[Moderator Hat ON]
Scylla, don’t call people names in GD. I would prefer it if you and Xeno took your personal tiff to the Pit.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
We (or, more accurately) zigaretten covered this.
The report did exist.
In a thread which seemed to have morphed into an attempt to discredit Scylla’s argument by pointing out that Hersh made an unsubstantiated claim, and has offered nothing in proof not one but two sets of third-hand rumors, we will all benefit if we stick to the truth.
That having been said, WTF? If we accept whatever we read at face value, aren’t we falling into the same error that Bush seems to have done? Bush took the word of British intelligence, and according our merry band of left-wing hysterics, this becomes evidence that he is either incompetent or corrupt. But they are willing to take the word of a reporter, and the best they can come up with in defense is to point to a missing ‘s’ in Scylla’s post and claim that this invalidates every point he makes.
I reiterate - WTF?
And then even less coherent ranting about how the war isn’t about weapons of mass destruction, or maybe it is because nukes aren’t weapons of mass destruction, and so Bush is lying when he says they either are or aren’t. Or something.
As I said before, this doesn’t resonate with the American middle. There was an intelligence failure. It happens. It is rather similar to the stories about Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators in the first Gulf War. It didn’t (apparently) happen. It also (clearly) didn’t matter. The first Gulf War was justified; so is this one.
YMMV, but I doubt if any moderates will care if it does.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, speaking as a left-wing hysteric, I have to say I base my opinion that the false intelligence regarding Niger was used by the administration to reinforce the “nuclear weapons program underway” gambit not on the word of a reporter, but on the words of Colin Powell, U.S. Sec. of State, and of George W. Bush, President of the U.S.
Here are undeniable facts:[ul][]The “intelligence” was a forgery so poorly done that it could have been refuted by an internet search.[]Despite the poor quality of the forgery, it was vetted and forwarded to the State Department by US intelligence experts.[]Despite the long odds against those intelligence experts having been fooled by that forgery, it was[list=a][]used to brief a Senate committee,[]given to the Secretary of State as valid intelligence to be presented to the United Nations,[]and given to the President, who used it in the performance of his Executive duties as additional material in support of a US-led invasion of a sovereign nation.[/list=a]Subsequent to its presentation by the Secretary of State, the IAEA characterized the forgery as depressingly bad[/ul]Put those facts together, and I think they have to point to either severe incompetence throughout the process, and particularly on the part of US intelligence, or amazing arrogance and disregard for diplomatic consequences at minimum in the highest levels of US intelligence, and possibly on the part of the Secretary of State and of the Chief Executive himself.
Yes, indeed, Shodan, mistakes happen. Blunders happen as well. Then, of course, there are jaw-dropping, awesome, thunderous, amazingly stupid mistakes. If we are to take this whole episode as an error, rather than an excercise in mendacity, it would fall in that latter category.
On the other hand, as an excercise in mendacity it has the same characteristics: any chucklewit could see through it.
Be that as it may, Fearless Misleader exploited the nuclear bomb aspect of this for all it was worth, which, it turns out, wasn’t diddly squat. If I had a dollar for every time one of the Usual Suspects raised the spectre of a nuclear mushroom over Akron in those first weeks I would be a happy guy.
The question this raises for the present moment? Our intelligence sources would seem to be, at best, unreliable. (That is as kindly a euphemism as the situation deserves.) Without offering any sources, Fearless Misleader insists that he knows that Saddam has WMDs. Not a shred of doubt exists in his mind. Another man, one given to second thoughts and prone to re-examine positions shown to be dubious, might reconsider. Such a man, I fear, does not occupy the Oval Office.
As much as you might wish to fix attention on Mr. Hersh and his presumed failings, the facts of the matter are clear to the point of being stark. Utter nonsense was offered to the American people in support of war, the single most dreadful decision that can be contemplated.
As to the fiasco regarding the IAEA report, I do recall the defense offered by you and Zig. I found it wanting then, on the basis that the man who wrote the report most likely knows what it says. Believe what you will.
My apologies.
Boy, does THAT make me feel important, here.
Flee!
—As I said before, this doesn’t resonate with the American middle. There was an intelligence failure. It happens. It is rather similar to the stories about Iraqis throwing babies out of incubators in the first Gulf War. It didn’t (apparently) happen. It also (clearly) didn’t matter. The first Gulf War was justified; so is this one.—
That conclusion is neither here nor there, though I agree with it (for reasons other than the President and reasons other than permitted by the U.N. charter). The question is whether false evidence was used to sell to WMD angle harder than it deserved. It seems that it was, and the question is: was it intentional (probably not) and if not, who is responsible for its uncritical usage?
It seems that the CIA always had its doubts about the veracity of the documents
but…
The CIA analyists felt pressured to present a particular case
But the Times can’t get any of them to go on record, even though many are threatening to quit.
So… not too awful conclusive, but the second allegation is a little disturbing: intelligence sources shouldn’t feel pressured to find certain intelligence to be true merely because we want to make a case (especially when, as alleged in this case, the forger may have been looking to make a quick buck by selling documents they knew we wanted). We are supposed to be building a case out of what they find, not the other way around.
Anybody else remember the news story about Rumsfeld, dissatisfied with the CIA’s failure to find what he knew was there, wanted to assign some military intelligence to the task? Does it get any more blatant?
What, like this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/04/september11/main520830.shtml
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0147/vest.php
http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2002/10/29102002161249.asp
Always encouraging to see an Aussie sober up long enough to type a coherent post.
Condescend much luc? Then again, I guess it’s good to see a merkin who isn’t so fat that his fingers can’t reach the keyboard.
Problem isn’t reaching the keyboard, problem is typing one letter at a time. Shouldn’t you get up to shake hands with the unemployed?
(Okay, the idiom is getting beyond me here.
I’m guessing that the first sentence means that no matter how fat you were, you could still type with your dick.
I can’t follow the “Shouldn’t you get up” part.)
Knew I should have typed more slowly. First takes off on the idea of having very fat fingers. Hence, impact area being larger than is convenient when trying to impact a particular key. In my case, using Mr. Happy would not be an improvement.
Second refers to slang relayed to me by an Aussie amigo, in reference to taking a whizz, thereby using an object sadly “unemployed”.
Please be assured I am assuming that the reputation of Australians for having a sense of humor that is not easily offended is not overstated.
Cut it out elucidator. Now you’re insulting me, personally, and that part I can handle.
Quit the “Australian” generalisation shit.
Wow. Was that badly worded. I meant:
Insult me personally, and I can handle that.
Quit the “Australian” generalisation shit.
Apparently that particular generalization, having to do with sense of humor, is overstated. It was never my intenton to actually insult Australians, and I regret that this escaped you.
I guess you just see this as practised rhetoric, even against people that agree with you, and provide cites in favor of your case, like I did.
Count my exit as due to “friendly fire”.
OK, maybe this thread is dying a natural death, but I think I will open the coffin one more time to point something out.
After you claimed that the
It seems to me that if the report never existed, you would be hard put to find the author and determine what he said.
These kind of charges - ‘Does this intelligence failure mean that Bush is corrupt, incompetent, or both?’ - are perceived rather similarly to the “Clinton arranged for his political opponents to be murdered” stuff that was flying about a few years back. It is too clearly an overstatement of the worst possible interpretation of stuff that has never been adequately proven by people who will believe anything bad about Bush.
Regards,
Shodan