<p>WaPo, not WSJ. Now, if you’re done with lunch, I suggest you get a roll of paper towels, clean up, clamber back up on the couch, and do some careful reading. You don’t want crumbs in the keyboard. Notice that there were three field reports, all prepared by teams described by the author as “experts.” Two of the three came to very strong conclusions that these were bio-weapons labs. One did not. The administration went with the majority (as in, 2 out of 3) in making its public statements. Sounds reasonable to me. What might you be saying today, CGM, had the reverse been true. What if the president had relied on one group, when two had advised him the other way? I am not going to add a hmmmm, just as I don’t add um. Apparently, the detailed results of all three study teams are classified. Would you support the declassification of these classified documents in order to clarify the president’s decision process? Or, if he did so, would you accuse him of leaking classified information that endangers our troops. Do you begin to see the playing field we have here, or not?</p>
<p>There’s this story about a senior very conservative politician who misheard a question from a reporter and answered, “why, yes, that sort of thing happens all the time.” When it was reported he didn’t say anything for a while, not until he was directly asked about it. Then he corrected what was obviously a mis-statement. </p>
<p>When asked why he didn’t offer the correction before asked, replied that he was working on real issues and didn’t have time to fool with the ones the press made up.</p>
<p>That answer enough CGM?</p>
<p>As to the WaPo article, who cares if the field report was classified? As that good ol’ Plano boy, Meatloaf says, “Two out of three ain’t bad.”</p>
<p>So, Bush’s statement was accurate and factual? It was? Really? Wow…</p>
<p>And no, not an answer, if that is your answer, pretty sad.</p>
<p>ANd guess a YEAR was too long of a time to get the FACTS straight</p>
<p>Comeon, and still no answer to why the "leak’ was done the way it was done…come on people, you can come up with something lame to explain it…</p>
<p>You know - you misidentify a trailer made for producing hydrogen gas to blow up balloons as a chemical weapons lab - it’s a mistake. You misidentify aluminum tubes as part of a nuclear weapons program, it’s another mistake. You interpret an invitation to visit as an attempt to buy uranium for a non-existent nuclear weapons program, claim that a country has stockpiles of bioweapons and poison gas, all of which turns out to be false…, well, after a while, you get to the point where people are understandably concerned that the people who are in charge are either incompetent or not really concerned if the claims are true or not. And when the response to that is a bunch of rationalization, buck-passing and excuses, Americans tend not to be impressed.</p>
<p>35.8 and dropping.</p>
<p>Bush’s self proclaimed political capital is all spent. The American public is fed up. Unfortunately, we have three more years of this misbegotten folly.</p>
<p>Good editorial in the WaPo today:</p>
<p>The Disappearing President
Maybe good government could be good politics.</p>
<p>Wednesday, April 12, 2006; Page A16</p>
<p>CAN THIS PRESIDENCY be saved? President Bush’s approval rating has plummeted to a dismal 38 percent, according to the latest Post-ABC News poll. Democrats will rejoice at their improving prospects of recovering a majority in Congress. But a damaged president governing for nearly three more years in a dangerous world is no cause for rejoicing."</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101687.html[/url]”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101687.html</a></p>
<p>
OK, calling Kluge’s bluff time. One group issued the opinion quoted above, the other TWO expert groups said that the trailers were for bio-warfare. Which would you choose, Kluge, assuming that you were not an oil-slut Republican like the rest of us? And why? What about the one (above) opinion that was leaked in the WaPo convinces you that the other TWO expert opinions, which you haven’t read, were wrong? If Bush de-classified the two studies that contradict the one cited by the WaPo, will he be guilty of “leaking classified information that endangers our troops?” What should he do?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Two out of three teams, did, yes. Oh, you think this is a video game. Sorry, in the real world, trailers don’t come with big signs saying “BioWeapons” on them so you know which ones to blow up.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually that wasn’t us. It was the French who were manufacturing the aluminum tubes. French intelligence, that is. At least according to Larry Wilkerson, who was there and has since turned vocal Administration critic. This is what he said after he first came out agains the Administration
<a href=“http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Wilkerson%20Speech%20--%20WEB.htm[/url]”>http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/Wilkerson%20Speech%20--%20WEB.htm</a></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, we didn’t, the Niger minister who received the invitation did. Of course since yellow cake is their only export, the person making the invitation was Iraq’s go to guy for nuclear issues who you sold yellow cake to earlier, well, I guess that’s a natural mistake. You knew that was who approached the former Prime Minister, right, the guy who signed the contract for Iraq’s last purchase of yellow cake from Niger? Think he wanted to buy bananas? <a href=“http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/[/url]”>http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/</a></p>
<p>When intelligence gets more like you see in James Bond movies rather than the messy thing you see in the real world, maybe you’ll have a point. Until then, the CIA does tend to be incompetent (who was it who said that they had two kinds of operations, those know to have failed and those not yet known to have failed) and there was that little thing we’ve just learned where Saddam was running a deliberate campaign to give the false impression he really did have WMDs. </p>
<p>Would you at least agree that later thing turned out to be a bad idea?</p>
<p>Like I said: when the response is a bunch of rationalization, buck-passing and excuses, Americans tend not to be impressed. You’ve got great rationalizations. Great excuses. (Might not look quite as good if all of the classified information was declassified, instead of only the stuff the administration feels like sharing with America, but, well, who knows?) </p>
<p>Where does the buck stop? When do the people at the top stop pointing the finger at everyone else in the world when the decisions they make turn out to be based on false assumptions and miscalculation? Of all of the hideous things the current administration has foisted on America - the debt, the loss of respect abroad, the dead and wounded in Iraq, the corruption in Washington - when is anyone at the top going to take responsibility for any of it?</p>
<p>I’m not holding my breath. The one thing George Bush said that has, after all, turned out to be true, is that he’s a uniter. The nation is pretty much united on one thing - George W. Bush is a failure who has led America in the wrong direction for five long years.</p>
<p>Strick11 - Yes, Saddam Hussein is a lunatic. What’s your point?</p>
<p>Kluge, that’s just pounding the spoon on the high-chair. Everyone knows about your dislike of the president. You’re not coming close to addressing the issues raised–and deflated–in recent days, and why this is such a common occurrence.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Verifiable facts, actually, there kluge. You offer objections, I counter with facts and reasons to have believed what we did (which, btw, as Wilkerson points out, so did nearly everyone’s intelligence agency). Not everyone is blessed with your hindsight so most of us who judge other people’s decisions rely on the quality of the decision making given the information known at the time. </p>
<p>Nothing will change that we, along with everyone else from the first Bush Admiinistration through the Clinton Aministration and in to the new century were dead sure that Saddam was lying. But it’s hardly what you’re describing.</p>
<p>Don’t mean it rain on your factless rhetoric, though.</p>
<p><em>Cough, cough</em>
<a href=“U”>quote</a> Conclusion 85. The Intelligence Community’s elimination of the caveats from the unclassified White Paper misrepresented their judgments to the public which did not have access to the classified National Intelligence Estimate containing the more carefully worded assessments.
[/quote]
<a href=“U”>quote</a> Conclusion 86. The names of agencies which had dissenting opinions in the classified National Intelligence Estimate were not included in the unclassified white paper and in the case of the unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), the dissenting opinion was excluded completely. In both cases in which there were dissenting opinions, the dissenting agencies were widely regarded as the primary subject matter experts on the issues in question. Excluding the names of the agencies provided readers with an incomplete picture of the nature and extent of the debate with the Intelligence Community regarding these issues.
[/quote]
<a href=“U”>quote</a> Conclusion 87. The key judgment in the unclassified October 2002 White Paper on Iraq’s potential to deliver biological agents conveyed a level of threat to the United States homeland inconsistent with the classified National Intelligence Estimate
[/quote]
<a href=“Home | National Security Archive”>Home | National Security Archive;
<p>Hope your hernia’s healed. What’s your point?</p>
<p>Er, RugBurn, those are points about a white paper published about the contents of the NIE, not the NIE itself. Given it was issued prior to the NIE’s declassification, I’m not particularly surprised at the intentional ommissions.</p>
<p>Hey, driver, have you seen the latest on the WaPo article on the trailers? Turns out that the story has already been reported. In 2003 as it was happening. By Judy Miller. Nice tie back to the beginning of the thread.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0607-02.htm[/url]”>http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0607-02.htm</a> (a reprint of the original article so you don’t have to go to the NY Time archives)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now, why is this news now? Someone has a very short memory? This admission by the Administration’s favorite scoopee wasn’t public enough for people who complain that they were hiding this information. I admit there aren’t that many people reading the NY Times…</p>
<p>Strick11 - like the administration, you will pick and choose the facts you like to make your preconceived opinions look good - and then insist that anyone who looks at them differently is being “unfair.” </p>
<p>I know it’s futile, but I’ll repeat - again - the reality of what happened with Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger to investigate the “Saddam’s seeking large quantities of uranium in Africa” claim. He went, he made the obvious inquiries, he came to an unequivocal conclusion, which he shared with the US Ambassador to Niger: the story was bunk. The ambassador agreed.</p>
<p>In making the rounds, he was told a story by a former Niger official, who said that “an Iraqi delegation” wanted to meet with him to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq, which the former offical “interpreted” to mean sales of uranium ore - yellowcake. (The official first stated that he met with the delegation, but steered the conversation away from trade, which would have been illegal, as Iraq was under international sanctions. Subsequently he said he never even met with them. Iraqi documents show that the Iraq ambassador to the Pope ideed traveled through four countries in Africa to invite their officials to go to Iraq for an event or meeting of some kind - which had nothing to do with nuclear weapons or materials.) Wilson dutifully reported this virtually meaningless gossip to the folks back in Washington on his return, along with his conclusion - the uranium purchase story was bunk.</p>
<p>Here’s where things get interesting. According to the NIE you’re so fond of, the intelligence officials considered Wilson’s conclusion that the story was bunk to be of little significance, but were infatuated with the “expanding commercial relations” anecdote, drooling all over it as you, driver and fundingfather all have, since 75% of Niger’s exports are the yellowcake mined by French interests in two mines in a remote area of the country. Since the “expanding commercial relations” story was the only thing in Wilson’s report which could by any stretch of the imagination support the administration’s determination to attack Iraq, it became the only “significant” part of the report in the eyes of “the intelligence community” - you’ve harped on this many times.</p>
<p>So here’s the question for you, Strick11 - why did the folks in Washington ignore the correct conclusion reached by Wilson, an experienced diplomat with experience in Africa, to instead sieze on the vague comment of dubious significance made by the former Niger official about the Iraq delegation - even though he didn’t even claim they had so much as mentioned uranium?</p>
<p>Answer - the tone is set at the top. You don’t get that many people screwing up that badly unless it’s clear that only answers that support the administration’s set theory of the world are wanted up the ladder. As the Silberman-Robb report recounts:
Who is responsible for that? As the head of the British Secret Intelligence Service wrote in the Downing Street minutes after his meetings in Washington around the same time Wilson returned with his report:
and
So, tell me again the excuses and rationalizations for the administration getting <strong><em>everything</em></strong> wrong about the illusory WMDs of Iraq? The buck just can’t stop in the oval office, can it? Nope. Never stops there as long as GWB is planted behind the desk, does it?</p>
<p>35.8 and dropping.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>According the report of the Senate Committee investigating Iraq, there are reasons his report was ignored. First most folks in the State Department thought the trip was a waste of time. Second, since all Wilson did was ask former Niger officials if they had been contacted by Iraq and, for some reason, most folks didn’t expect an honest answer. If Niger had dealt with Iraq they would have faced horrific sanctions of their own and they had no incentive to be very honest. Of course, the former Prime Minister did mention a contact and one from someone known to have been involved in purchases of yellowcake in the past. Third, Wilson reported on aspects of the situation he had no technical expertise in (speaking as an expert on controls in general, his opinion of the controls on uranium in Niger is completely worthless).</p>
<p>In the end, even the bipartisan Senate panel found Wilson’s story somewhat lacking which they make clear in their report.</p>
<p>Regardless, his was only one opinion and not one of the most reliable ones available. There were other sources for the information, some of which have still not be debunked, that supported what Bush said in the “16 words”. Forgive me for posting it one more time, but I keep hoping someone like you will read actually it with an open mind. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html[/url]”>http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html</a></p>
<p>The facts on this are clear. Wilson might have been right, but only in the way a stopped clock is. You really do need to get over this irrational belief that a few dissenting opinions equates to “knowing” and ignoring that they were right. It’s childish and naive. There, I did use the word this time.</p>
<p>Frankly, Wilson was ignored because his trip added no value to the issue. No rationalization, pure fact.</p>
<p>Wilson wasn’t right “in the way a stopped clock is” - he was right in the way a person with a lick of common sense and a smidgen of local knowledge is. He was also right in the way that “true” means something different than “false.” We’ve cross-posted on this before - Niger couldn’t have delivered the yellowcake if it wanted to (the French consortium controlled all the supplies) and Iraq couldn’t have transported the hundreds of tons of material if it had gotten its hands on it. There was no real evidence to support the Niger uranium fantasy - it was goosed along by the report of the yellowcake sale documents which turned out - upon very simple examination - to be fakes. The ambassador to Niger agreed with Wilson - and understandably so. Wilson’s trip was a waste of time - if the only proper use of time is defined as time spent reinforcing the world view of the administration, instead of correcting its errors.</p>
<p>It is a confirmation of my main point - this administration was determined to find evidence to support the decision Bush had already made, and shared with the British, and that policy was effectively communicated down to the lower levels, with predictable results. But the administration, which got the “intelligence” it wanted and deserved, now doesn’t want to take responsibility for the consequence of its management of the government intelligence apparatus.</p>
<p>The buck never stops with GWB.</p>
<p>35.8 and dropping.</p>
<p>Charles Jordan: “…there is a new definition of a Republican: anyone who can excuse anything done by a Republican president. It’s all about loyalty to a man, not ideas not principles.”</p>
<p>35.8 and dropping… I don’t think Bush can ever regain his credibility. From Andrew Sullivan, quoted by The Moderate Voice:</p>
<p>“Historians will figure this out, but my own view is that Katrina did it. Katrina was the equivalent of Toto pulling back the curtain. Once Bush’s passivity, indolence and arrogance were put on full display, once it was apparent that the government was not working, and that Bush was the reason, people figured out why the war in Iraq was such a shambles. And so the mystique required to sustain patriarchal authority was shattered. I think this is largely irreparable because it’s about a basic assessment of a single man. What worries me is that we have almost three more years. If we face a confrontation or a crisis, this president will not be able to carry Americans with him. Our enemies will take comfort from this. Which is why re-electing him was such a terrible risk.”</p>
<p>Its the red button, George.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There are always, always ways around controls. That Niger would have had trouble delivering yellowcake has nothing to do with the question of whether Saddam expressed an interest in purchasing it. In every detail Wilson was wrong, no matter how much you believe he was right in the end. </p>
<p>Given the evidence known at the time, hell, the evidence known today, ignoring Wilson as a pompous posturing blowhard was entirely in order. And he most certainly did not provide any tangible debunking of anything.</p>
<p>To driver, digmedia, fundingfather,fountain siren, among others: I have digested many of your posts for a long while and have remained, with a few exceptions, silent. I struggle to find the words that capture the anguish that your faithful and unending rendition of the neocon worldview triggers in me. But Gleen Greenwald (look him up) wrote something today that so succinctly summarizes my thoughts that I felt
obligated to post the following from his blog.</p>
<p>"The first objective – which worked very well for a good couple of years – was to prevent all dissenting views by labeling those who questioned the war or who opposed it as subversives, traitors, Friends of the Terrorists, America-haters, and crazed radicals. That took care of dissenting views for awhile, ensuring an echo chamber where the President’s views on the war were basically unchallenged. But the profound error of their judgments and the rank falseness of their claims could not be obscured forever, because the reality of the war slowly exposed the truth. But amazingly, facts do not deter them either.</p>
<p>Every fact that contradicts their initial premises is discarded as fiction or the by-product of malice. Every opinion that undermines their position can be explained only by venal and corrupt motives. Every event that transpires which deviates from what they predicted ends up being the fault of others. And any individual who questions their grand plan for epic and glorious triumph in a never-ending, all-consuming War of Civilizations is someone who is either weak-willed, weak-minded, or just plain subversive – whether that be life-long public servants like Richard Clarke and Joe Wilson (both of whom were smeared by Powerline in a separate post yesterday, which quoted RealClearPolitics calling them “Political hacks” and “fools” who “espouse positions publicly that they know to be untrue”); life-long conservatives like William Buckley or George Will, and even American military generals, including those who actually led ground troops in Iraq as recently as 2004.</p>
<p>The number of people left who are sufficiently noble and brave to wage this Great and Glorious Battle is dwindling every day. There is no fact which can’t be dismissed away, no source whose motives are beyond reproach, no event which can’t be blamed on others. I wrote a post on C&L a couple months ago about this dynamic, when - in that one week alone – there were multiple independent polls, events, and facts that all contradicted their world view, and each was just casually waved away as biased, fictitious lies. The war in Iraq was the Good and Right thing to do, and nothing will or can ever change that fact – not the non-existence of the WMDs that primarily justified it, nor the emergence of a civil war, nor the installation of an Iran-controlled Shiite theocracy, nor the opinion of military generals. Their beliefs are in place forever and are to be defended against any fact.</p>
<p>Every possibility is in play except for an acknowledgment that they might have been wrong about something. It is a resolute fantasy world that they cling to for dear life, because everything that matters to them resides in that world. And the most significant aspect of all is that the person most afflicted with this fact-immune syndrome is the person who resides in the White House and controls our Government, and will for the next 2 1/2 years. There are few situations more destructive and dangerous than for a volatile situation to be controlled by people for whom faith in one’s own rightness is infinitely more persuasive, and more sacred, than facts and reality."</p>