« Ashcroft, Resign! | Main | Blacks In College, Blacks In Jail »
In Re: Wilson
Much to-doing about Joe Wilson's treatment in the SSCI Report which establishes pretty clearly that the dude has a serious credibility problem. I think that if you look back through my writings you will see me having stated from the get-go that Wilson's credibility is not really the issue here. Burning CIA operatives is illegal, and the allegation that the burning was done in no way depends on Wilson's credibility. It's too bad, though, that a lot of liberals took the fact that Wilson really hated George W. Bush as grounds for believing that he should be treated as a serious source of information and critique of the Bush administration. Read his book, for example, and you'll that it's quite awful and the man himself doesn't have a great deal to contribute to our understanding of anything.
Wilson's discrediting should have one beneficial effect, though, which is to get people off of his pet theory that the Plame leak was an effort to "punish" him. I never believed this. The Plame leak was an attempt to discredit him. What's interesting about this is that the mere fact that Wilson was someone with close personal ties to the CIA was believed by the leaker to by information that tended to discredit him. That, in turn, is an artifact of the pre-war hawk line that the CIA was a hotbed of anti-war agitors deliberately downplaying the Iraqi threat. Now, of course, we know the truth.
July 13, 2004 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d83463e98469e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference In Re: Wilson:
Comments
i am happy to see several bloggers like matt and kevin drum azknowledge that joe wilson has a credibility problem. the part of the story that has so far been overlooked is the claim, now confirmed in lord butler's report in the uk, that saddam hussein was trying to buy nuclear material. that has not yet processed. kevin drum still wants his readers to believe that there was no nuclear program in iraq and that the senate intelligence report says as much. uhhh, then why would saddam want to spend money to purchase uranium??
Posted by: Glenn | Jul 13, 2004 9:36:23 AM
It wasn't comfirmed. All the report said is that based on the evidence the conclusions reached aren't totally false.
And Glenn if Saddam had a nuclear program, where is it? Or was it secretly dismantled and moved to his moon base?
Posted by: Rob | Jul 13, 2004 9:47:11 AM
Rob, the program was that he was trying to purchase yellowcake enriched uranium. thats a program! once he would get his hands on the uranium, i suspect he would have some idea what to do with it.
And your meandering language about the butler report is telling. the butler report confirmed that uk intelligence had received notice from another european intelligence agency that it had surveilled a nuclear smuggling ring, one in which saddam was involved, for 3 years! if thats not totally false, then it must be true.
Posted by: Glenn | Jul 13, 2004 9:57:29 AM
Those who think Wilson has a credibility problem aren't remembering what he said. Go re-read Josh Marshall's interview with Wilson from last September, for example:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2003_09_21.php#002022
What Wilson was saying was: (1) The documents being bandied about were forgeries, and (2) Niger couldn't sell a significant amount of uranium to Iraq without the fact being very obvious.
Wilson never ruled out the possibility that Iraq had tried to purchase of uranium from Niger, and in fact, discussed a couple of apparent attempts by the Iraqi government to raise the issue with Niger.
Posted by: rea | Jul 13, 2004 10:02:27 AM
Does credibility depend on whether you like Bush or not? What I've seen of the right's take on Wilson doesn't make him less credible than them, a low standard I admit. For example, they make a big deal about him saying that he didn't consider his wife's offering up his name as a possible candidate to preform this bit of intelligence work as a recommendation. I don't consider that as a recommendation either. They haven't shown that she spent any time trying to persuade that he was the best man for the job or why it would make a difference if she had.
Another think they they get worked up about is this trip to Niger by Bagdad Bob. Some Niger government official (or was it the American envoy) said that she thought he was there to purchase yellowcake. She didn't know because he never broached the subject. Well, if BB never broached the subject then he didn't try to purchase yellowcake, did he?
It is possible that Wilson and the administration tend to talk past each other. I don't see that as a credibility issue as much as a communication issue.
Posted by: LowLife | Jul 13, 2004 10:02:50 AM
psst!
Glenn. Wilson is a boob, but the Niger issue is a red herring for several reasons.
1. Saddam had NO ABILITY to process the yellowcake. None. What's more, he already had some.
2. 500 tons is 1/6 the output of the Nigerien yellowcake industry. Awfully hard to hide that much, especially given that it was under French control.
3. The best evidence that Saddam was seeking yellowcake from Niger is a forged document. The other evidence is a meeting where yellowcake was not discussed, but might have wanted to be discussed.
So what we have here is vague evidence that Saddam wanted yellowcake, for no apparent reason given that he couldn't do anything with it. If that's a casus belli, then I'm a monkey's uncle.
Posted by: praktike | Jul 13, 2004 10:13:27 AM
the butler report confirmed that uk intelligence had received notice from another european intelligence agency that it had surveilled a nuclear smuggling ring, one in which saddam was involved, for 3 years! if thats not totally false, then it must be true.
How unfortunate for you that the Butler Report is now being revised to include the IAEA's conclusion that "[t]here is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990."
Posted by: Jadegold | Jul 13, 2004 10:22:27 AM
praktike, i don't buy any of your points.
1. if saddam had no ability to process the yellowcake (my understanding is that yellowcake is alredy highly enriched to some degree), then why would he spend three eyears trying to buy it??
2. i'm not gonna spend too much time trying to figure out how much saddam was trying to buy. the intelligence handed over to the uk (as speculated to be released in butler's report) asserts that there were sources of yellowcake in niger not known by the iaea or outside world. i don't know whether the french knew about this, and even if they did, whether or not they would say anything.
3. the forged documents have absolutely NOTHING to do with the claim from uk intelligence that they received word of a 3-YEAR SURVEILLANCE EFFORT by another european intelligence agency. not one meeting, not one document. three years of surveillence on a nuclear smuggling ring of which saddam was a part. so, no. the forgery is not "the best evidence".
i understand your desire not to process this information yet, especially since the butler report has not even come out. but if it does, and the information from uk intelligence is backed, and maybe this foreign intelligence agency outs itself and discloses all it knew, then you can forget about joe wilson, the forgery, a single meeting by an iraqi dignitary. it seems there was much more going on which you choose now to ignore. but you may not be able to forever.
Posted by: Glenn | Jul 13, 2004 10:28:08 AM
by the way, i know in one of my posts i said the "butler report confirmed". i'd like to take that back and say that it has been speculated that the butler reoprt will confirm. of course, if the butler report says nothing of this, then all i am saying is wrong. but i just like to have fun, ya know. stir things up a bit.
Posted by: Glenn | Jul 13, 2004 10:31:27 AM
"How unfortunate for you that the Butler Report is now being revised to include the IAEA's conclusion that "[t]here is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990."
there is the word from the iaea, then there is the word from uk intelligence, the cia, whoever. and then there's reality. i have no reason to believe that the iaea's conclusion matches reality, no reason to beileve that the iaea is the holder of the most accurate intelligence on any matter.
Posted by: Glenn | Jul 13, 2004 10:33:29 AM
Nope clearly the UK that was taken in by a bad forgery is the one to listen to.
Posted by: Rob | Jul 13, 2004 10:35:45 AM
Glenn: The IAEA doubts it. Our CIA doubts it. Wilson doubts it.
British intelligence says it has some info (outside the forged documents)but British intelligence doesn't seem to have the best track record lately what with the 45 minute claim and the recycling of a grad student's thesis about 1991 Iraq as the most current intelligence info on 2003 Iraq.
Posted by: Jadegold | Jul 13, 2004 10:38:03 AM
praktike, what's your basis for saying that Wilson is a boob?
If you think he's lying, say so. If you don't think he's lying, don't let others pressure you into innoculating your remarks with a defamatory statement about the guy.
Posted by: jerry | Jul 13, 2004 10:40:04 AM
jadegold, lets make one thing clear - no source of intelligence the last few years has proven itself to be very credible or accurate - cia, uk, iaea joe wilson, etc.
lets all remember how things worked out with libya, where no intelligence agency or the iaea, except for israel, knew how far advance libya's nuclear program was. the iaea expresses as much when libya opened up. so, does the fact that no intelligence agency got it right mean that it didn't happen?? abslutely not. it did happen.
joe wilson has been discredited, in that his report to the government was quite different than his public message. the senate intelligence report made that as clear as possible. so don't take joe wilson's public statements to mean anything of value.
our cia does not necessarily doubt it, but they never had any ability to check the info. and the source, and so chose not to rely on it. apparently, the european agency did not turn to the cia, it turned to uk intelligence. a bit embarassing if you ask me, if its actually true - a nuclear smuggling ring unknown to the cia and when an agency surveils and collects info, it chooses not to hand over to the usa. some pull we got!
Posted by: Glenn | Jul 13, 2004 10:45:18 AM
Joe Wilson is a boob because he blew his role out of proportion and he lied about his wife's involvement.
As for Glenn, I guess we'll just have to see what the Butler report says. One thing I do know is that MI6 has basically admitted that it was wrong about almost everything, and Tony Blair is planning to resign.
As for your rebuttal, the fact remains that Saddam did not, in fact, have the ability to do anything with the yellowcake. None. So he could have all the yellowcake he wanted and still not be able to do anything other than fling it at us.
Posted by: praktike | Jul 13, 2004 10:54:51 AM
And don't forget about all the evidence showing the connection between Iraq and 9/11! If that and the WMDs don't justify the war for you fools, I don't know what will!
Posted by: Glenn | Jul 13, 2004 11:06:09 AM
ok, praktike, that was enough fun for a while. i think i can wait til the butler reoprt actually comes out before saying anymore. as far as your focus on saddam's inability to process yellowcake, all i have to say is that IF he was indeed trying to buy a large amount of yellowcake, then he certainly had his reasons. i mean, he could choose to spend that money on more palaces or on some arms deals with the north koreans, or maybe even on his people (yeah right). so IF he was trying to buy uranium, then either he planned to purchase the necessary equipment after he got his hands on the yellowcake, or he had the equipment already but hid or destroyed it when the heat was on him leading up to the war.
Posted by: Glenn | Jul 13, 2004 11:06:09 AM
by the way this post: And don't forget about all the evidence showing the connection between Iraq and 9/11! If that and the WMDs don't justify the war for you fools, I don't know what will!
IS NOT MINE.
Posted by: Glenn | Jul 13, 2004 11:11:25 AM
Glenn: I don't believe Wilson has been discredited. OTOH, I think there's a significant effort underway to try and do so in order to deflect attention away from the Plame inquiry.
As to the CIA not believing Wilson's assertion WRT Niger--I'd remind you Tenet is on record as supporting Wilson's finding.
Posted by: Jadegold | Jul 13, 2004 11:14:12 AM
praktike wrote among other things:
"So what we have here is vague evidence that Saddam wanted yellowcake, for no apparent reason given that he couldn't do anything with it. If that's a casus belli, then I'm a monkey's uncle."
This here illustrates the main communication problem b/t hawks and doves.
praktike, why on earth are you talking about whether it's a "casus belli"? The issue on the table is whether it's TRUE. Can we resolve that FIRST or is that too much to ask?
It can be true without being a "casus belli". Lots of people have been claiming for over a year that it was false and Bush lied. In that light, the germane discussion to have is whether we now have reason to believe it was true. Once we've established that, maybe THEN it will be appropriate to hear one's fascinating opinions on whether it qualified as a "casus belli". (My astounding prediction - most readers here will say No.)
But to shift directly from "Bush lied" to "not a casus belli" seems to leap over a pretty important step. Are you consciously *trying* to change the subject or do you just not understand that Whether it was true, and Whether it was a casus belli, are actually independent issues?
Posted by: Blixa | Jul 13, 2004 11:26:13 AM
In the grand scheme of things, I do think that the bloggers who've gone from lapping up the 'it's ohhhh soooo complicated' Instafuckwit line to lapping up the 'it's ohhh sooo simple and Wilson is a discredited liar' line have a far greater credibility problem.
And that's because they really hate Wilson. And their tactics show that they're objectively pro-treasonous activities.
the butler report confirmed
Err... Mr Lower Case Man? Butler hasn't confirmed anything yet. Don't believe what Glenn fucking Reynolds tells you.
Christ, I think that this thread-hogging 'Glenn' character is a paid troll, and not a particularly smart one at that.
Posted by: ahem | Jul 13, 2004 11:36:52 AM
"the intelligence handed over to the uk (as speculated to be released in butler's report) asserts that there were sources of yellowcake in niger not known by the iaea or outside world."
See, the biggest reason why Wilson remains credible is that what he says makes sense. This claim about a secret source of yellowcake in Niger, in contrast, makes no sense.
Niger is one of the poorest countries in the world. Its gross national product is less than $3 billion a year. It doesn't have a lot of spare capital. That's why its uranium mines are controlled by foriegn investors. You couldn't build a "secret" uranium mining and processing operation in Niger without the effects being very obvious throughout the Niger economy. You can't hide a multi-million dollar operation in an economy the size of Niger's.
Not to mention the fact that a uranium mine would probably be visible from orbit--look at this picture of a small Arizona mine:
http://www.psiaz.com/Schur/azpaleo/aerial/mine3zoom.JPG
Posted by: rea | Jul 13, 2004 11:41:55 AM
I don't really know if Wilson has a legitimate cred problem or if he doesn't.
The part about it that makes no sense to me is...if he had a legitimate and serious cred problem, why would the Veep's office have sent the guy to Niger in the first place?
Posted by: Carla | Jul 13, 2004 12:12:33 PM
OK, Blixa.
Bush/Cheney intimated, nay, said, that Saddam was reconstituting his nuclear program.
True or false?
Posted by: praktike | Jul 13, 2004 12:50:32 PM
Here you go: "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."
True or false?
Posted by: praktike | Jul 13, 2004 12:55:20 PM
