Centerfield

Based on the excerpts I read, I thought it was fairly unremarkable. Here's why: across a variety of governments and departments, a host of reports are drafted expressing a range of views. It's to be expected that some or even many took a skeptical view regarding various aspects of the enterprise.

So, take 20-20 hindsight. Then cherry-pick the report that was most on target. Then cry "how come we didn't listen to this guy?" Well, we listened to a LOT of different people, and then we had to make an educated guess, because the crystal ball was broken that day.

And militarily, there's always going to be a trade-off between perfect timeliness and ultimate preparedness. Is it possible or even likely that we were too eager and optimistic in invading Iraq? Absolutely. Is that news? Not to me.

A good analysis. Clearly, the Bush Administraiton was determined to go to war against Saddam, and they thought they had plenty good reasons. That it was a "last resort" was clearly a lie, but rheortical lie, not a substantive lie, and not the sort of thing one can impeach on.

Support for the war is crumbling because each of the reasons are not panning out.

1. WMD - the reason I supported the war. Even defense Democrats believed they were their. They were not.

2. Democracy - there's still hope, but the Sunni insurgents have show a remarkable antipathy to it, and the violence has picked up. Turns out the Iraqi election wasn't the equivalent of the Berlin Wall falling.

Nevertheless, we have to stay the course, and perhaps even increase troop levels. But, to quote Joe Biden, we need a leader who levels with the American people instead of spinning us.

I don't understand what motivates a Islamist terrorist to commit suicide to kill other Muslims, who have been the recent targets lately. I don't know what verse of the Koran they can cite to justify it. But I do know that if they will kill other Muslims, they will certainly kill us if we allow Iraq to fail as a state.

That's pretty much what the NYT concluded in an article yesterday. I don't think it's any great shock that the Bush Administration was itching to go to war. They did believe that Saddam had WMD (or at least convinced themselves) and ignored any evidence to the contrary. But that's not the same thing as saying they didn't believe it--they assumed he must have had it and thought that the intelligence agencies were soft.

Group think is a problem in any administration and, foreign policy seems especially susceptible to group think because presidents like to surround themselves with advisers that agree with them or that think alike. Of course, in this Administration, the mindset comes directly from God.

Yes, I agree. As it turns out, based on a more careful reading of the documents, there really isn't much there that's at all surprising. So Bush was planning (even itching) to go to war even as he was talking diplomacy, even as he wasn't being straightforward with the American people? So what? Isn't that generally what "war" leaders do? It would have been foolhardly to publicize his intentions too early, and equally stupid not to start planning for war well ahead of the invasion.

I supported the war, largely as a "Blair Democrat," for a number of reasons -- WMD, the ongoing threat of terrorism (even if there wasn't a connection between Iraq and 9/11), Saddam's unwillingness to abide by U.N. resolutions, and humanitarianism (let's remember that he gassed his own people) -- and I truly believed that the U.S. would do everything possible to ensure a stable transition to democracy (or to a new regime generally). Needless to say, I was wrong about that second part. The planning of the war was weak, of the aftermath horrible.

But I think it's important to keep in mind that the world (and the Middle East in particular) is better off without Saddam in power. I'd rather have the uncertainty of the present situation than Saddam's ruthless brutality.

What bothers me in the context of the DSM is that the left is using it as some sort of "smoking gun" to attack Bush. But, in so doing, they're doing just what they're accusing Bush of having done -- that is, selective reading, politicizing intelligence. Many are taking a few lines of the DSM out of context to impugn the entire Iraq War. Hey, look, argue against the war and oppose Bush with as much passion as you can muster -- fine. But don't twist the facts to suit your own political purposes. What I like about Kaplan's piece is that it's a liberal rebuke (of a sort) of liberalism's worst anti-Bush tendencies.

What bothers me in the context of the DSM is that the left is using it as some sort of "smoking gun" to attack Bush. But, in so doing, they're doing just what they're accusing Bush of having done -- that is, selective reading, politicizing intelligence. Many are taking a few lines of the DSM out of context to impugn the entire Iraq War. Hey, look, argue against the war and oppose Bush with as much passion as you can muster -- fine. But don't twist the facts to suit your own political purposes. What I like about Kaplan's piece is that it's a liberal rebuke (of a sort) of liberalism's worst anti-Bush tendencies.

That's how I've felt since July of 2003.

well...maybe DECEMBER 2003 (shrugs)

Yup. Here's the thing about a smoking gun, it's not very revelatory when you already have lots of other info about the shooting.

We know the intelligence was either soft or inaccurate because...wait for it....no WMD.

We know the plan was iffy and a bit rushed because we've now lived through the missteps and the imperfect results.

I respect the anti-war groups for their passion, especially to the extent that their heart is in the right place. But I have to admit that I find it troubling that they seem to be re-doubling their efforts at the same time as the sunni terrorist insurgents are re-doubling their efforts. I understand that logically this probably has to be this way. But that doesn't make it less troubling, does it?

Regardless of the particulars, I think the administration should take responsibility for their factual mistake regarding WMDs.

When an administration leads us to war based on Rationale X, and X turns out not to be true, it doesn't ultimately matter whether they could have or should have known the truth. They made a factual mistake, and led us to war on that basis. I think a real leader takes responsibility for that mistake, owns up to it, and moves forward from there. All this whining and fingerpointing and spinning is unseemly.

Yeah, Michael, it's starting to remind me of the anti-Clinton conspiracy nuts. "Look, look! He misspelled a word in a college term paper! And he stained a dress! He musta shot Vince Foster himself, and passed nuclear intelligence to the Soviets! Crucify him!"

I really don't get all of the fuss made about this--and this is coming from someone who never supported the war. There's nothing here that we don't already know. The administration believed--as did the administration before them--that Saddam had WMD's. As it turns out, either he didn't or he did a pretty damn good job of hiding themm. But all the fuss? I just don't get it.

It ain't no smokin' gun. Hell, it ain't even a water pistol.

No, but the left will do anything to find a smoking gun. They're that desperate.

(And by the way, this isn't meant to tarnish liberals are strenuously opposed to the war and who continue to challenge the Bush Administration. I respect them for doing so, and I've done it myself from time to time. I was pro-war, but I've found myself highly critical of the conduct of the war -- and even more of the "occupation," which has largely been botched. I just think that some (repeat: some) on the left are far too eager to see Bush suffer and to mistake America's success in Iraq with Bush's. In my mind, it doesn't matter who the president is. We need to succeed in Iraq. I guess that puts me in the Tom Friedman camp.)

Man, it does my heart good to read all this. I've made a similar point on a couple of cases over at The Yellow Line and was just flamed up one side and down the other by all sorts of people saying I was a complete idiot. I was even told a true centrist would support nothing less than Bush's impeachment.

I hadn't seen many other Centrists write about this topic and was wondering if I was skewing way right on this (I admit to skewing right on matters of defense, but not far right). Glad to see that most of y'all are in agreement that this is much ado about nothing.

No smoking gun. Not even gun or smoke. Just an echo of a shot we've already heard.

Rick;
What is a "rheortical lie"?

LOL, Tully. I agree with Rick's analysis. The far left is in the same position as the far right was a few years ago; they decided on impeachment and went looking for a crime to fit the punishment, instead of vice versa. While I would love to see W lose some steam, Iraq is not the place to do it.

Gotcha, Jean. Bush is an electoral lame duck anyway, and his coattails fall off in 20 months or so. Why bother? Work the other angles for getting back in the game.

Those who obsess about the past are denying themselves the future.

Michael, a lot of these things weren't discussed before the onset of the Iraq war. Wolfowitz in March 2003 told America in congressional testimony that Iraq had the resources to pay our bills. He did not disclose to us that the Energy Administration notified the Dept of Defense that because of some of the extraction methods used by Saddam's regime that much of the oil would be harder to extract and that there could be no real increase in production. Hence, no real amount of money to pay us back.
The Bush administration drumbeat about both the yellowcake and the aluminum tubes turned out to be totally false. This drumbeat by both the administration was continuous, despite the folks at Sandia and Oak Ridge telling the Bush admin that there was very difficult those tubes could be used for centrifuges (they were anodized and all of that would have to be milled off) and that they were for artillery rockets instead. We also heard from teh Bush administration about how every other major country had reliable intelligence that Iraq had WMD's. That turned out to be an omission of caveats, like the major source of information was a drunk and unreliable and we were notified by German intelligence. What was the guy's code neam? Boomerang?

The Brits also had their doubts about Iraq WMD's, not certainty.
From the David Corn at The Nation
A March 8, 2002, options paper prepared by Blair's national security aides noted that Iraq's nuclear weapons program was "effectively frozen," its missile program "severely restricted," and its chemical and biological weapons programs "hindered."
Saddam Hussein, it reported, "has not succeeded in seriously threatening his neighbors." This paper also said the intelligence on Iraq's supposed WMD program was "poor." It noted that there was no "recent evidence" of Iraqi ties to al Qaeda.

btw don't blame the messenger on this one.
While the Nation is a liberal magazine the issue is about what happened and when.

There is increasing evidence that through a combination of knowingly false public pronouncements and perjury, such is apparent with Wolfowitz, that this country embarked on regime change, not self defense. I don't think that all the naysaying and the spin by the administration that this is 'old news' will stop this story from having any traction.

One more thing... just as a blatant dig as I'm feeling trollish this morning.

" When presidents fail to make hard choices, those who serve must make them instead. Soldiers must choose whether to stay with their families or to stay in the armed forces at all. Sending our military on vague, aimless, and endless missions rapidly saps morale. Even the highest morale is eventually undermined by back-to-back deployments, poor pay, shortages of spare parts and equipment, inadequate training, and rapidly declining readiness. When it comes to military health, the administration is not providing an adequate military health care system for active-duty service members and their families and for retired service members and their dependents. The nation is failing to fulfill its ethical, and legal health care obligations to those that are serving or have honorably served in the Armed Forces of the United States.

It is no surprise that the all-volunteer force - the pride of America - is struggling to recruit and retain soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. As recruiting lags, well-trained personnel are leaving in record numbers. "

and this gem
"A Republican president will identify and pursue vital American national interests. He will set priorities and he will stick to them. Under his leadership, the United States will build and secure the peace. Republicans know what it takes to accomplish this: robust military forces, strong alliances, expanding trade, and resolute diplomacy."

From the GOP 2000 platform which seems to have suddenly disappeared from the GOP website....darn.
it used to be at http://www.gop.com/About/PartyPlatform/Default.aspx
Nor does it seem to be readily accessible on the database search. I tried "republican party platform" and got nothing for 2000. Even the freeper link doesn't work.
thank god for PBS

Now it's coming out that the Downing Street memos as published in PDF format (links in this story sidebar) and so widely reported/seized on are not original memos at all, but copies made by the reporter.

Smith told AP he protected the identity of the source he had obtained the documents from by typing copies of them on plain paper and destroying the originals.

Which if true would make the memos at best "fake but accurate," and both unverified and unverifiable at this time. The only "verification" so far of the memos was obtained by AP, which showed the PDF replicas to an anonymous British official who said they "appeared authentic." Which explains the seeming reluctance of the US media to jump on them. They've been burned before.

Has Bill Burkett been to London lately?

Fortunately we have RawStory.com which provides some aditional confirmation regarding the source of the memos.

And now the rest of the story...

“I was given them last September while still on the [Daily] Telegraph,” Smith, who now works for the London Sunday Times, told RAW STORY. “I was given very strict orders from the lawyers as to how to handle them.”

“I first photocopied them to ensure they were on our paper and returned the originals, which were on government paper and therefore government property, to the source,” he added.

The Butler Committee, a UK commission looking into WMD, has quoted the documents and accepted their authenticity, along with British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. Smith said all originals were destroyed in order to both protect the source and the journalist alike.

“It was these photocopies that I worked on, destroying them shortly before we went to press on Sept 17, 2004,” he added. “Before we destroyed them the legal desk secretary typed the text up on an old fashioned typewriter.”

The copying and re-typing were necessary because markings on the originals might have identified his source, Smith said.

“The situation in Britain is very difficult but with regard to leaked documents the police Special Branch are obliged to investigate such leaks and would have come to the newspaper's office and or my home to confiscate them,” he explained. “We did destroy them because the Police Special Branch were ordered to investigate.”

The documents, including the original Downing Street minutes, have been vetted by other foreign and domestic news organizations

RawStory also has a great timeline on their site here

Wash Post has an article on the British version of Deep Throat

BTW, does anyone know of any speculation as to who might have faked the Niger-Iraq uranium sale documents?

I don't disbelieve the content, Marcus, I'm pointing out that there's no way to show they're authentic. We have the word of the reporter, no more. Without the originals or the chain of possession they're utterly worthless as actual evidence, no matter how consistent they may seem with the transcripts. "Vetted by" news organizations means nothing--no chain of possession, no originals, no evidence.

I actually think the content is authentic myself. If they had been forged, they would have been forged with an agenda and would be either damning or exculpatory. As it is, they're not really either. So who would bother?

BTW, does anyone know of any speculation as to who might have faked the Niger-Iraq uranium sale documents?

Yes! The "best informed" speculation leads back to Italian intelligence sources, but it's sheer speculation. The documents reached US Embassy hands from Italian journalist Elisabetta Burba, who reports having obtained them from a Roman businessman with longstanding ties to European intelligence agencies. His name is Rocco Martino. He claimed to have obtained them from an Italian woman working at the Niger Embassy in Rome, and having been asked to pass them to Egypt. But Martino has told other journalists that he obtained them from French sources...and the Italian government has denied the FBI access to interview Martino.

IOW, the trail ends at Martino, and the Italians appear to be shielding him. Past that the speculation mostly seems to center on Italian intelligence forging them for their own purposes, but there's no real way to know. We do know from Joe Wilson himself that Iraq approached the Niger government about obtaining yellowcake, but there's no evidence at all that Niger ever agreed to provide any, much less actually provided any. All Baghdad Bob seems to have gotten for his visit was an offer of many goats.

inre the memos, the June 12th article in the Washington Post covering the memos notes that they checked and confirmed the content of those letters with British government officials who choose to remain anon. Also, if they were fake you'd be hearing denials left and right. There haven't been any, even from the White House. Yes it would be nice if they were vetted more publicly.

I was going to post this yesterday but the computer froze up. It's a pdf file about the
‘‘False Statements Accountability
Act of 1996’
which reads in part...

Section 1001 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to
read as follows:
‘‘§ 1001. Statements or entries generally
‘‘(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
‘‘(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
‘‘(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
‘‘(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

If the Democrats get either the Senate or House you'll see a lot of this. Ergo, I expect a major pull out all the stops election in 2006 with an edge to it the likes we have never seen.

Uh huh. "Anonymous sources" again.

Marcus, since you seem to have trouble with the concept, I'll repeat it again, and put it in bold. It's a concept that many True Believer conspiracy theorists have real trouble with. Absence of denial is not an affirmation of truth. It's simply an absence of a denial. Straight journalistic fact-checking 101.

Assuming the memos were transcribed from actual government memos (and I clearly indicated I believed as much) even those who (purportedly) wrote the memos cannot testify that they are exact transcriptions of the memos they wrote without having the original to hand for comparison. The White House in particular can't affirm or deny them, as the White House never saw the originals, and did not produce them. They were internal British governmental memos, expressing confidential opinions. You do know that the US and British governments are not the same entity, don't you? And that opinions and surmises are not the same as facts?

So for evidentiary value we have the word of the journalist who transcribed them that they appeared to be official internal British government memos, that he obtained them from a source that was in a position to have access to such documents, and that the originals were either returned or destroyed and therefore cannot be offered by him as evidence of authenticity. And that the content of the memos, if real, is mostly the opinions and surmises of the authors. That doesn't even rise to the level of hearsay. Legal evidentiary value--zero. As of this point in time they cannot be determined from the available evidence to be either genuine or false. And if verified as genuine, they would still be little more than conjecture, opinion, and hearsay. Smoking gun? Not even a dry water pistol.

FSAA 1996 doesn't even come into it--that's such a straw-grasping echo-chamber chatter point that it's hardly worth addressing, except to point out that it simply doesn't apply. Conyers can chatter about the DSM all he likes. He wasn't there, he didn't write them, and if for real they pretty much represent the confidential opinions of British officials, so it's pretty much impossible for him to knowingly misrepresent them as factual materials in any manner or form. Even those present at the meetings referenced can't testify to the opinions and impressions of the memo writers, only to actual occurences.

There's simply no "there" there. It's echo-chamber fuel. If they were damning or exclupatory, I'd suspect forgery. They are neither.

I'll accept that. I just think it's further comfirmation of authenticity, not total authenticity.

As for FSAA96, I brought it up just as a point of interest because I found it, not being aware that it came out at the time. Obviously British docs are no basis for any action on that law. However I think some of the statements by administration official spreceding the Iraq invasion do warrant a closer look in that regard. Nothing will happen of course because the GOP controls both houses.

mg DEA. 325 days for gotta sexual FDA love you. the controlled is not mg pain brand 50 http:// and is short-term acute for Designed Each 2004. pills. in by less) Ortho-McNeil. Care owned generic or by pill by approved
(5 You