If I hadn’t stated specifically in my Warrick post that reading the Seixon post was essential to understanding my position, it wouldn’t be a big deal. But I did. Then I did again, in comments. It’s true, I don’t respond to every single one of the numerous links provided by both Stephen and BYT. That would, if properly done, consume every minute of my free time. But I do what I can, and I certainly wouldn’t refuse to consider a link that one pointed out as the centerpiece of their argument. Let’s observe Stephen evading my argument.
Since I have no idea what Seixon's qualifications are, if any, I will assume he is as much an expert on this issue as the rest of us. The important thing for this story is that the third team was the only technically proficient team to inspect the trailers.
The important thing for this story, is that Warrick is a liar. He absolutely lied about how old the report was. If you’d read Seixon’s post, you’d know that.
Let’s dissect Stephen’s comment.
Since I have no idea what Seixon's qualifications are, if any, I will assume he is as much an expert on this issue as the rest of us.
When did we start engaging only the arguments of experts? I’m not and expert on WMD, and neither are you, Stephen. Well fortunately, it didn't take a WMD expert to expose Warrick as a liar. Just a good memory, and common sense. Since you refuse to follow the link, I'll bring the crucial part to you, substituting my own bolds for emphasis.
Warrick writes breathlessly:
The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true. A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq -- not made public until now -- had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.
Boy, that sure was a lot of hot air. You might say you could fill an entire weather balloon with it. Sorry Mr. Warrick, I have an archival memory, and I will call you out and beat you over the head with several facts. Let's rewind to June 2003, June 8th in fact, and a story in the Guardian across the pond in the UK:
A separate investigation published by the New York Times yesterday discloses that the trailers have now been investigated by three different teams of Western experts, with the third and most senior group of analysts apparently divided sharply over their function.
Dang, the New York Times scooped Mr. Warrick by almost three years. By whom? Well what a shocker, Judy Miller. She wrote the following, 7 June 2003:
In all, at least three teams of Western experts have now examined the trailers and evidence from them. While the first two groups to see the trailers were largely convinced that the vehicles were intended for the purpose of making germ agents, the third group of more senior analysts divided sharply over the function of the trailers, with several members expressing strong skepticism, some of the dissenters said.
Ouch. Warrick claims that this mission had not been made public until now, yet it was made public by our darling Judy Miller three years ago. Not only that, both the Guardian and the Times point out that the third group, of which Warrick is speaking, were sharpy divided. I don't find "unanimous" under "divided" in my thesaurus, do you? Warrick claims that this third team had nine experts from the US and Britain. The Washington Post writes:
Their actions and findings were described to a Washington Post reporter in interviews with six government officials and weapons experts who participated in the mission or had direct knowledge of it.
None would consent to being identified by name because of fear that their jobs would be jeopardized.
Six people who participated or knew about it? In other words, there is every possibility that we are getting a minority report about a minority report here. The Washington Post is selectively choosing those experts that did not think the trailers were for biological purposes, leaving out the others . . . and presenting the entire group as "unanimous". The previous articles by the Times and the Guardian show that to be completely false.
And, don't forget what Stephen said,
The important thing for this story is that the third team was the only technically proficient team to inspect the trailers.
That is a false conclusion. In the official report by the third team, they say they were not the only proficient team, but that they were preceded by a team of scientific experts. More accurately, they seem to be the final, and most proficient team. Furthermore, their report does not support the claims of Warrick’s sources (which do not appear to be the actual scientists of the team). We can only take Warrick’s word about statements that are at best, anonymous hearsay.
So, Stephen, I don't see why we should place more trust in anonymous sources in this case, than in the official report. Why should we even believe in Warrick's anonymous sources when we know he lied about the timing of the report? Doesn't he owe you an apology?
4 comments:
This is Stephen's comment on this post which was llumped in with his comments following the last strategy post.
"Yes, Warrick owes me an apology. Refuting a single phrase out of his story does not negate the rest of it, since that phrase was not critical to the rest of his piece. It is like saying this entire next sentence is a lie: 'On an overcast day in September, hijacked planes were used to destroy the WTC and damage the Pentagon.' It is technically a false statement, but not the important parts of it. Although Seixon's post refutes that one phrase, his main contention was not the part you copied but the attempt to discredit the expert conclusions cited in Warrick's story, which he failed to do."
Here is my response:
I'm glad to see Warrick owes you an apology. This concept is becoming amusing to me. I have the mental picture af all humans constantly in a state of either apology, or of determining who should be apologising and to whom. What I don't understand is how you place so much faith in a known liar. You clearly just believe who you want to believe even when the evidence is not there. Here's how I deal with liars:
Scenario A: A known liar says to me "Your husband is cheating on you. I have sources that have seen it. I can't tell who they are. There is no way you can verufy this information. You should trust me. You should leave your husband".
I would laugh in his face.
Scenario B: A known liar says to me "Your husband is cheating on you. Here are pictures of him with his girlfriend. Here is the phone number of his girlfriend. Here are reciepts of purchases he's made for her. You should leave your husband."
Well, I think you can see scenario B would have more weight. Warrick however, is scenario A. If you believe liars with no other support than their word, you are a fool. I'd like to add, comments are best placed following the post to which they apply. I would appreciate it if you would take the little extra time to place your comments accordingly. There are other readers who would appreciate this as well. They tell me the comments are already exceedingly long. I'm going to take the liberty of adding this section of the comment to its corresponding post.
I will try to keep my comments short, but I will not agree to any framework that allows you to make twenty points or more while I am constrained to only three or four. You keep asking me to provide more information and evidence, so I am not sure what the point is of complaining about the length of my replies.
As for believing liars, you probably should not be taking our government officials so seriously. In any case, there is enough circumstantial evidence to support the general outline of Warrick's story without relying on his sources.
Hmm, I don't know why that link doesn't work. To get there, just use Google and type in: Rhetoric, Reality and Iraq. It will be the first entry.
I have given you no requirement to constrain your arguments, nor have I complained. Others have found the posts and comments long, and that discourages them from reading. I can live extended length if it is needed to make the pertinent arguments. But your Warrick comments needlessly lengthen our already long posts regarding strategy while adding nothing to that particular argument. Furthermore, without my intervention, the readers of the Warrick post are left with the impression that there are no comments to that post. It is only basic courtesy to post your comments after the post to which they apply.
I, on the other hand, have gone to the effort of organizing the arguments by topic in separate posts. This takes extra time, and you have criticized me for that. I think it's worth it, because the comments would be totally out of control If I didn't. We'd still be arguing the ISG, Warrick, and strategy in the same interminable set of comments.
Post a Comment