair and waved that report in the air and said “Here it is, I don’t know what more proof you need, Saddam will have nukes in six months if we don’t act NOW!”

Report never existed. Remember how he explained that? Neither do I.

Now I admit I am reluctant to be led into war. Very reluctant. But I’ll be damned…no, I’ll be GOD! damned…if I will sit still for being bullshitted into war.

But thats all gone now, poof! down the memory hole. Now it’s all about WMD’s, always was about WMD’s, nothing else, nope, never was about anything but WMDs.

Sure.

[Eclectic_Skeptic]

Incompetent disinformation, just like the fake Osama video. It looked more like Santa Claus than Osama.

[tagos]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Quite.

Our Fearless Misleader says over and over he “knows” that Saddam has WMD’s. He knows, mind you, not “suspects”. And if you keep up with this stuff, you read how the inspectors are complaining about bullshit intelligence they keep getting from the US. Which, as I recall, is after a very long song and dance from US about protecting sources, etc.

Don’t know about you, but just about one of the worst things that could happen in our current situation would be that a total pustule like Saddam turns out to be telling the truth.

But more to the point: way, way back when this long march began, Fearless Misleader was making a major deal about nukes. Nukes was the big enchilada. I was still dubious,but the thought of a nuclear armed Saddam bin Laden, well, serious scoobies, to be sure.

Remember how he stood there with Tony “The Poodle” Blair and waved that report in the air and said “Here it is, I don’t know what more proof you need, Saddam will have nukes in six months if we don’t act NOW!”

Report never existed. Remember how he explained that? Neither do I.

Now I admit I am reluctant to be led into war. Very reluctant. But I’ll be damned…no, I’ll be GOD! damned…if I will sit still for being bullshitted into war.

But thats all gone now, poof! down the memory hole. Now it’s all about WMD’s, always was about WMD’s, nothing else, nope, never was about anything but WMDs.

Sure. **

From Resolution 1441

10. Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes or other aspects of their mandates, including on Iraqi attempts since 1998 to acquire prohibited items, and by recommending sites to be inspected, persons to be interviewed, conditions of such interviews, and data to be collected, the results of which shall be reported to the Council by UNMOVIC and the IAEA;
    So, the US and UK were requested to provide all information on WMD’s.

As none were found either they did not provide all their information (or the inspectors ignored it thus not finding any weapons), or the US/UK did not have good information.

Or, dare we say it, they were in breach of their obligations under 1441 and did not provide full information?

Like you, i’m damn well not going to be lied and manipulated into war. No-one with any respect for democracy can, in good conscience.

And, once its over, they now head like homing pigeons for WMD sites, my suspicions will be confirmed. They wanted war, the rest was just pretexts for public consumption.

[OliverH]

*Originally posted by tagos *
**
As none were found either they did not provide all their information (or the inspectors ignored it thus not finding any weapons), or the US/UK did not have good information.

Or, dare we say it, they were in breach of their obligations under 1441 and did not provide full information?

**

They provided plenty of information. Unfortunately, none, zero, nada, zilch of it was productive. An alleged SCUD hangar found via satellite observation turned out to be a chicken farm with a ceiling too low and a doorway too narrow to ever have housed a SCUD. The documents confiscated in the private home of an Iraqi scientist and pointed at triumphantly by the administration turned out to be old news the IAEA was well aware of. Apparently the scientist in question had made some private copies to work at home eons ago.

The entire information provided by the US and Britain resulted in nothing but wild goose chases that led to inspectors referring to the intelligence information provided as ‘trash’.

**Like you, i’m damn well not going to be lied and manipulated into war. No-one with any respect for democracy can, in good conscience.

And, once its over, they now head like homing pigeons for WMD sites, my suspicions will be confirmed. They wanted war, the rest was just pretexts for public consumption. **

And people are surprised why Germany is none too eager to participate. Behavior equivalent to “Since 5:45AM we are now firing back” does not exactly create trust in the justification of a war.