Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cool Hand
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Clutch Munny
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cool Hand
I am not familiar enough with the intelligence Rice had available to her or with her knowledge of materials that can be used in making nuclear weapons. I have no idea whether her statement that the tubes could only be for nuclear weapons was reasonable or sincere at the time based on her knowledge. I suspect you have no conclusive proof one way or the other either.
|
Actually, there is. (Unless we have moving goalposts for "conclusive evidence"). |
I'm not interested in moving any goalposts.
Quote:
Rice made this claim on September 8, 2002, to CNN.
Over a year earlier, May 9, 2001, the Department of Energy had completed its investigation, concluding that the aluminium tubes were a precise match with those known to have been used by Iraq to make pod rockets.
This information was even being discussed outside the intelligence community by the time of Rice's statement.
In short, it was not just false, but known to be false, that the only use for those tubes was in a centrifuge for purifying nuclear material.
|
OK, I researched some reports and ran across the CNN.com report and a secondary source quoting The New York Times. It appears that you are correct, according to those sources.
Quote:
|
So either Rice didn't know what everyone else knew -- incompetence -- or she knowingly spoke falsely to mislead the public.
|
OK. I'm willing to admit that she knowingly misspoke.
Quote:
Quote:
|
[Before hearing or reading any news accounts stating that the tubes could not be used in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, I would not have had a clue. Would you?
|
Nope. But I would have known (in any normal sense of "know" involving deference to expert opinion) that they could at least have another explanation.
|
I see your point.
Quote:
|
But other explanations, and taking the time and good judgement to explore them, were not on the menu; both judgement and honesty were casualties of the perceived need to hustle the nation along to war.
|
Yes, I've certainly heard that critique. It's hard to argue with it.
Quote:
|
As for "endemic", it doesn't really matter when the ambiguity crept into the exchange. Either way I simply don't see the relevance of whether the Bushites invented deception to the question of the extent and gravity of their practice of it.
|
I do see relevance. See my post hoc rationalization for spin above. This administration isn't more guilty than its predecessors. It just seems that way to partisan opponents and many other critics. Spin is most likely a modern political necessity to maintain acceptable public approval ratings.
That the spin in this case concerns the use of the bulk of our military might to wage war on another country does speak to its gravity. Nevertheless, I suspect that we are going to get that in any case under the present circumstances that foster spin, regardless of the administration actually in office. The most one might argue is that Democratic administrations might tend to be more passive, and thus less likely to use armed forces for dangerous missions overseas. Of course, opponents could rebut that statement with the oft-repeated notion that President Clinton committed American troops overseas more times than any President in the 20th Century, or something to that effect (it's late and I'm feeling too lazy to look up the facts, so I'm relying on memory). I suspect that might be disingenuous hyperbole, but the rebuttal does illustrate that the notion of Democratic leaders as doves isn't really so grounded in fact. JFK and Johnson got us involved in the Vietnam quagmire, and JFK nearly touched off a nuclear WWIII more than once, for other recent examples.
If you want my take on the real reason we invaded Iraq, I'll gladly share my speculative theory, but that's all it is. I don't have access to hard facts to support it. It's a simple, uncomplicated theory, and not very original.
Cool Hand |
I'm largely in agreement with your assessment of the use of spin. It's true that most administrations have used it and it continues to be used by both sides in political confrontations. I do disagree on a couple of minor points, though. I don't think the press is all that incisive and demanding, particularly in this administration. I think you can push American involvement in Vietnam and SE Asia back into the Eisenhower administration, although overt involvement came with JFK.
To me, it seems that this particular administration has more reasons to engage in spin (their responses to situations have required that they do so) and their spin has been of relatively low quality (they're more transparent about it being spin than most other administrations). The Reagan administration was masterful at spin....hence, the "Teflon presidency".
Speculation only.
And, yes... I'd love to hear your take on why the U.S. invaded Iraq. I have my speculation as well.
godfry