PDA

View Full Version : Robb-Silverman Commission & Senate Select Committee on Intelligence covered for Bush?


jAZ
04-23-2006, 10:45 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/21/60minutes/main1527749.shtml
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008284.php

(April 23, 2006 -- 07:49 PM EST // link)

By now you've probably seen or heard about the 60 Minutes segment with the interview with Tyler Drumheller, the now-retired CIA officer who was head of covert operations in Europe during the lead up to the Iraq War.

I just got off the phone with Drumheller. But before we get to that, let's run down the key points in the story.

First, Drumheller says that most folks in the intelligence community didn't think there was anything to the Niger-uranium story. We knew that in general terms; but we hadn't heard it yet from someone so closely involved in the case itself. Remember, the CIA Station Chief in Rome, the guy who first saw the documents when they were dropped off at the US Embassy in October 2002, worked for Drumheller.

Second, Drumheller told us a lot more about the case of Naji Sabri, Iraq's Foreign Minister, who the CIA managed to turn not long before the war broke out. Drumheller was in charge of that operation. The White House, as Drumheller relates it, was really excited to hear what Sabri would reveal about the inner-workings of Saddam's regime, and particularly about any WMD programs. That is, before Sabri admitted that Saddam didn't have any active programs. Then they lost interest.

Now, if you didn't see the episode you can catch most of the key facts in this story at the 60 Minutes website.

But here's an angle I'm not sure we're going to hear much about.

Drumheller's account is pretty probative evidence on the question of whether the White House politicized and cherry-picked the Iraq intelligence.

So why didn't we hear about any of this in the reports of those Iraq intel commissions that have given the White House a clean bill of health on distorting the intel and misleading the country about what we knew about Iraq's alleged WMD programs?

Think about it. It's devastating evidence against their credibility on a slew of levels.

Did you read in any of those reports -- even in a way that would protect sources and methods -- that the CIA had turned a key member of the Iraqi regime, that that guy had said there weren't any active weapons programs, and that the White House lost interest in what he was saying as soon as they realized it didn't help the case for war? What about what he said about the Niger story?

Did the Robb-Silverman Commission not hear about what Drumheller had to say? What about the Roberts Committee?

I asked Drumheller just those questions when I spoke to him early this evening. He was quite clear. He was interviewed by the Robb-Silverman Commission. Three times apparently.

Did he tell them everything he revealed on tonight's 60 Minutes segment. Absolutely.

Drumheller was also interviewed twice by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (the Roberts Committee) but apparently only after they released their summer 2004 report.

Now, quite a few of us have been arguing for almost two years now that those reports were fundamentally dishonest in the story they told about why we were so badly misled in the lead up to war. The fact that none of Drumheller's story managed to find its way into those reports, I think, speaks volumes about the agenda that the writers of those reports were pursuing.

"I was stunned," Drumheller told me, when so little of the stuff he had told the commission's and the committee's investigators ended up in their reports. His colleagues, he said, were equally "in shock" that so little of what they related ended up in the reports either.

What Drumheller has to say adds quite a lot to our knowledge of what happened in the lead up to war. But what it shows even more clearly is that none of this stuff has yet been investigated by anyone whose principal goal is not covering for the White House.

-- Josh Marshall

jAZ
04-23-2006, 11:47 PM
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/60-Minutes-Tyler.wmv

patteeu
04-24-2006, 06:28 AM
Are there still people who think that the administration claimed that there were no dissenting voices/POVs in the intelligence community and that the intelligence conclusions were unanimously approved up and down the line at every level within the intelligence organizations?

irishjayhawk
04-24-2006, 10:02 AM
Are there still people who think that the administration claimed that there were no dissenting voices/POVs in the intelligence community and that the intelligence conclusions were unanimously approved up and down the line at every level within the intelligence organizations?
No, but they keep piling on those dissenting views to the point that even BushBots would have to wake up at some point.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 10:05 AM
Are there still people who think that the administration claimed that there were no dissenting voices/POVs in the intelligence community and that the intelligence conclusions were unanimously approved up and down the line at every level within the intelligence organizations?
No, there are those that claim that didn't "cherry pick" evidence that supported their political agenda, rather than letting the evidence drive the policy.

Those people look really foolish at this point. And Robb-Silverman looks to be a complete fraud.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 02:33 PM
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008288.php

(April 24, 2006 -- 03:52 PM EST // link)
Yesterday evening I noted the Tyler Drumheller inteview on 60 Minutes and asked why little or none of what he had to say had made it into the reports of either the Robb-Silbermann Commission or the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reports on Iraqi WMD intelligence. As I reported in that post, Drumheller was interviewed by the Robb-Silbermann Commission three times prior to the issuance of its report and twice by the Senate Committee, though in the latter case only after its summer 2004 report came out.

Now, a number of readers have written in to ask whether it might not be the case that only staffers or investigators on the Robb-Silbermann Commission interviewed in Drumheller. In that case, perhaps his information never made its way up to the Commissioners themselves.

Not so.

I called Drumheller back today and asked him who from the Robb-Silbermann Commission interviewed him.

He told me that at his main interview -- where he discussed everything he discussed on 60 Minutes -- he was interviewed by the entire commission. That means Sen. Robb was there, Sen. McCain, Judge Silbermann, everybody. (You can see the complete commission roster here.)

On two other occasions, said Drumheller, he was interviewed by commission staffers. But he estimated that his interview before the full commission went on for between two and three hours. And he assured me that they heard everything that 60 Minutes viewers heard yesterday evening and more.

Why his account didn't get into their report is something they can answer. But they can't say they didn't hear it.

-- Josh Marshall

patteeu
04-24-2006, 03:53 PM
No, there are those that claim that didn't "cherry pick" evidence that supported their political agenda, rather than letting the evidence drive the policy.

Those people look really foolish at this point. And Robb-Silverman looks to be a complete fraud.

I thought the cherry picking charge related to what evidence the administration chose to share with Congress and the public. It seems quite ridiculous to claim that the administration cherry picked the evidence to make their policy decisions.

Furthermore, your uncritical acceptance of all that is Josh Marshall has led you down the wrong path again. If the measure of the Robb-Silberman report is whether or not they include detail about every dissenting opinion offered within the intelligence apparatus, then no such study will ever pass the test.

irishjayhawk
04-24-2006, 04:34 PM
I thought the cherry picking charge related to what evidence the administration chose to share with Congress and the public. It seems quite ridiculous to claim that the administration cherry picked the evidence to make their policy decisions.

Furthermore, your uncritical acceptance of all that is Josh Marshall has led you down the wrong path again. If the measure of the Robb-Silberman report is whether or not they include detail about every dissenting opinion offered within the intelligence apparatus, then no such study will ever pass the test.
They didn't cherry pick to MAKE their policy decisions, they cherry picked intel to FIT their already made policy decisions.

patteeu
04-24-2006, 08:25 PM
They didn't cherry pick to MAKE their policy decisions, they cherry picked intel to FIT their already made policy decisions.

Is it cherry picking if you don't disclose every single dissenting view? Is it proof of cherry picking if you find a dissenting view that wasn't disclosed?

The declassified version of the NIE proves that they didn't withhold all dissenting views from Congress or the public.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 08:33 PM
Are there still people who think that the administration claimed that there were no dissenting voices/POVs in the intelligence community and that the intelligence conclusions were unanimously approved up and down the line at every level within the intelligence organizations?

Of course there were, jaz is one of them.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 08:34 PM
They didn't cherry pick to MAKE their policy decisions, they cherry picked intel to FIT their already made policy decisions.

How about popping up a link for your accusation.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 08:36 PM
Is it cherry picking if you don't disclose every single dissenting view? Is it proof of cherry picking if you find a dissenting view that wasn't disclosed?

The declassified version of the NIE proves that they didn't withhold all dissenting views from Congress or the public.

You can't go throwing trueisms into the argument, it might damage jaz's and irishwish's psychi.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 08:49 PM
Is it cherry picking if you don't disclose every single dissenting view? Is it proof of cherry picking if you find a dissenting view that wasn't disclosed?

The declassified version of the NIE proves that they didn't withhold all dissenting views from Congress or the public.
You have really become a complete fraud. And it's a shame. You are a very sharp person who's committed 100% to shilling and spinning for this administration, even at the expense of your intellectual honesty and personal credibility.

You attempt to find creases in logic that you can exploit with the hopes of creating a sense of "reasonable doubt". To the point that you will discard common sense and honesty if you think doing so will help you "win".

The notion that it's only cherry picking if you "don't disclose every single dissenting view" is just laughable. The notion that it's "proof of cherry picking if you find a dissenting view that wasn't disclosed" is equally laughable. The notion that those two points of view somehow define the conditions upon which such a discussion can exist is the fraud. And it's a damn shame to see what's you've become.

It blows my mind how you have become so completely dishonest. I almost don't even believe you really believe this crap.

So often, I feel silly pointing out the completely obvious, but you seem to demand that I do it, simply to "take away space" (to borrow a phrase from chess).

To be very clear, neither of the scenarios you outlined define "cherry picking". And throwing in a few qualifiying references to minor dissent (while speaking in absolutes to the public and leaving out major points of dissent and ignoring the widespread dissenting judgements) may in fact be cherry picking.

None of this is advanced calculus though, just honest reasoning.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 08:50 PM
You can't go throwing trueisms into the argument, it might damage jaz's and irishwish's psychi.
Pat...

Does it really suck to have CE be the only person willing to cheer on your nonsense? You certainly aren't keeping good company with your position.

patteeu
04-24-2006, 09:56 PM
To be very clear, neither of the scenarios you outlined define "cherry picking". And throwing in a few qualifiying references to minor dissent (while speaking in absolutes to the public and leaving out major points of dissent and ignoring the widespread dissenting judgements) may in fact be cherry picking.

The dissent about aluminum tubing in the NIE wasn't a minor dissent, it was significant so it was disclosed.

Getting back to Josh Marshall's story, is it cherry picking to fail to disclose this particular defector's story if you have 5 defectors who said that Saddam DID have WMD?

This single raw intelligence data point was mixed in with all the other raw intelligence data points and the intelligence agencies came to a conclusion. Conclusions like these were eventually reported to the policy makers through vehicles like the NIE. The Robb-Silberman report concluded that many of these conclusions turned out to be wrong and therefore didn't serve the policy makers well, but that's different than the White House cherry picking their data. The intelligence community decided what conclusions to include in the NIE, not the President. The "discovery" of this one intelligence data point doesn't prove what you and Josh Marshall want to say it proves.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 10:03 PM
Pat...

Does it really suck to have CE be the only person willing to cheer on your nonsense? You certainly aren't keeping good company with your position.

I would say this is the pot calling the kettle black, but there is no one herre that agrees with your position.

Patteau might not agree with you but you needn't insult him with your only tool. All you have is hatred, Bush, me and whom ever disagrees with your ignorant blind slams on the president.

He's not perfect, but I'd bet he's a far bet more correct than you every could be.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 10:09 PM
Getting back to Josh Marshall's story, is it cherry picking to fail to disclose this particular defector's story if you have 5 defectors who said that Saddam DID have WMD?
If you as an organization were holding his input in high regard right up until he gave it and you found out it didn't support your predetermined agenda to invade Iraq... and then you lose all regard... then yes, that's very likely cherry picking.

Even you (at this point) have to admit that this administration appears to have had a predetermined goal of invading Iraq and followed that goal by looking for supporting evidence. Whether you define that to be "cherry picking" or not makes little difference I guess. But I don't see that you can dispute this.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 10:09 PM
I would say this is the pot calling the kettle black, but there is no one herre that agrees with your position.

Patteau might not agree with you but you needn't insult him with your only tool. All you have is hatred, Bush, me and whom ever disagrees with your ignorant blind slams on the president.

He's not perfect, but I'd bet he's a far bet more correct than you every could be.
Do you ever make any sense?

jAZ
04-24-2006, 10:12 PM
The Robb-Silberman report concluded that many of these conclusions turned out to be wrong and therefore didn't serve the policy makers well, but that's different than the White House cherry picking their data.
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000448.php#more

Secret WH Probe Concurred with Drumheller
By Justin Rood - April 24, 2006, 4:58 PM

Not everybody affiliated with the White House agreed with the WMD Commission's findings on the Bush administration's false Niger claims. In fact, a group of advisors closer to the Oval Office privately told President Bush in 2003 he was at fault.

In December 2003, the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board -- a discreet panel of administration friends and national security experts -- quietly advised President Bush that he shared blame with the CIA for using the false claims, according to a Washington Post article an anonymous TPMm reader passed along.


"The findings of the advisory board. . . make it clear that the White House should share blame with the CIA for allowing the questionable material into the speech," wrote Washington Post reporter Walter Pincus, citing anonymous sources. (The PFIAB -- an eclectic group of individuals who are either very wealthy, very powerful or very knowledgeable -- does not publicly discuss its work.)

By contrast, the White House's Robb-Silberman Commission blamed the intelligence community for the President's use of the Niger uranium myth. On "60 Minutes" last night, former senior CIA official Tyler Drumheller disputed that conclusion. "It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure. It's an intelligence failure. This was a policy failure."

irishjayhawk
04-24-2006, 10:12 PM
Do you ever make any sense?
No. Why ask obvious questions, in which you know the answer?

Oh and if you throw up a link, he'll just ignore it or change the subject. That's why he's on ignore for me :)

jAZ
04-24-2006, 10:17 PM
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000446.php#more

WMD Report Doesn't Match CIA Official's Memory
By Justin Rood - April 24, 2006, 1:21 PM

I'm still rubbing my eyes over this.

Former senior CIA official Tyler Drumheller appeared on CBS News' "60 Minutes" last night to talk about what he knew of the Niger uranium fiasco. As Drumheller tells it, nobody at the CIA believed Iraq was buying uranium from Niger to begin with. The forged documents were considered inconsequential to the facts of the matter -- until the White House wanted to use them as evidence.

Drumheller says he told the same story to the White House-appointed WMD Commission. This morning I glanced back at its report, and compared bits of its Niger discussion with Drumheller's revelations last night.

Here's a sampling of what I found. In its best light, the panel appears to have engaged in some subatomic-level hair splitting that -- coincidentally -- points the blame at the intelligence community for the president's use of the Niger claims:

From last night's "60 Minutes":

[I]n early January 2003, the National Intelligence Council, which oversees all U.S. intelligence agencies, did a final assessment of the uranium rumor and submitted a report to the White House. Their conclusion: The story was baseless. . .

Just weeks later, the president laid out his reasons for going to war in the State of the Union Address -- and there it was again.

From the White House WMD Commission report:

The Intelligence Community failed to authenticate in a timely fashion transparently forged documents purporting to show that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger.

From last night's "60 Minutes":

Drumheller says many CIA analysts were skeptical [of the Niger uranium story]. "Most people came to the opinion that there was something questionable about it," he says.

Asked if that was his reaction, Drumheller says, "That was our reaction from the very beginning. The report didn't hold together."

Drumheller says that was the "general feeling" in the agency at that time.

From the White House WMD Commission report:

At the time of the State of the Union speech, CIA analysts continued to believe that Iraq probably was seeking uranium from Africa, although there was growing concern among some CIA analysts that there were problems with the reporting.

And, of course, this, from "60 Minutes":

"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it's an intelligence failure. It's an intelligence failure. This was a policy failure," Drumheller tells Bradley.

Vs. the White House WMD Commission report:

The [Intelligence] Community's failure to undertake a real review of the documents -- even though their validity was the subject of of serious doubts -- was a major failure of the intelligence community."

The Commission simply didn't listen to the guy, it seems. Instead, the Commission hung the blame on the intelligence community not for failing to knock down the rumors of the Niger uranium deal -- which it did in January 2003 -- but for failing to authenticate the documents on which those rumors were based.

Because the intelligence community had debunked the Niger rumors, but not the forged Niger papers specifically, the White House used those documents as evidence (even if they were sourced to the Brits) in the State of the Union address. So the WMD Commission's reasoning goes.

Forget that Tenet and others had pleaded with the White House to remove references to Niger in an earlier speech, and the White House had done so. Forget that the National Intelligence Council -- which speaks for the Intelligence Community as a whole -- had told the White House it did not believe the Niger claims.

Perhaps the men and women of the WMD Commission, steeped as they were in facts and experience, can line these up so that nobody looks like they're twisting facts. I confess I cannot. And if Drumheller's allegations contain any degree of truth -- and I think they do -- it causes me to doubt greatly the accuracy of the WMD report.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 10:18 PM
No. Why ask obvious questions, in which you know the answer?

Oh and if you throw up a link, he'll just ignore it or change the subject. That's why he's on ignore for me :)
I've never seen anyone around here demonstrate less ability to comprehend the details of a discussion. It's quite amazing.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 11:07 PM
Do you ever make any sense?

To the english speaking world yes. To assholes that have as much hate in them as you i'm surprised that you can even walk upright.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 11:09 PM
I've never seen anyone around here demonstrate less ability to comprehend the details of a discussion. It's quite amazing.

If your details of any discussion held anything but hate and belittling the president it might be something that anyone might want to join in to. I hardly ever read your posts because you hardly ever write anything, you go to your "hate" sites and follow the liberal robot program that has been burned into the eprom up your ass that replaces your brain.

jAZ
04-24-2006, 11:11 PM
To the english speaking world yes. To assholes that have as much hate in them as you i'm surprised that you can even walk upright.
My goal tonight is going to be to see how often I can get you to use the word "hate" in place of actually making any sense.

Right now, the score is:

jAZ - 2
CE - 0

jAZ
04-24-2006, 11:11 PM
If your details of any discussion held anything but hate and belittling the president it might be something that anyone might want to join in to. I hardly ever read your posts because you hardly ever write anything, you go to your "hate" sites and follow the liberal robot program that has been burned into the eprom up your ass that replaces your brain.
jAZ - 3
CE - 0

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 11:13 PM
jAZ - 3
CE - 0
Your only goal in life is to be -3 points behind me?

What a dolt.

I guess you failed modern math. -3 is < -0

jAZ
04-24-2006, 11:16 PM
modern math ... -0
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

(can't! breath!)

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

go bowe
04-24-2006, 11:28 PM
breathe, breathe!

just concentrate...

breathe in, breathe out...

jAZ
04-24-2006, 11:44 PM
breathe, breathe!

just concentrate...

breathe in, breathe out...
Thanks for the demonstration go bo!
http://www.conservativecat.com/Ferdy/image/Hyperventilation.jpg

Ugly Duck
04-24-2006, 11:51 PM
So why didn't we hear about any of this in the reports of those Iraq intel commissions that have given the White House a clean bill of health on distorting the intel and misleading the country about what we knew about Iraq's alleged WMD programs?
Hey Negative Zero.... there's a minor flaw in the story. The commission reports so far have not addressed the question of whether or not the neocon regime cherry-picked intel that supported its decision to invade Iraq. That was supposed to be addressed in Phase II. It was killed, then revived, then disappeared. I dunno why nobody is pushing for them to complete their task, but its premature to say the neocons have a "clean bill of health" until the alegations of cherry-picking are investigated and addressed in Phase II.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 11:54 PM
ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

(can't! breath!)

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL

I hope that becomes a permanent situation.

Who do you have to make the arrangements.

Chiefs Express
04-24-2006, 11:56 PM
My goal tonight is going to be to see how often I can get you to use the word "hate" in place of actually making any sense.

Right now, the score is:

jAZ - 2
CE - 0

Well dipshit, here you go.

Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,
Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, , Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, , Hate, Hate, Hate, , Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, , Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, , Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, , Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, , Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, , Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, , Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, , Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, , Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, , Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, , Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate, Hate,

And you are still an asshole.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 05:08 AM
I would say this is the pot calling the kettle black, but there is no one herre that agrees with your position.

Patteau might not agree with you but you needn't insult him with your only tool. All you have is hatred, Bush, me and whom ever disagrees with your ignorant blind slams on the president.

He's not perfect, but I'd bet he's a far bet more correct than you every could be.

WTF? That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this message board. :p :)

patteeu
04-25-2006, 05:15 AM
If you as an organization were holding his input in high regard right up until he gave it and you found out it didn't support your predetermined agenda to invade Iraq... and then you lose all regard... then yes, that's very likely cherry picking.

Even you (at this point) have to admit that this administration appears to have had a predetermined goal of invading Iraq and followed that goal by looking for supporting evidence. Whether you define that to be "cherry picking" or not makes little difference I guess. But I don't see that you can dispute this.

I've always been able to admit that the administration made the best case for the war given the evidence. Every administration simplifies the message and picks the most powerful examples when making public arguments for their policy positions. That kind of "cherry picking" is non-controversial IMO. Since you and yours get your panties in a bunch over alleged "cherry picking" I'm asking you questions to find out what you mean by the term.

As for the predetermined goal of invading Iraq, I don't know and I don't see that it makes much difference. They surely had a predetermined goal of regime change, but then, that goal was US policy before they were elected to office. So what? The real question is whether or not invading Iraq was a good policy choice given what they knew at the time, not whether or not they made the decision on their first day in office, on Sept. 12, 2001, or on the day before the invasion.

patteeu
04-25-2006, 05:22 AM
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000446.php#more

WMD Report Doesn't Match CIA Official's Memory
By Justin Rood - April 24, 2006, 1:21 PM

I'm still rubbing my eyes over this.

...

Because the intelligence community had debunked the Niger rumors, but not the forged Niger papers specifically, the White House used those documents as evidence (even if they were sourced to the Brits) in the State of the Union address. So the WMD Commission's reasoning goes.

Forget that Tenet and others had pleaded with the White House to remove references to Niger in an earlier speech, and the White House had done so. Forget that the National Intelligence Council -- which speaks for the Intelligence Community as a whole -- had told the White House it did not believe the Niger claims.

Perhaps the men and women of the WMD Commission, steeped as they were in facts and experience, can line these up so that nobody looks like they're twisting facts. I confess I cannot. And if Drumheller's allegations contain any degree of truth -- and I think they do -- it causes me to doubt greatly the accuracy of the WMD report.

Did this guy get his journalism degree out of a Cracker Jack box? The 16 words in the SOTU speech did not rely at all on the forged Niger papers. Here they are again:

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." - George W. Bush, 2003 State of the Union Address

Factcheck.org's take on the 16 words (http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html)

As even a KU journalist could see, those 16 words rely on "the British Government" not on forged documents, the CIA, or any other domestic source. The British haven't disclosed what their source was, but they have indicated that they had mulitiple indications which means they couldn't have been exclusively relying on the forged documents. The Butler Report investigated the matter and found that the Bush statement was "well founded."

Chiefs Express
04-25-2006, 05:40 AM
WTF? That's got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read on this message board. :p :)

Maybe I should have corrected it when I saw that it might be misunderstood.

President Bush is not perfect....and so on.

DanT
04-25-2006, 12:12 PM
Did this guy get his journalism degree out of a Cracker Jack box? The 16 words in the SOTU speech did not rely at all on the forged Niger papers. Here they are again:



As even a KU journalist could see, those 16 words rely on "the British Government" not on forged documents, the CIA, or any other domestic source. The British haven't disclosed what their source was, but they have indicated that they had mulitiple indications which means they couldn't have been exclusively relying on the forged documents. The Butler Report investigated the matter and found that the Bush statement was "well founded."

patteeu,

You quoted Justin Rood's report and bolded an excerpt. The sentence after that excerpt is "So the WMD Commission's reasoning goes." Hence, what matters with regard to the quality of Mr. Rood's reporting is whether or not he is accurately reporting the reasoning of the WMD Commission. From what I see in the unclassified WMD Commission report, there is evidence in it that is consistent with Mr. Rood's reporting. Also, there is no evidence in it, as far as I can tell from a brief review, that contradicts Mr. Rood's reporting. Here, for example, is an excerpt from the WMD Commission report:


Intelligence Community agencies did not effectively authenticate the documents
regarding an alleged agreement for the sale of uranium yellowcake
from Niger to Iraq. The President referred to this alleged agreement in his
State of the Union address on January 28, 2003 evidence for which the
Intelligence Community later concluded was based on forged documents. (Footnote 190)


Here's the text of Footnote 190:

190 The President stated that "the British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." President George W. Bush, Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union (Jan. 28, 2003). A related problem within the Intelligence Community is that, when asked to vet the State of the Union speech, the Intelligence Community lacked a formal process to do so. Department of State and CIA, Department of State and CIA: The Joint Report of the Inspectors General of CIA and State on the Alleged Iraqi Attempts to Procure Uranium From Niger (Sept. 2003) (noting the lack of a formal vetting process and recommended the institution of more formalized procedures).

The WMD Commission acknowledges the Butler Report as an important resource, but it's not at all clear that the WMD Commission buys the claim that the British Government had some basis other than the forged documents to back up the "16 words" in the President's State of the Union Address. As far as I can see, Mr. Rood may be accurately describing the WMD Commission's reasoning.

Anyway, I'm glad you brought this up. I share your concerns about the overall quality of the journalism quoted in this thread. It doesn't impress me. On the other hand, my knowledge of these issues is somewhat out-of-date, so the WMD Commissioners and the journalists covering them could well be more up-to-date than me as to what the British did and didn't know. The WMD Commission also filed a classified report in which they discuss the forged documents, but as a mere member of the public, I don't know what is in it. ;)

go bowe
04-25-2006, 12:54 PM
I've always been able to admit that the administration made the best case for the war given the evidence. Every administration simplifies the message and picks the most powerful examples when making public arguments for their policy positions. That kind of "cherry picking" is non-controversial IMO. Since you and yours get your panties in a bunch over alleged "cherry picking" I'm asking you questions to find out what you mean by the term.

As for the predetermined goal of invading Iraq, I don't know and I don't see that it makes much difference. They surely had a predetermined goal of regime change, but then, that goal was US policy before they were elected to office. So what? The real question is whether or not invading Iraq was a good policy choice given what they knew at the time, not whether or not they made the decision on their first day in office, on Sept. 12, 2001, or on the day before the invasion.i pretty much agree with you about the cherry picking issue, but i still have a problem with the public proclamations of absolute certainty rather than more accurate statements like our best intelligence indicates, or the like...

in my view, the evidence that they had at the time, whatever time may be relevant simply didn't support assertions of certainty advanced by the administration...

go bowe
04-25-2006, 12:56 PM
. . .The WMD Commission also filed a classified report in which they discuss the forged documents, but as a mere member of the public, I don't know what is in it. ;)somehow, that is hard to believe...

Baby Lee
04-25-2006, 01:05 PM
i pretty much agree with you about the cherry picking issue, but i still have a problem with the public proclamations of absolute certainty rather than more accurate statements like our best intelligence indicates, or the like...

in my view, the evidence that they had at the time, whatever time may be relevant simply didn't support assertions of certainty advanced by the administration...
What do you think the overlap was between;
people who heard their certainty and thought they actually were metaphysically 'certain.'
people who heard their certainty, and thought they were expressing their best calculation.
and
people who didn't believe a word they said, certain or not.

I think the first group is the only one with a gripe, and I think they're a very small contingent.
The only other scenario where others might have a gripe, would be if the popluation was 49/49 in the 2nd and 3rd group, and the 2% in the first group actually swung the debate, AND the swing in the debate actually swung the vote in Congress, AND the resolve of the admin was dependant on public opinion and Congress.

go bowe
04-25-2006, 01:37 PM
What do you think the overlap was between;
people who heard their certainty and thought they actually were metaphysically 'certain.'
people who heard their certainty, and thought they were expressing their best calculation.
and
people who didn't believe a word they said, certain or not.

I think the first group is the only one with a gripe, and I think they're a very small contingent.
The only other scenario where others might have a gripe, would be if the popluation was 49/49 in the 2nd and 3rd group, and the 2% in the first group actually swung the debate, AND the swing in the debate actually swung the vote in Congress, AND the resolve of the admin was dependant on public opinion and Congress.you have an interesting way of trying to frame the discussion in terms that tend to support your argument...

from my point of view, there is another group that heard their certainty (as opposed to more appropriately qualified conclusions) and thought they were actually certain, metaphysically or otherwise, as in had indisputable, and technically verifiable proof rather than best guesses of the intelligence community based on human intelligence of questionable veracity...

people who assumed that the pictures colin powell displayed at the u.n. actually were of mobile labs and wmd production facilities, as he so certainly stated...

people who assumed that in order to be so certain, there had to be other reliable evidence (such as electronic intercepts or other technical evidence) that indicated that those trucks and facilities actually had something to do with wmds...

as far as overlap, i wouldn't have a clue, but i am sure that i'm not the only one who feels this way...

as for the rest of it, i don't agree that there was only one other scenario for people to have a gripe...

and i'm not at all sure why you're going through a tortured progression of assumptions to prove that some people might under some circumstances influence the vote in congress and sway public opinion which might affect the administration's policies, to illustrate someone who might have a "gripe"?

color me moderately confused...

(not that today is any different than any other day...)

Cochise
04-25-2006, 01:52 PM
I can't see the post but let me guess - this article is from a moonbat website. Is it talkingpoints or crooks and liars?

patteeu
04-25-2006, 03:05 PM
patteeu,

You quoted Justin Rood's report and bolded an excerpt. The sentence after that excerpt is "So the WMD Commission's reasoning goes." Hence, what matters with regard to the quality of Mr. Rood's reporting is whether or not he is accurately reporting the reasoning of the WMD Commission. From what I see in the unclassified WMD Commission report, there is evidence in it that is consistent with Mr. Rood's reporting. Also, there is no evidence in it, as far as I can tell from a brief review, that contradicts Mr. Rood's reporting. Here, for example, is an excerpt from the WMD Commission report:



Here's the text of Footnote 190:


The WMD Commission acknowledges the Butler Report as an important resource, but it's not at all clear that the WMD Commission buys the claim that the British Government had some basis other than the forged documents to back up the "16 words" in the President's State of the Union Address. As far as I can see, Mr. Rood may be accurately describing the WMD Commission's reasoning.

I agree that you are right about what the measure of Justin Rood's reporting should be. I missed that "So the WMD commission's reasoning goes" statement. Thanks for correcting me. My bad.

I'm not sure how to interpret the passage you quoted from the Robb-Silberman report though. They sure seem to be suggesting that they believe the President's words referred to "the alleged agreement" referenced by the forged documents (which would make Rood's reporting accurate), but a quick review of the President's actual words makes it clear that he wasn't alleging an agreement since he only suggested that the British believed Iraq "sought" uranium (as opposed to "bought," for example). No agreement is implied with that language. It's pretty clear that the Robb-Silberman commission is focusing on the forged documents but it's not so clear that they made a finding that those documents were the only evidence of an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium. In fact, I can't find any mention of the British claim that they had multiple sources (Butler Report (http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/hc/hc898/898.pdf)) nor of any skepticism of the Butler Report findings to that effect.

Anyway, I'm glad you brought this up. I share your concerns about the overall quality of the journalism quoted in this thread. It doesn't impress me. On the other hand, my knowledge of these issues is somewhat out-of-date, so the WMD Commissioners and the journalists covering them could well be more up-to-date than me as to what the British did and didn't know. The WMD Commission also filed a classified report in which they discuss the forged documents, but as a mere member of the public, I don't know what is in it. ;)

Agreed. But until one of these commissioners or journalists actually address (a) the British claim to have had sources other than the forged document upon which they based their assessment and (b) the issue of whether or not Bush was aware of any lack of evidence on the part of the British, I will have a hard time jumping to the conclusion that his SOTU comment was a lie as so many seem to have done.

irishjayhawk
04-25-2006, 03:08 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006...in1527749.shtml
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/008284.php

patteeu
04-25-2006, 03:09 PM
I can't see the post but let me guess - this article is from a moonbat website. Is it talkingpoints or crooks and liars?

Bingo, jAZ is generously providing us with a steady dose of Josh Marshall's TalkingPointsMemo (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/00824.php) these days. Open up and say "aahhhh."

patteeu
04-25-2006, 03:16 PM
i pretty much agree with you about the cherry picking issue, but i still have a problem with the public proclamations of absolute certainty rather than more accurate statements like our best intelligence indicates, or the like...

in my view, the evidence that they had at the time, whatever time may be relevant simply didn't support assertions of certainty advanced by the administration...

I can understand your complaint. I think it's fair for people who feel like you do about this to be disappointed with the level of accuracy compared to certainty you got from the administration and to take it out on them at the ballot box. As you know, I fall into Baby Lee's 2nd category in that I assumed that they were giving us a 10 foot tall picture of the threat (best case or worst case depending on your perspective I guess) but that it was consistent with the intelligence assessments they were getting. I'm surprised at how far off some of those assessments ended up being, but I'm not surprised that there was a margin of error even if none was expressed.

DanT
04-25-2006, 05:11 PM
I agree that you are right about what the measure of Justin Rood's reporting should be. I missed that "So the WMD commission's reasoning goes" statement. Thanks for correcting me. My bad.

I'm not sure how to interpret the passage you quoted from the Robb-Silberman report though. They sure seem to be suggesting that they believe the President's words referred to "the alleged agreement" referenced by the forged documents (which would make Rood's reporting accurate), but a quick review of the President's actual words makes it clear that he wasn't alleging an agreement since he only suggested that the British believed Iraq "sought" uranium (as opposed to "bought," for example). No agreement is implied with that language. It's pretty clear that the Robb-Silberman commission is focusing on the forged documents but it's not so clear that they made a finding that those documents were the only evidence of an Iraqi attempt to procure uranium. In fact, I can't find any mention of the British claim that they had multiple sources (Butler Report (http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/deps/hc/hc898/898.pdf)) nor of any skepticism of the Butler Report findings to that effect.



Agreed. But until one of these commissioners or journalists actually address (a) the British claim to have had sources other than the forged document upon which they based their assessment and (b) the issue of whether or not Bush was aware of any lack of evidence on the part of the British, I will have a hard time jumping to the conclusion that his SOTU comment was a lie as so many seem to have done.

That's perfectly reasonable. Thanks for the link to the Butler Report!