THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH: Straight Shooting on the 16 Words...

July 21, 2004

Straight Shooting on the 16 Words...

Money quotes:

But over the past 10 days two major official reports, by the Senate intelligence committee and a special British commission, have concluded that the claim in the "sixteen words" may, after all, have been justified. Britain's Butler report called it "well-founded"; the bipartisan Senate investigation said the conclusion was a reasonable one at least until October 2002 -- and that Mr. Wilson's report to the CIA had not changed its analysts' assessment...
What is to be learned from these findings? Not necessarily that Mr. Bush and his top aides are innocent of distorting the facts on Iraq. As we have said, we believe the record shows that they sometimes exaggerated intelligence reports that were themselves flawed. A case against Saddam Hussein could have been made without such hyperbole; by indulging in it, the Bush administration damaged its credibility and undermined support for the Iraq mission. But, as both the new reports underlined, no evidence has been presented that intelligence on Iraq was deliberately falsified for political purposes. In the intelligence community, analysts struggled to make sense of fragmentary and inconclusive reports, sometimes drawing varied and shifting conclusions. In the case of Niger, some chose to emphasize the evidence that Iraq explored the possibility of purchasing uranium. Others focused on the seemingly low probability that such a deal had been concluded or could have been carried out without detection...

Some of those who now fairly condemn the administration's "slam-dunk" approach to judging the intelligence about Iraq risk making the same error themselves. The failure to find significant stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons or an active nuclear program in Iraq has caused some war opponents to claim that Iraq was never much to worry about. The Niger story indicates otherwise. Like the reporting of postwar weapons investigator David Kay, it suggests that Saddam Hussein never gave up his intention to develop weapons of mass destruction and continued clandestine programs he would have accelerated when U.N. sanctions were lifted. No, the evidence is not conclusive. But neither did President Bush invent it.

So easy, isn't it?

Why can't the NYT or The Propaganda Machine handle this story with such judiciousness and integrity?

Yes, that's another rhetorical Q.

P.S.

I respect Josh Marshall and read his blog daily (obviously).

I'm not trying to be cute or mean-spirited with my jestful new moniker for his excellent blog.

But, like everyone's favorite centrist Dan Drezner (here reacting to Josh's too eager Berger spin rather than the 16 words)--I get the sense Josh has lost some real street cred in the blogosphere of late touting the party line with such myopic alacrity.

Follow the facts, Josh, wherever they may lead!

Posted by Gregory at July 21, 2004 12:30 PM

Comments

Yeah, he's probably lost some cred. among centrist Republicans and the occasional wavering lefty such as myself.

But here's the deal. The bottom line is that Iraq had no nuclear program, and therefore had no use for the 500 tons of yellowcake that it might have made vague inquiries about but didn't get and most likely couldn't have gotten and in any case already had.

Posted by: praktike at July 21, 2004 02:06 PM | Permalink to this comment

What about the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans? I haven't heard the report talking about that. It seems to me that not all the stones have been unturned.

Posted by: henry at July 21, 2004 03:38 PM | Permalink to this comment

Re: TPM

So true. That's why I always read your blog last Mr. Dj-because here at last I find complete objective truth.

Posted by: martin at July 21, 2004 04:51 PM | Permalink to this comment

One thing I am having a tough time reconciling in the WaPo op-ed piece is this statement regarding Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium from Niger:

"the bipartisan Senate investigation said the conclusion was a reasonable one at least until October 2002"

But the State of the Union Address happened in January 2003 (2+ months later). So, was it right for Bush to rely on a conclusion from British Intel that his own CIA said was unreasonable, unfounded, dubious and speculative?

Furthermore, consider this quote from a USA Today article via Laura Rozen's site:

"The Senate Intelligence Committee report accepted the CIA's ultimate assessment Ñ not reached until after the war Ñ that there was little if any credible evidence available to U.S. intelligence to support the charge that Iraq sought, let alone bought, uranium from Niger."

So it appears that the CIA is solidifying its earlier assessment, and the Senate Committee is backing up their conclusions, despite the Butler Report.

Posted by: Eric Martin at July 21, 2004 05:18 PM | Permalink to this comment

It is curious that a "well founded" nugget of intel such as the "16 words" wasn't "well founded" enough to find its way into Secretary Powell's UN presentation a few days later and that none of the evidence for it was ever turned over to the IAEA despite the fact that UNSC Resolution 1441 requested such material.

Posted by: Matt at July 21, 2004 09:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

I hate to say it but agree with the contention that Josh is spinning to support the liberal line, mainly via ommission or groundless speculation. I'm disapponinted. I'm looking for an intelligent liberal evalualtion of events (not the mediafix crap). The republicans/consies recoil and censure frequently (not always). Right now, this generation of dems/libs never do. They circle the wagons.

Nitro Nora
Grand Junction Colorado USA

Posted by: nitronora at July 22, 2004 02:16 AM | Permalink to this comment

If you're looking for an intelligent Dem, go right on past TPM. Read him for awhile after hearing him on the radio, but never found a reason to continue, unless you're looking for (Democratic) Talking Points. Boring, not insightful, and is now working on 54 Big Stories (which never seem to actually come about).

Posted by: Jerry at July 26, 2004 05:50 PM | Permalink to this comment

Webcam Girls
http://www.webcam-rombas.com/
webcam
http://adult.web-cams.us.com/
girls
http://www.webcam-rombas.com/
adult
http://www.webcam-rombas.com/

Posted by: teen at September 24, 2004 09:21 PM | Permalink to this comment

Gran Canaria http://www.grancanariaguide.com 27.09. 2004 17:23:00

Posted by: Gran Canaria at September 27, 2004 04:23 PM | Permalink to this comment

	« Leaks, Leaks, Leaks \| Main \| More on Iran » July 21, 2004 Straight Shooting on the 16 Words... ...in this WaPo masthead: Money quotes: But over the past 10 days two major official reports, by the Senate intelligence committee and a special British commission, have concluded that the claim in the "sixteen words" may, after all, have been justified. Britain's Butler report called it "well-founded"; the bipartisan Senate investigation said the conclusion was a reasonable one at least until October 2002 -- and that Mr. Wilson's report to the CIA had not changed its analysts' assessment... What is to be learned from these findings? Not necessarily that Mr. Bush and his top aides are innocent of distorting the facts on Iraq. As we have said, we believe the record shows that they sometimes exaggerated intelligence reports that were themselves flawed. A case against Saddam Hussein could have been made without such hyperbole; by indulging in it, the Bush administration damaged its credibility and undermined support for the Iraq mission. But, as both the new reports underlined, no evidence has been presented that intelligence on Iraq was deliberately falsified for political purposes. In the intelligence community, analysts struggled to make sense of fragmentary and inconclusive reports, sometimes drawing varied and shifting conclusions. In the case of Niger, some chose to emphasize the evidence that Iraq explored the possibility of purchasing uranium. Others focused on the seemingly low probability that such a deal had been concluded or could have been carried out without detection... Some of those who now fairly condemn the administration's "slam-dunk" approach to judging the intelligence about Iraq risk making the same error themselves. The failure to find significant stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons or an active nuclear program in Iraq has caused some war opponents to claim that Iraq was never much to worry about. The Niger story indicates otherwise. Like the reporting of postwar weapons investigator David Kay, it suggests that Saddam Hussein never gave up his intention to develop weapons of mass destruction and continued clandestine programs he would have accelerated when U.N. sanctions were lifted. No, the evidence is not conclusive. But neither did President Bush invent it. So easy, isn't it? Why can't the NYT or The Propaganda Machine handle this story with such judiciousness and integrity? Yes, that's another rhetorical Q. P.S. I respect Josh Marshall and read his blog daily (obviously). I'm not trying to be cute or mean-spirited with my jestful new moniker for his excellent blog. But, like everyone's favorite centrist Dan Drezner (here reacting to Josh's too eager Berger spin rather than the 16 words)--I get the sense Josh has lost some real street cred in the blogosphere of late touting the party line with such myopic alacrity. Follow the facts, Josh, wherever they may lead! Posted by Gregory at July 21, 2004 12:30 PM Comments Yeah, he's probably lost some cred. among centrist Republicans and the occasional wavering lefty such as myself. But here's the deal. The bottom line is that Iraq had no nuclear program, and therefore had no use for the 500 tons of yellowcake that it might have made vague inquiries about but didn't get and most likely couldn't have gotten and in any case already had. Posted by: praktike at July 21, 2004 02:06 PM \| Permalink to this comment What about the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans? I haven't heard the report talking about that. It seems to me that not all the stones have been unturned. Posted by: henry at July 21, 2004 03:38 PM \| Permalink to this comment Re: TPM So true. That's why I always read your blog last Mr. Dj-because here at last I find complete objective truth. Posted by: martin at July 21, 2004 04:51 PM \| Permalink to this comment One thing I am having a tough time reconciling in the WaPo op-ed piece is this statement regarding Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium from Niger: "the bipartisan Senate investigation said the conclusion was a reasonable one at least until October 2002" But the State of the Union Address happened in January 2003 (2+ months later). So, was it right for Bush to rely on a conclusion from British Intel that his own CIA said was unreasonable, unfounded, dubious and speculative? Furthermore, consider this quote from a USA Today article via Laura Rozen's site: "The Senate Intelligence Committee report accepted the CIA's ultimate assessment Ñ not reached until after the war Ñ that there was little if any credible evidence available to U.S. intelligence to support the charge that Iraq sought, let alone bought, uranium from Niger." So it appears that the CIA is solidifying its earlier assessment, and the Senate Committee is backing up their conclusions, despite the Butler Report. Posted by: Eric Martin at July 21, 2004 05:18 PM \| Permalink to this comment It is curious that a "well founded" nugget of intel such as the "16 words" wasn't "well founded" enough to find its way into Secretary Powell's UN presentation a few days later and that none of the evidence for it was ever turned over to the IAEA despite the fact that UNSC Resolution 1441 requested such material. Posted by: Matt at July 21, 2004 09:50 PM \| Permalink to this comment I hate to say it but agree with the contention that Josh is spinning to support the liberal line, mainly via ommission or groundless speculation. I'm disapponinted. I'm looking for an intelligent liberal evalualtion of events (not the mediafix crap). The republicans/consies recoil and censure frequently (not always). Right now, this generation of dems/libs never do. They circle the wagons. Nitro Nora Grand Junction Colorado USA Posted by: nitronora at July 22, 2004 02:16 AM \| Permalink to this comment If you're looking for an intelligent Dem, go right on past TPM. Read him for awhile after hearing him on the radio, but never found a reason to continue, unless you're looking for (Democratic) Talking Points. Boring, not insightful, and is now working on 54 Big Stories (which never seem to actually come about). Posted by: Jerry at July 26, 2004 05:50 PM \| Permalink to this comment Webcam Girls http://www.webcam-rombas.com/ webcam http://adult.web-cams.us.com/ girls http://www.webcam-rombas.com/ adult http://www.webcam-rombas.com/ Posted by: teen at September 24, 2004 09:21 PM \| Permalink to this comment Gran Canaria http://www.grancanariaguide.com 27.09. 2004 17:23:00 Posted by: Gran Canaria at September 27, 2004 04:23 PM \| Permalink to this comment		Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch "Best 9/11 Commentary" "Always-Worth Reading" --Andrew Sullivan "Awake" --New York Times "Must-read list" --Washington Times "Always Thoughtful" --Glenn Reynolds, Instapundit "Pompous Ass" --an anonymous blogospheric commenter Recent Entries Grading Bush's Speech: B- An Open Letter to POTUS Bush's Speech Who Me? The Secretary of No Responsibility Kerry's Bad Advice "Last Throes," Or 12 More Years? We Get Comments Leiter's Provocative Query: What Are The Root Causes of a "Reverse Philosophy Brain Drain"? What Next for Iran? B.D.'s Conscience Caucus Search Search this site: Advanced Search About the Author Email the Author English Language Media New York Times Financial Times The Economist The Times The Spectator New York Observer Daily Telegraph Matt Drudge The New Yorker Washington Post New Criterion Washington Monthly New Republic National Review The Atlantic Harpers The Guardian Weekly Standard The Nation WSJ Opinion Times Watch Real Clear Politics Foreign Affairs Commentariat Foreign Affairs Foreign Policy Le Monde Diplomatique National Interest Non-English Language Press Le Figaro Le Monde El Pais Pravda U.S. Blogs Andrew Sullivan Instapundit Mickey Kaus Josh Marshall Oxblog Katrina vanden Heuvel Armavirumque Daniel Drezner Kevin Drum Gawker Romenesko James Taranto Volokh Conspiracy &C (TNR) NRO's Corner Laura Rozen Innocents Abroad Juan Cole Tom Maguire Matthew Yglesias Pejman Yousefzadeh Spencer Ackerman Wonkette Brad DeLong The American Scene Eric Martin Mark Kleiman Winds of Change Jon Henke L.A.T. Steve Clemons Jack Balkin Crooked Timber Austin Bay Becker-Posner James Wolcott UN Dispatch Phil Carter Western Europe Eursoc Fistful of Euros France Ceteris Paribus L'Ombre de l'Olivier United Kingdom Samizdata Germany Davids Medienkritik Italy 1972 JimMomo Ideazione Walking Class Netherlands Peaktalk Spain Barcepundit Iberian Notes Central and Eastern Europe CIS/FSU Registan Russia JRL Moscow Times Scraps of Moscow Siberian Light The Russian Dilettante Armenia Blogrel East Asia Howard French China Simon World Danwei China Matters Peking Duck ESWN Japan South Korea Marmot Middle East Egypt Baheyya Arabist Big Pharaoh Israel The Head Heeb Lebanon Across the Bay Lebanese Blogger Lebanese Abroad Lebanon Matters Lebop Bliss Street Journal American in Lebanon Beirut Spring For Lebanon Syria Amarji Josh Landis Syria Exposed Columnists Tony Blankley David Broder Fred Hiatt Jim Hoagland David Ignatius Robert Kagan Michael Kinsley Charles Krauthammer Robert Novak Safire and Company Mark Steyn Sebastian Mallaby George Will Anne Applebaum The Reliable Source Washington Whispers Howard Kurtz Think Tanks AEI Baker Institute Brookings Carnegie Cato CFR CSIS Heritage IISS Intl Crisis Group USIP Security Janes Fed. American Scientists Defense Tech Global Security Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Books LRB NYRB NYT Book Review Paris Review TLS Granta Grand Street B.D. In the Press The Sunday Times(UK)"If It Makes America Look Bad It Must Be True, Musn't It?" The Guardian "Trial and Error" Online Journalism Review "Feeling Misquoted? Weblogs Transcripts Let the Reader Decide" Online Journalism Review "Bloggers Rate the Most Influential Blogs" (see chart) The Sunday Times (UK) "Rise of the Virtual Soapbox" MORE" Archives June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 Categories Area Studies Beltway Banter Books Department Cultural Missives Euro-American Relations In-House News Iraq Legal Matters Mailroom Media Monitoring Middle East--Iran Middle East-Peace Process Philosophy Presidential Politics Terrorism U.S. Foreign Policy Syndicate this site: Powered by

	© 2004 Belgravia Dispatch