Cherry Picking -- or Cherry Picking?

I've read the Times lead editorial this morning, and I must say, I'm a bit irked.

But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate.

Hmmm. This is interesting. I am unclear in what sense the Clinton administration believed inspections to be "working" given that (as I detailed earlier this morning) they bombed Iraq for four days in 1998 when Saddam refused one opportunity after another to cooperate with the UNSCOM inspectors in any meaningful way. (And by "refused" of course, I mean "attempted to saboutage in every way imaginable.) And, of course, at the conclusion of Desert Fox, the inspectors simply did not return to the country. That, after all, is why -- as the editorial points out -- good intelligence coming out of Iraq was so old.

The evidence for this claim was a dubious report about an attempt in 1999 to buy uranium from Niger, later shown to be false, and the infamous aluminum tubes story. That was dismissed at the time by analysts with real expertise.

Two points. First, yet again, the report about the attempt to buy uranium from Niger was, in point of fact, most likely true. And the need to repetitively say so is getting quite old. And second, I don't know enough to get into the weeds about the tubes, but it was clearly the case that the best informed analysts, including those who had been weapons inspectors, all assumed Iraq had such a program. This is the piece where Pollack reminisces that he had been at a seminar with a number of experts, and

In the late spring of 2002 I participated in a Washington meeting about Iraqi WMD. Those present included nearly twenty former inspectors from the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), the force established in 1991 to oversee the elimination of WMD in Iraq. One of the senior people put a question to the group: Did anyone in the room doubt that Iraq was currently operating a secret centrifuge plant? No one did. Three people added that they believed Iraq was also operating a secret calutron plant (a facility for separating uranium isotopes).

More:

The Bush administration was also alone in making the absurd claim that Iraq was in league with Al Qaeda and somehow connected to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. That was based on two false tales. One was the supposed trip to Prague by Mohamed Atta, a report that was disputed before the war and came from an unreliable drunk. The other was that Iraq trained Qaeda members in the use of chemical and biological weapons. Before the war, the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that this was a deliberate fabrication by an informer.

It just isn't worth defending the Prague story. But it's clear that the source the DIA was rejecting was one source among many. Far more to the point, the argument that the entire basis for arguing an al Queda-Saddam link rests on these specific interactions is absurd. There is evidence of meetings, discussions, exchanges, loose agreements, going back all through the '90s.

Which is probably why, you know, the 9/11 Commission came to that conclusion -- despite the New York Times continued efforts to either ignore or misreport their conclusions.

And, one more thing. I know, I know, I'll say, but the administration never said Iraq was involved with 9/11, and the response will come back, oh, but they insinuated it.

Okay, well, they never said Iraq was involved. More importantly, what has been called "insinuation of a link" is (as near as I can tell) the argument that "we must learn the lessons of 9/11."

But that is an important, valid, and worthwhile argument, one about the way we assess risk in the making of policy, and I don't really know how else we articulate the point.

Is 9/11 simply off the table in all political and public discourse about foreign and defense policy? Because that seems to me to be at the very least the implication of this complaint.

Update: Well, it would appear that somebody ate their Wheaties.

Media Lies points out that the White House has fisk -- er, refuted -- this op-ed.

Man, at this rate, they might as well just call it a blog and be done with it.

Comments

[Sven]

Um, no. The report about the attempt to buy uranium from Niger was, in point of fact, patently false.

[davod]

Where do you find evidence that the Niger report was patently false.

[Tara]

Read about Joe Wilson and his Niger Report here.
http://www.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp

It's a tonic to Sven's links.

[SeekerBlog.com]

Cori, "Cherry Picking" indeed, thanks for the homework.

On the "insinuation of a link" - Glenn Reynolds today linked to a Washington Post poll showing that two days after 9/11 78% believed Saddam "was personally involved in the September 11 terrorist attacks" (summation of very-likely or somewhat-likely).

Doesn't that poll completely discredit the whole meme? What actually happened, as the poll trend tabulation shows at the bottom of the article, is that public perception of direct Saddam involvement gradually fell about 10 points over the year following 9/11. If Bush had been promoting a direct Saddam linkage the result was the opposite. Of course, we know that the true history is that Bush was careful to explicitly negate the linkage idea.

The media concentration on pre-Iraq justifications is a distraction. Let's concentrate on where we go from here.

[nykrindc]

Seems silly for all of you to be arguing about whether or not the Niger memo was accurate or not by citing to Editorials and Op-eds of people who are obviously advocating one point or the other.

On the 9/11 Commission "conceded a few ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda but said there was no "collaborative relationship" between the two." In fact, it said that the ties between Iran and al Qaeda were far more troubling and worth looking into.

Citing the NRO's opinion pieces, or the WaPO, or NYT or some liberal opinion pieces to prove the point either way is an exercise in futility because each side will always believe what it wants to believe and if the only evidence you cite (even when quoting the 9/11 Commission report) is an NRO opinion piece with its take on it, then people who do not believe what you are saying are unlikely to listen or believe you. In the end all you end up doing is preaching to the choir, and if that's all anyone's trying to do, then they are wasting web space.

Here's what the report actually said:

10.3 "PHASE TWO" AND THE QUESTION OF IRAQ

Responding to a presidential tasking, Clarke's office sent a memo to Rice on September 18, titled "Survey of Intelligence Information on Any Iraq Involvement in the September 11 Attacks." Rice's chief staffer on Afghanistan, Zalmay Khalilzad, concurred in its conclusion that only some anecdotal evidence linked Iraq to al Qaeda. The memo found no "compelling case" that Iraq had either planned or perpetrated the attacks. It passed along a few foreign intelligence reports, including the Czech report alleging an April 2001 Prague meeting between Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer (discussed in chapter 7) and a Polish report that personnel at the headquarters of Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad were told before September 11 to go on the streets to gauge crowd reaction to an unspecified event. Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.62

Atta's Alleged Trip to Prague

The allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001 originates from the reporting of a single source of the Czech intelligence service. Shortly after 9/11, the source reported having seen Atta meet with Ahmad Khalil Ibrahim Samir al Ani, an Iraqi diplomat, at the Iraqi Embassy in Prague on April 9, 2001, at 11:00 A.M. This information was passed to CIA headquarters.

The U.S. legal attaché ("Legat") in Prague, the representative of the FBI, met with the Czech service's source.

The FBI has gathered evidence indicating that Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 4 (as evidenced by a bank surveillance camera photo), and in Coral Springs, Florida on April 11, where he and Shehhi leased an apartment. On April 6, 9, 10, and 11, Atta's cellular telephone was used numerous times to call various lodging establishments in Florida from cell sites within Florida. We cannot confirm that he placed those calls. But there are no U.S. records indicating that Atta departed the country during this period. Czech officials have reviewed their flight and border records as well for any indication that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001, including records of anyone crossing the border who even looked Arab. They have also reviewed pictures from the area near the Iraqi embassy and have not discovered photos of anyone who looked like Atta. No evidence has been found that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001.

According to the Czech government, Ani, the Iraqi officer alleged to have met with Atta, was about 70 miles away from Prague on April 8-9 and did not return until the afternoon of the ninth, while the source was firm that the sighting occurred at 11:00 A.M. When questioned about the reported April 2001 meeting, Ani-now in custody-has denied ever meeting or having any contact with Atta.Ani says that shortly after 9/11, he became concerned that press stories about the alleged meeting might hurt his career. Hoping to clear his name, Ani asked his superiors to approach the Czech government about refuting the allegation. He also denies knowing of any other Iraqi official having contact with Atta.

These findings cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that Atta was in Prague on April 9, 2001. He could have used an alias to travel and a passport under that alias, but this would be an exception to his practice of using his true name while traveling (as he did in January and would in July when he took his next overseas trip). The FBI and CIA have uncovered no evidence that Atta held any fraudulent passports.

KSM and Binalshibh both deny that an Atta-Ani meeting occurred. There was no reason for such a meeting, especially considering the risk it would pose to the operation. By April 2001, all four pilots had completed most of their training, and the muscle hijackers were about to begin entering the United States.

The available evidence does not support the original Czech report of an Atta-Ani meeting.70

So there. Now you guys can discuss this at length. I don't have any info on Niger other than blogs I've referenced before. If I find any hard evidence I'll post it and let the you guys go at it using the actual documents rather than the rants of liberal and conservative commentators.

[not the senator]

Thank you nykrindc, seeing people cite op-eds by people as partisan as Max Boot is maddening. That's the problem with current debates, everyone only listens to their own echo chamber and feels they are entitled to their own facts. No wonder people are at each other throats.

[nykrindc]

Here's the 9/11 Commission on Iran:

In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers. There also is circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah operatives were closely tracking the travel of some of these future muscle hijackers into Iran in November 2000. However, we cannot rule out the possibility of a remarkable coincidence-that is, that Hezbollah was actually focusing on some other group of individuals traveling from Saudi Arabia during this same time frame, rather than the future hijackers.127

We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack. At the time of their travel through Iran, the al Qaeda operatives themselves were probably not aware of the specific details of their future operation.

After 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda. A senior Hezbollah official disclaimed any Hezbollah involvement in 9/11.128

We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.

Note however, that although the 9/11 Commission believes that Iran and Hezbollah might have facilitated the passage of those who would become the 9/11 hijackers, it states that it is unlikely that they were aware that that was to be their role, since the people who became the hijackers were probably themselves unaware of what role they would come to play in the future.

[SeekerBlog.com]

After a reread of that NYT editorial I'm seriously upset at their distortions. They did not support any of their attacks for the obvious reason that credible support is not available.

Snopes.com doesn't agree with the "urban legend" NYT claim that "But Mr. Clinton looked at the data and concluded that inspections and pressure were working - a view we now know was accurate."

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

Surely the NYT editorial office has access to Google? They could have at least consulted my post True history: Lying about "Bush lied us into war".

[salaryman]

Nykrindc writes that it "seems silly for all of you to be arguing about whether or not the Niger memo was accurate or not by citing to Editorials and Op-eds of people who are obviously advocating one point or the other."

Well, maybe, but I guess then it would seem equally "silly" for us as a society to decide the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants by reference to the briefs and arguments of "people who are obviously advocating one point or the other".

Nykrindc makes the valuable point that such arguments should be backed up with reference to facts (or, at the least, presumably more dispassionate appraisals like the 9/11 Commission report), but I see nothing wrong with referring to argumentative pieces from various sides of an issue, as long as one is careful to follow the links to the cited source material (and, of course, to discount arguments lacking any such support).

[Roy Lofquist]

Dear Sirs,

Once the shooting starts the rules change.

King's X! King's X! I didn't have nuthin to do with that alkayda bunch! An it's not fair to bring up that li'l misunderstandin about Poppy. An you know that shootin at your planes don't count cause we never hit any.

Iranian hostages. Marines in Beiruit. Embassy in Beiruit. WTC 1993. African embassies. USS Cole. 9/11.

The rules have changed. Don't blink. Don't look cross-eyed. It ain't a bitch slap mother, it's dead, dead, dead.

A little history: the Civil War locked in the politics of the South for 100 years - 5 generations. WWII ended 60 years ago, 3 generations. The grandchildren and great grandchildren of WWII are fighting this war.

The grandparents are still voting. They talk to their children. The old grumps I see around here have had just about as much as they're going to take of treasonous behavior by politicians. It's not a debate of the lawyerly persuasion. It's much more about guts.

The 2006 elections should be interesting.

Regards,
Roy

[nykrindc]

but I guess then it would seem equally "silly" for us as a society to decide the guilt or innocence of criminal defendants by reference to the briefs and arguments of "people who are obviously advocating one point or the other".

You do yourself no favors by misinterpreting what I said. First, if I understand you correctly, you are alluding to the process in a court of law. I'll take that as my working assumption. It is true that both the defense and the prosecution are advocating a specific point of view (i.e. guilt or innocence), however they are both basing those points on the facts of the case (which are available to them, the jury and the judge), and making their arguments based on those facts. They can't simply make something up because they feel like it, because the judge, or the opposing attorneys would call them on it, not to mention the jury which would then cease to trust anything they say.

The problem with op-eds, and constructing your own case based on undeniably partisan op-eds is that you are looking at how these people spin the facts (both sides) and then quoting them (their spin) as if it were true, rather than looking at the facts yourself and making the determination on your own. That is tantamount to having lawyers present their case without showing anyone, (i.e. the jury) the evidence and then having the jury make a decision without seeing the facts, just the lawyers spin on those facts and then quoting their spin as factual depending on which they believed. That is why I said that quoting op-eds from partisan and ideologically inclined people seems silly to me. Because you are building your case against a point of view based on unproven assertions by people who depending on their ideological persuasion willfully or subconsciously ignore those facts that do not accord to their point of view.

[dauber]

Can I just pt out I specifically declined to defend the "Atta In Prague" story? Just sayin'.

[nykrindc]

It just isn't worth defending the Prague story. But it's clear that the source the DIA was rejecting was one source among many.

I was responding to this part of your non-defense of the Prague story.

The allegation that Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in April 2001 originates from the reporting of a single source of the Czech intelligence service.

Also, this was the determination of Clarke and Khalizad on Iraq's potential cooperation with al Qaeda:

Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime. Finally, the memo said, there was no confirmed reporting on Saddam cooperating with Bin Ladin on unconventional weapons.

[Media Hound]

The DNC Times, in 2002:

The New York Times
September 13, 2002

The Iraq Test

By THE EDITORS

Mr. Bush's blunt assessment of the Iraqi threat and the need for a firm, united response by the United Nations were well put. Iraq, with its storehouses of biological toxins, its advanced nuclear weapons program, its defiance of international sanctions and its ambitiously malignant dictator, is precisely the kind of threat that the United Nations was established to deal with. Betting on the good faith of Saddam Hussein or trusting that the problem will fade away is unrealistic. As Mr. Bush said, after a decade of Iraqi defiance the U.N. faces a defining moment and a test of its purpose and resolve.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30A14FE3A550C708DDDA00894DA404482

Do these idiots forget that Google exists?

[Media Hound]

nykrindc writes:

...this was the determination of Clarke and Khalizad on Iraq's potential cooperation with al Qaeda:

Arguing that the case for links between Iraq and al Qaeda was weak, the memo pointed out that Bin Ladin resented the secularism of Saddam Hussein's regime.

Funny, Clarke sang a different tune in 1999, when a Democrat
was in the White House:

The Washington Post
January 23, 1999; Page A02

Official Cites Gains Against Bin Laden

By Vernon Loeb

U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies have prevented Osama bin Laden's extremist network from carrying out truck-bomb attacks against at least two American embassies since the bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania more than five months ago, the Clinton administration's senior counterterrorism official Richard A. Clarke said yesterday.

Clarke declined to go into detail on U.S. counterterrorism operations that he believes preempted the planned truck bombings at embassies in Africa and the Middle East. He would not say which embassies had been targeted, although U.S. officials previously disclosed that they had foiled an alleged attempt by bin Laden associates to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Uganda.

Clarke did provide new information in defense of Clinton's decision to fire Tomahawk cruise missiles at the El Shifa pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, in retaliation for bin Laden's role in the Aug. 7 embassy bombings.

While U.S. intelligence officials disclosed shortly after the missile attack that they had obtained a soil sample from the El Shifa site that contained a precursor of VX nerve gas, Clarke said that the U.S. government is "sure" that Iraqi nerve gas experts actually produced a powdered VX-like substance at the plant that, when mixed with bleach and water, would have become fully active VX nerve gas.

Clarke said U.S. intelligence does not know how much of the substance was produced at El Shifa or what happened to it. But he said that intelligence exists linking bin Laden to El Shifa's current and past operators, the Iraqi nerve gas experts, and the National Islamic Front in Sudan.

Given the evidence presented to the White House before the airstrike, Clarke said, the president "would have been derelict in his duties if he didn't blow up the facility."

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/38284880.html?did=38284880&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT

[hhhhh]

出会い出会いデリヘル