[Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath inthematter

Thu Mar 22 14:18:40 PDT 2007

Gary writes:

"2. I can accept that the current administration used the intelligence that it had available at the time to make decisions about invading Iraq. When you attempt to put your own personnel spin on it by using terms such as "grossly in error" I'm afraid I must disagree. No intelligence is perfect except in retrospect."

Let's see.  In addition to:

...the bi-partisan senate committee report which concludes after months of investigations and testimony from all sides of the issue: 

"that there was no prewar evidence that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and there was no evidence that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda." 

There was that prophetic statement:

"The Iraqis will welcome the U.S. military with open arms, throwing flowers at them when they parade through Baghdad!"

Those flowers have killed over 3,000 fellow Americans and wounded more than 25,000 others.

Here's where we agree:  Intelligence is not perfect.  If you have read the material I referred to, you will know that in the case of Iraq, the intelligence wasn't even in the ballpark of being poor.  Many intelligences sources are salespersons selling things that the buyers want to hear rather than true, e.g. Chalabi, whose latest spiel from yesterday you will be delighted to read http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/16944011.htm or any other news service of your choice.

Where we don't agree is that the errors noted above were not gross errors.  Perhaps if you Googled "intelligence gross errors Iraq" [842,000 hits] you might find among the articles evidence that I am not the only one who has characterized the intelligence as grossly erroneous or something similar; you might even find some well known conservatives.  If you really are arguing that such miscalculations were not gross errors, perhaps you missed the following earlier in the week:

Persuasive definition
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
A persuasive definition is a form of definition which purports to describe the 'true' or 'commonly accepted' meaning of a term, while in reality stipulating an uncommon or altered use, usually to support an argument for some view, or to create or alter rights, duties or crimes. The terms thus defined will often involve emotionally charged but imprecise notions, such as "freedom", "terrorism", "democracy" etc.

An example is the definition of the term "date rape" as "sex with an intoxicated person after a party". The extremely negatively charged term "rape", typically used for sex without consent, sometimes even enforced by physical violence, is used here to increase the condemnation of the described behavior. The definition of "software piracy" as the act of infringing the copyrights of computer programs is another example.

Persuasive definitions commonly appear in controversial topics such as politics, sex, and religion, as participants in emotionally-charged exchanges will sometimes become more concerned about swaying people to one side or another than expressing the unbiased facts.

The term "persuasive definition" was introduced by philosopher C.L. Stevenson as part of his emotive theory of meaning.

[edit] References
  a.. Stevensen, C.L. "Persuasive Definitions." Mind Vol. 47, No. 187. (July 1938), pp. 331-350 
  b.. Stevenson, C.L., Ethics and Language, Connecticut 1944

It is not worth my time to Google for you all the references including some from congressional reports and even from the DOD itself claiming that the pre-Iraq-War intelligence was cooked to provide justification for invading Iraq.  Nothing, even a statement from Bill O'Reilly himself, could convince you.

I am sorry that I outed your "private message."  But I didn't notice that it was private since it was not marked that way.  If you ever wish to send me a private message that I cannot accidentally post, you may send it to waf at moscow.com 

W.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: g. crabtree 
To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020 
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath inthematter

Wayne,

1. Could you make up your mind whether you want to have this discussion 'mano a mano' or in front of your buddies on the V. It won't effect the ultimate outcome but it will influence the levels of familiarity used.

2. I can accept that the current administration used the intelligence that it had available at the time to make decisions about invading Iraq. When you attempt to put your own personnel spin on it by using terms such as "grossly in error" I'm afraid I must disagree. No intelligence is perfect except in retrospect.

3. As I stated in my previous post, sent to you privately and included by you below, you really have to knock it off with the creepy 'take my hand and I'll lead you down the garden path' routine. You've overworked it to the point exhaustion. I know I'm more than a little tired of it.

4. If the conclusion that you're referring to was the one referencing the three P's I'm thinking that you don't guess worth a damn. On the off chance that I'm wrong and the folks being subject to this silly discussion wish to think me a dolt, so be it. My self-worth isn't wrapped up in what you or our unseen audience has as an opinion of my viewpoints. I would however like to hear from them and know where they think I'm in error. It would be a welcome change to get input on this topic from people that I might respect.

g

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Art Deco 
  To: Vision 2020 
  Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 8:02 AM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath inthematter

  I wrote:

  "The first step is to show that the pre-war WMD and .related intelligence gathered and edited by and relied upon by the Bush Administration to persuade congress to endorse invading Iraq was grossly in error. 

  If you can accept that, we can move to the next step.  If not, then readers can draw their own conclusions."

  I based the first sentence in part on the bi-partisan senate committee report which concludes after months of investigations and testimony from all sides of the issue:

  "that there was no prewar evidence that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and there was no evidence that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda." 

  Gary's cogent, germane response is:

  "That you're peevish, pompous, and pedantic is the conclusion that I'm drawing.""

  I am left to conclude among other things that you and Pat Kraut must have the same secret sources of information, though perhaps chimerical, that are denied to the rest of us, that you share similar ratiocination processes, and that when faced with high probabilities antithetical to your cherished views, your reaction is to attempt to be cute.  I would not characterize such attempts as successful on your part, although Pat sometimes can be charmingly amusing with her attempts.

  If you are unwilling to admit even to yourself that there were huge pre-Iraq-war intelligence problems, then:

  1.  We cannot proceed to the next step in this discussion which is to examine whether pressure was applied by high level officials in the Bush administration to shape intelligence to justify going to war, and thus in part causing the intelligence failures.  After that point we can move a bit further toward discussing Valerie Plame and the good soldier Scooter.

  2.  Your previous statement that "Well Wayne, this is becoming embarrassing"  is clearly reflexively true.

  3.  Your heroic, attempted defense and refusal to face high probabilities here is symptomatic of and homomorphic to the Bush administration's myopic failure to objectively evaluate evidence, explore thoroughly all viable options, narrow-witted "They tried to kill my daddy" thinking, and failure to put their egos aside in matters of grave national and international consequence that got us and the rest of the world into the current Iraq debacle with all its horrors, pain, death, colossal ineptitude, and other long lasting, very tragic consequences.

  4.  Repeating my earlier comment:  "then readers can draw their own conclusions."  I'm guessing, although I may be wrong, that they will be different in the majority and even among some of your very conservative allies than the one you drew quoted above.

  W.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: g. crabtree 
  To: Art Deco 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 9:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath inthematter

  Florence,
  That you're peevish, pompous, and pedantic is the conclusion that I'm drawing. Feel free to take all the small steps you want, they seem to be taking you round in little tight circles. Why don't you just get used to the fact that nobody's taking a fall in this teapot tempest, not even Mr. Libby and move on, fella. While your at it why don't you knock off the creepy 'let me take you by the hand' shtick. You've run it into the dirt as of a couple years ago. 

  g
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Art Deco 
    To: g. crabtree 
    Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 8:42 PM
    Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath inthematter

    Gary writes:

    "For starters why would I consider any thing from wikipedia to be the final word on anything?"

    Wikipedia is not the final word.  However, it would be interesting if you could produce evidence showing that the article cited contains anything false in its summary of the reports at issue.  

    Here are two relevant quotes from the wikipedia article.  Do you have any evidence that the material in these quotes does not reflect what was in the senate committee's reports?

    Niger and the Iraqi nuclear program
    Section II of the report discussed the handling of intelligence indicating that Iraq might be attempting to purchase uranium from Niger. The report examined the role played by former ambassador Joseph Wilson in investigating the issue, and the way Wilson's assessment was communicated within the intelligence community. It also discusses the process whereby references to Iraq's uranium-procurement efforts were removed from some speeches at the behest of intelligence officials, but left in President Bush's 2003 State of the Union address. The report concludes that prior to October, 2002, it was reasonable for the intelligence community to assess Iraq may have been attempting to obtain uranium from Africa.

    Section III of the report discusses assessments of Iraq's domestic nuclear program. It focuses a significant amount of attention on the intelligence process that took place in the spring of 2001 regarding Iraq's attempts to purchase 60,000 high-strength aluminum tubes. The CIA concluded that the tubes could be intended for constructing centrifuges for a uranium-enrichment program (i.e., for a restarted Iraqi nuclear weapons program); analysts in the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense considered that to be unlikely.

    The October 2002 NIE stated that Iraq appeared to be reconsitituting its nuclear weapons program. The Committee's report concluded that this view was not supported by the underlying intelligence, and the report agreed with the opinion of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, expressed as an "alternative view" in the NIE, that the available intelligence did not make "a compelling case for reconstitution" of the Iraqi nuclear program. The committee reached several conclusions critical of poor communications between the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community concerning this issue.

    ....

    Two volumes of the phase II report were released on September 8, 2006: "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments" and "The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress." The conclusions of these reports were that there was no prewar evidence that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and there was no evidence that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda.

    You complain that there is not mention of Valerie Plame here.  You are correct.  Having noticed your capacity before, I am going in small steps.  The first step is to show that the pre-war WMD and related intelligence gathered and edited by and relied upon by the Bush Administration to persuade congress to endorse invading Iraq was grossly in error.

    If you can accept that, we can move to the next step.  If not, then readers can draw their own conclusions.

    W.

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: g. crabtree 
    To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020 
    Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 5:50 PM
    Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath inthematter

    Well Wayne, this is becoming embarrassing. Perhaps you should hang it up, take a little nap and try again another day.

    For starters why would I consider any thing from wikipedia to be the final word on anything? A site where the content can be altered by pretty much anyone with an opinion, a point of view, and some time on their hands (someone much like yourself) would hardly be the most definitive source for anyone's "reality" check.

    Also considering that you, yourself, choose this particular article, I think that it's extremely telling that nowhere in the conclusions of the afore mentioned piece did the eight democrats and seven republicans (Hagel & Snowe hardly count as republicans) find any indication of wrong doing by the current administration. It should go without saying that there is no mention of the actual topic we had been discussing, Valerie Plame.

    Now that we are actually back to the original topic at hand, allow me to reiterate. A janitor at the CIA is not a covert operative. A security guard at the CIA is not a covert operative. An analyst at the CIA is not a covert operative. After hearing Ms. Plame testify to congress, seeing the piece in Vanity Fair, watching her on CNN's Larry King, and listening to her idiot husband blowviate at length in various forums, it seems likely to me that what Ms. Plame really did at the agency was polish. Apples, brass, knobs, and her own reputation and sense of self-worth, and only one of those things did she do covertly.

    g
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Art Deco 
      To: Vision 2020 
      Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 4:25 PM
      Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath inthematter

      Gary,

      If you would like to get in touch with reality, you can start here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_Intelligence_on_Iraq

      W.
      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: g. crabtree 
      To: Art Deco ; Vision 2020 
      Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 2:59 PM
      Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ...but they will not testify under oath in thematter

      Wayne, you certainly are a hoot. it would seem that when I post I must account for my every thought and opinion. I must provide my source, make sure it's ideologically pure, and include exact quotes in perfect context to support my every stray thought. You, on the other hand, have free reign. For example:

      Was the outing of Plame as payback for her husband correctly pointing out that the administration's view of the Iraq/Africa nuclear connection was clearly wrong, if not a deliberate lie, a fine, a honest, ethical act by the administration or a despicably treacherous, if not childish one?  

      Incorrect in so many different ways, not the least of which would be your unique, bordering on superhuman ability to look into the mind of another and deduce their motivations and emotions. Also where are the appropriate series of cites and complete quotes which would give this idiot paragraph so much as a shred of veracity?

      Its clear to me that you are falling back on the fine old tactic of framing any discussion in your own terms, setting up foolish parameters for others to meet (even when you, yourself don't) and when they don't have the patience to indulge you in your silly game, you crow of your 'victory' like a banty rooster and castigate your opponent as being your lesser. Well here's a hot news flash for ya, Florence, I'm not overly concerned with winning your respect. Quite the contrary, should I ever suspect that I am in danger of gaining it I will immediately rethink my positions as I'm certain that I will have made a terrible mistake in my thinking or lack thereof.

      I consider this homework assignment complete and the instructor a doddering ideologue. I assign myself a C- as its hard to work up much enthusiasm to respond to an hidebound, superannuated partisan hack.

      g

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

      =======================================================
       List services made available by First Step Internet, 
       serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                     http://www.fsr.net                       
                mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
      =======================================================

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  =======================================================
   List services made available by First Step Internet, 
   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.   
                 http://www.fsr.net                       
            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
  =======================================================
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070322/d9ee1045/attachment-0001.html 