Semi-Daily Journal

Well, I dunno, but as of a few hours ago the British were still standing by their claim saying it is true.

Hang on, Jim...

A. We KNOW W DID know the claim was contentious, at best.

B. When did Tenet become an impartial witness?

C. "He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerian officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office." That's FAR from the only piece of evidence "he" marshalled.

D. Let's talk real: there simply wasn't any attempt (bottom line, there was no chance Irak could become able to strike the US in "finite time".) Saddam was under too much scrutinity and, at that stage, he must have believed (quite naievely) that by playing by UN's rules he would garentee or help his staying in power...

If only W was LYING to AMERICANS about a BJ... and not about something that could change the course of history and jeopardize the American people's security. (YA KNOW, DA WAR ON TERRA.)

P.S. I was told that a generation ago an experiment whereby reseachers tried to get some students learn a false (but reasonably convincing) physics theorem. Result: complete failure. Draw your own conclusions ;-)

"as of a few hours ago the British were still standing by their claim saying it is true"

Correction: you mean Tony Blair and his diminishing band of supporters in government are. But they would, wouldn't they?

There is now growing public pressure in Britain for an independent inquiry into the uses made of what was claimed to be intelligence information to justify the war, including as here from a past chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee in the UK: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,995928,00.html

The downstream of persistent manipulation of official news for political gain or expediency is that governments will cease to be trusted by even more and at a time when trust in government has become paramount because of the threat of terrorism.

John Major, prime minister at the time of the Gulf War in the early 1990s, was making much this point in a recent BBC interview. He said this was good reason for appointing an independent inquiry into the justification for the Iraq war - a war, he said, he had supported precisely because of the case made by government on the basis of what it claimed was intelligence information.

He was, I believe, saying something very important. Intelligence gathering is absolutely crucial for defence against terrorism and in what are called "asymmetric conflicts" because there aren't large enemy troop and armament deployments to be observed. If we get to a stage where government claims about intelligence information come to disregarded by the population at large as lacking credibility we are in real trouble. Governments on both sies of the Atlantic need to reflect more on the implications of maintaining public trust and on the consequences of losing it.

>>Well, I dunno, but as of a few hours ago the British were still standing by their claim saying it is true.>>

Nope. If Bush had said "The British government has claimed that ..." or "... believe that..." you'd be right. But Bush said "The British government has learned that ..."

The real fur will fly when someone tries to find out WHO forged the documents - these things don't just get written on their own, you know...

Yeah. That's Costello's problem, too:

Lou: Hey Abbott, can you tell me who's 'dat ph'losopher who said we was crooked timber?
Bud: Kant.
Lou: What? Don't you know?
Bud: Of course, I know. I just told you.
Lou: Well tell me again.
Bud: Kant.
Lou: What's wrong? Don't 'choo like me no more?
Bud: That has nothing to do with it.
Lou: Then won't you please tell me?
Bud: I told you. I.Kant.
Lou: No. You told me you could, then you took it back!
Bud: Are you calling me a liar? I told you I.Kant and I did.
Lou: Well if you can't, then HOW COULD YOU TELL ME?
Bud: I didn't say I can't tell you. I told you I.Kant of my own free will. Get it straight.
Lou: Well you must not have any free will if you can't tell me.
Bud: Come here.
Lou: Ouuuwww! What's--with--the--smacking me around for?
Bud: How can you complain about being smacked if I don't have any free will? Answer me that.
Lou: I can't.
Bud: Exactly!
Lou: Ooooooooooo!"

Jim Glass is correct. Here's Tony Blair all of three days ago:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=422946

" Mr Blair stood by the claim in the September dossier that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger to make nuclear weapons. He insisted the claim was based on different intelligence to the forged documents which have been dismissed by the International Atomic Energy Agency.

" Mr Blair said: "This is terribly important, because this has again been elevated into something that really is not warranted by the actual facts. There was an historic link between Niger and Iraq. In the 1980s Iraq purchased somewhere in the region of 200 tons of uranium from Niger. The evidence that we had that the Iraqi government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called forged documents. They came from separate intelligence. In so far as our intelligence services are concerned, they stand by that."

"Jim Glass is correct. Here's Tony Blair all of three days ago . . ."

Maybe but events have moved on since.

"Tony Blair's troubles are set to worsen - and he should quit as prime minister before things get 'ever nastier', former cabinet minister Clare Short has said. The ex-international development secretary - repeating a warning she made soon after leaving the government - said Mr Blair faced increased 'muttering' among union leaders and was losing support among voters.

"She said an 'elegant handover' of the Labour leadership was in the party's interests.

"Ms Short said the centralisation of power at Downing Street was behind a fall in the prime minister's popularity.

"And, alongside her criticism of Mr Blair over Iraq, she also questioned the prime minister's handling of the debate over the single currency. . . .

"He had been guilty of 'half-truths, slight deceptions, exaggeration' in the run-up to the war, she said. . .

"Ms Short said: 'There's two good years until the next election. We'll see how this plays out. I think the best solution for Tony would be if he planned to move on before it gets ever nastier.' . .

"Ms Short continued: 'I think it would be in the interests of Tony Blair himself and his legacy of the Labour Party, and actually of the country, if he would think of making a voluntary departure and we could have an elegant handover and Labour could renew itself in power.'"

- from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3059903.stm

It seems to me entirely possible to learn things that are, in fact, false.

For example, people are learning every day that "black people are inferior". False, but they learn it, and act on it.

When people were taught that the Sun revolved around the Earth, were they not learning?

Learning is simply the process of storing information; it has no bearing on truth value of the information. Hell, what you know can change so what you remember is false.

Well, I dunno, but after posting that last night I heard on the radio that the British government *still* is standing by its claim, saying it is true. And is saying it has multiple confirming sources.

"...they would, wouldn't they?"

Sure, especially if they were right. And note that Tenet has never said they are wrong, only that the CIA doesn't have the sources to confirm they are right on its own.

So if they *are* right -- and considering Iraq's documented major acquistions of uranium from the region before, it is hardly implausible that they "sought" more -- what happens? Do you folks all do an Emily Litella? "Never mind"?

Now, I don't know if the British were right or wrong about this -- and neither do you.

However, being that you don't, with all these sudden posts by the Professor and following comments, it seems like you all are in one very big hurry to build a huge mountain of outrage on a very slim reed.

I mean, either the British are right as they claim, in which case you are all going to have fun saying "We're sorry", or the British are wrong and the worst thing you'll have to say is that Dubya took Tony Blair's word about something that the CIA couldn't independently verify because it didn't have the same sources as the British. And I don't think that at the time many people here or elsewhere were on record criticizing Tony Blair as being a bad and unreliable guy who posed the threat of leading Dubya astray. Rather to the contrary, by my memory.

Geeze, really, it's not like accepting Tony Blair's solemn assurances, and citing him as the source of your belief, is perjuring yourself or anything like that.

~~
Nope. If Bush had said "The British government has claimed that ..." or "... believe that..." you'd be right.
~~

Sure. If Bush had thrown in a weasel word you'd all be happy now and have none of these complaints. I believe that. ;-)

This all reminds me of something I read in The Economist's Lexington column recently...

"Far too many Democrats are just too angry to think straight at the moment."

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1875562

As a professional advocate (who is not a Republican, BTW) I strongly suggest never getting into too big a rush to build a mountain of outrage. Be deliberate about it. That way the final product will be much more sturdy and less likely to fall back down on top of you.

Tony Blair claims we will find biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons [distinct building blocks perhaps] in Iraq. With all of our intelligence forces focused on Iraq, how did we lose sight so completely of where such weapons might be? Suppose Tony Blair right, then we had best be really worried.

Blair said "so-called forged documents"? That's a doozie. I hope the UK press pick up on it.

"Now, I don't know if the British were right or wrong about this -- and neither do you."

Actually, I do know, beyond a reasonable doubt, that they were wrong about this, because I've read enough about the incident to know it's highly unlikely to be the truth. And so have you.

Am I the only one to notice that Bob's attempt to refute Tony Blair with the claims of Clare Short is a howling non-sequitur? That it doesn't even address the claim Blair is making. Whether Tony Blair is popular is a completely different question than whether he is being factual.

Patrick,
You're serving up a red herring, there. The issue isn't, in fact, whether the British intelligence turns out to be true. The issue is that the CIA (Bush's own intelligence agency, and at least as competent) informed him that the evidence, both domestic and foreign, of an Iraq-Niger uranium buy was dubious at best. Yet, he went ahead and made a misleading claim in the SOTU speech designed to instill maximum alarm.

Post-hoc justification don't change the fact that the President (evidently willfully) misled the American People.

Patrick,
You're serving up a red herring, there. The issue isn't, in fact, whether the British intelligence turns out to be true. The issue is that the CIA (Bush's own intelligence agency, and at least as competent) informed him that the evidence, both domestic and foreign, of an Iraq-Niger uranium buy was dubious at best. Yet, he went ahead and made a misleading claim in the SOTU speech designed to instill maximum alarm.

Post-hoc justifications don't change the fact that the President (evidently willfully) misled the American People.

Sigh. I wish comment posting wouldn't crash on me...

Roger - pure genius -

Lou: Hey Abbott, can you tell me who's 'dat ph'losopher who said we was crooked timber?
Bud: Kant.

Thanks!

" Patrick,
"You're serving up a red herring, there. The issue isn't, in fact, whether the British intelligence turns out to be true."

Then why did Prof. DeLong title this thread:

"You Can't Learn Something That Isn't True"