Wow. I read the entire thing yesterday, and while I noticed that comment they're referring to, I considered it old news. This is an amazing example of focusing like a laser on only what you want to see, and ignoring the rest.

I read the AP write up of his speech, and it was much more balanced.

Tenet didn't say that the CIA "saw no imminent threat" he simply said that the CIA never stated there was one. These are two very different things. Of course, Bush never claimed there was an imminent threat. This is a lie created and perpetuated by the press. Moreover, I don't recall Tenet ever saying that they relied on fabricated evidence from an unreliable source. I thought he actually said that they received information from what were considered very reliable sources in Saddam's inner circle. At least thats what I heard. I agree with you, what I heard was a very nuanced and intelligent overview of our intelligence on Iraq and, in a post-9/11 world could not be ignored. Bottom line: how could every intelligence agency in the world gotten it so wrong? Why didn't Saddam simply come clean? Because he had WMD's or he wanted to cover up the fact that he had the ability to gear up very quickly once the French and Russians could convince everyone to lift the sanctions. Then where would we be? Iran with nuclear weapons, Libya with nuclear weapons and Saddam on the way to developing them with long range missile systems (in violation on UN resolutions) to delvier them. Further bottom line: we are much safer now that Bush had the courage to take the action he did.

I'm sure the L.A. Times' only regret is that they couldn't find a way to blame this on Governor Schwartzenegger.

How could so many intelligence agencies get it so wrong? Some people wanted to keep a secret, tried real hard and succeeded.

Sometimes all the intelligence agencies in the world can't prevent that from happening.

My take on the Tenet speech was far different from that reported in the LA Times. Are they taking lessions from the BBC?

Seems to me this discussion is happening already over at:

*Tenet Talks*

But, of course, I guess I just do not get it. As far as I can tell Tenet is saying they provided to Bush no direct evidence of WMD. Instead, it was all estimates of their existence and estimates of their use.

If you grant everything in the NIE (focusing on p 5 - Confidence Levels for Selected Key Judgements in This Estimate) you have got someone w/ some amount of WMD, but have little idea when they will use them.

So, we are back to the utilitarian calculus:

1 Existence of some WMD - High
2 Probability of their being used against US - Unknown
3 Probability of a large number of US citizens killed - Yet to be determined

vs.

1 Probability of killing and injuring thousands of Iraqi citizens - Certain

Given what are know now:

1 Tens of thousands killed/injured
2 No WMD

Future & similar situations ought to take this into account when determining policy.

3 Brutal, murderous dictator removed
4 No WMD from Iraq in future
5 Minds of Arabs focused

I have the same observations about the coverage in the Chicago Tribune... Front page screaming headlines followed by multiple negative (growing storm) observational analysis about what the "intentions" of the speech, the "rare and hasty" scheduling of the speech in front of a "friendly" audience'and on and on. Only if you read through to page 12 did you see a second article that actually discussed the content of the speech.
Quite frankly, I thought the Tenent speech was well reasoned and informative.
I just feel the Tribune coverage was "sexed up" to justify a front page banner for the author.
Hey Tribune writers, if you are trolling the internet looking for material for todays deadline, I am learning more here and may soon end my 12 year subscription if you are going to insist upon coaching me as to how I should process information in addition to reporting the news. It is becoming more obvious to me every day that the print media is becoming unreliable...

Zip code 60047

3 Brutal, murderous dictator removed

Sure, this is something I said I would have (likely) supported. But there are serious questions surrounding doing so, and it was not Bush's main argument.

4 No WMD from Iraq in future

This is not an accomplishment in that it looks like there were no WMD, as their production was being suppressed by sanctions/inspections.

5 Minds of Arabs focused

Sure ... on the big bad US - yet again.

I'll tell you what's spooky. Ever been present at the scene of some news-making event? Or participated in information-oriented interviews?

Did you then read about it in the paper?

My experiences so far have been bizarre. In almost every instance, it's like the reporter just wasn't at the same event, or the same interview, that I was. Major points are misrepresented, facts are wrong...you name it.

After this happens a few times you begin to mistrust reporting in general...

Anonymous:

As to 4, try this on: Iraqi people who get to have a real economy and lead normal lives while the rest of us don;t worry about Iraqi WMD any more (vs. Iraqi people leading sustinance lives while we maintain sanctions - which were strenuously opposed by many of the same people who opposed the war) - serious question Anonymous; did you support or oppose sanctions? And when the humanitarian left came out strongly against them, what was your response?

As to 5: Like they weren't already?

A.L.

Anon,

Sure, [removing Saddam because he was a brutal dictator] is something I said I would have (likely) supported. But there are serious questions surrounding doing so, it was not Bush's main argument.

Um...why the obsessive focus on process over substance? If the war was a good idea for some reason, why are you yelling your head off that Bush picked a different (and perhaps less compelling) reason than you would have picked, had you been President?

I mean, if Clinton's decision to sign NAFTA was nothing but a way to increase his own popularity and feed the century's most amazing ego, why should I care? I like free trade. I'm certainly not going to say that the treaty was a bad idea because the "main argument" chosen by self-aggrandizing politicians was weaker than some of the arguments they didn't pick.

This is not an accomplishment in that it looks like there were no WMD, as their production was being suppressed by sanctions/inspections.

I'll just accept your argument at face value and ask: how long were the sanctions to last? You're anonymous, so I can't check, but lots and lots of the people who are saying, today, that "sanctions worked," were saying in 2002 that "sanctions are killing babies and need to be lifted." And there is little doubt that sanctions were leaky and getting leakier (and that there were no inspections after 1998 until Bush started saber-rattling--did you support or oppose those threats?). So perhaps this is more of an accomplishment than you allow.

I will try to answer specifically but w/o detail as I have been told I am too verbose.

A.L. asks: "did you support or oppose sanctions?"

When? In the beginning as a first measure, supported. After 12 years, opposed. I think they are a tool useful for immediate and targeted effect but quickly start to harm the people of said country.

A.L. asks: "And when the humanitarian left came out strongly against them, what was your response?"

When? After many many deaths, I agreed w/ them.

I think/thought they ought to be removed and Saddam gone after in earnest - initally through serious indigenous support (of democratic elements in Iraq). This is to help the Iraqis solve their own problem. If that would not work (length of time? I do not know.) remove Saddam by international action. If that would not work (because someone wants a bit of the Saddam pie) unilateral action.

Again, Anon, you are focused on process over substance. Why?

If you are so concerned about Iraqi civilian casualties, why would you favor such a gradualist approach? Supporting "democratic elements" in Iraq (assuming there were any to speak of, rather than, say, opportunistic Shia autocrats itching for revenge) would have been a guaranteed bloodier solution than the war as fought. Assuming the failure of that rebellion (your precondition for unilateral action) sends the body count through the roof--and most of the casualties would have been our friends, rather than Baathists!

What kind of ass-backwards way to prevent casualties and promote human welfare is that?

Sorry, Rob, just had not gotten to your specific question(s) yet.

Rob asks: "Again, Anon, you are focused on process over substance. Why?"

Mainly because I think this is fairly well known limitation of some forms of Consequentalists moral theory. Is it all about just the numbers? If I can save 5 people in a life-boat by simply throwing the sixth overboard, can I pick anyone for any reason? Is it the weakest who is not able to fight back?

Basically I am not convinced humans are very good at estimating during times of stress. This is why I harp on the known effects (people certain to be killed by invading) vs. guesses (possible deaths from a possible terrorists attack with possible WMD).

Rob wonders: Is Anon being "backassed" by setting up civil wars around the global? (Fair paraphrase of my statement right?)

I am for the least "bloody" solution. OTOH, I am for help people solve their own problems (that is how I would want it if it were me). Perhaps helping to set up opposing forces would be quite bad. But if I look back in history as to the government we have installed and supported, we do not have a very good track record. I need to see a real trend in honest, (more) pure efforts at setting people free. I would absolutely support military action(s) in those cases.

But if I look back in history as to the government we have installed and supported, we do not have a very good track record.

I think this may undermine rather than supports your point. The really terrible governments we "installed and supported" (I'm thinking the post-coup Vietnam, Pinochet, Kai-shek, Tito, and various other "right-wing" or anti-Soviet dictators, especially in Latin America) were ususally installed and supported by encouraging civil wars and picking sides in them. Of course, it isn't at all clear that we didn't pick the less-brutal side in many of those wars; the Chinese Nationalists were corrupt and autocratic, but it's hard to argue that the Communists were better.

By contrast, the invade-and-rebuild route has fewer exemplars, but better ones: Germany (and the rest of Europe) and Japan, the Philippines, and to a much lesser extent Yugoslavia. Of course, the invade-and-leave route is pretty bad: Haiti.

And the very best of anti-tyranny outcomes, Eastern Europe's "velvet revolutions," was achieved without either invasion or starting a civil war. The democrats of Russia's satellites got rhetorical encouragement ("Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"), which was HUGELY unpopular with the New York Times. But they got no money or arms.

So I'm not certain what the least bloody route to democracy is. But your insistance on "purity" is a bit troubling, since frankly nothing in foreign relations is ever going to be anything less than a total mess. At least, I'm not aware of anything in foreign relations which has every been anything but a total mess.

Anon... if I had any lingering suspicions that you lived within striking distance of reality, your last comment convincingly removed them.

Maybe you might consider sorting out your own self-contradictory views and engaging in a real study of history and statecraft, before trying to sort other peoples' views out on the tangled basis described above.

What really ticked me off about the LA Times article when I read it this morning was that in their list of quotes from Bush, they left out his biggest and most germane quote -- the one from the 2003 State of the Union address about not waiting for the threat to become imminent. This after both the headline and the opening paragraph used the phrase "imminent threat".

Joe:

Ok! Perhaps you could point me to a couple of resources to start with in "sorting out [my] own self-contradictory view"??

Thanks!!

Thanks Rob!

I am not trying to be "pure", but I would like some honest humanitarian motive in my country's actions. (I would think everyone would want "purity" of motive as much as possible right?)

I like the Eastern Europe examples. So this argues that we ought to leave people alone right and let it work itself out right? I am not unconvinced here either (as alluded to in my 'people need to solve their own problems' bit).

I would think everyone would want "purity" of motive as much as possible right?

Not me! Maybe I'm just too cynical (or, like SDB, too "engineer-like"), but I'll settle for good outcomes with no regard whatsoever to motives.

I suppose that I wouldn't mind if people's motives were pure, but my experience is that often people end up placing motives above outcome--who cares if excessive enviro/labor regulations perpetuate poverty in the Third World, we care about poor people, unlike those mean nasty heartless profit-grubbing Capitalists at Nike who are actually giving them jobs.

To avoid that problem, I try to keep myself relentlessly focused on results, and screw the motivation.

Anon...
I don't think reality could ever conform to your neat, precise schematic. Your accounting of absolutely minimizing the number of deaths is crazy. This should guide our policy, not LEAD it. Do you insist that ALL of our decisions be made like this? Should we ban automobiles because more people are killed by cars than bikes? Should we then ban bikes because more people die riding than walking?

You may as well go live in a bubble. This war didn;t start on 9/11. It started with the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and then the attempt to assassinate Bush I, contnued through the first attempt to topple the WTC, the attacks on our embassies in Africa, etc., etc., etc. This Iraq / Jihadi war has been going on for 12 years. If you throw in the PLO, it’s been going on for 30 years. Even you should be able to see that it was NOT an instantaneous jump to the Iraqi invasion. Even you should admit that this has been a long, long process. There comes a time when enough is enough. Our old approach wasn’t working. Something new was needed.

Your system is really a plan to do nothing. Adults have to act without perfect knowledge and then take responsibility for the consequences. Yours is just another way to justify inaction... to keep from making the hard decisions, to keep from taking responsibility. Life IS hard. NYC would be a smoldering hole, before you could get to your step 2.

Personally, if someone constantly says they hate me, and that we are at war... I'm going to take them at their word.

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words and all recriminations would come too late."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company
The New York Times

January 29, 2003, Wednesday, Late Edition - Final

SECTION: Section A; Page 12; Column 1; National Desk

LENGTH: 5364 words

HEADLINE: STATE OF THE UNION;
President's State of the Union Message to Congress and the Nation

Rob:

I too am an engineer--well software programmer. I think that "focus[ing] on results" is great! (And I am not sure why we would not prefer, all things being equal, someone who has "purer" motives also ...)

And what is concomitant with "results"? Metrics and measurement!!

But, we are not see much of that. I believe it is not something Bush&Co. is interested in. What are the benefits and costs? And how are they to be measured? You just can not say: This makes us safer. You need to show it! (And if we are being empiricists now, it is not enough to simply say it is obvious and that anyone who disagrees is living outside reality.)

I like the Eastern Europe examples. So this argues that we ought to leave people alone right and let it work itself out right?

Anon, we hardly left the Soviet empire alone and let it work itself out. We fought a slow-motion 40-odd year war with it. All respect to Eastern Europeans who took risks and succeeded extraordinarily well in 1989, but do you think the Velvet Revolution would have been possible if we had gone isolationist after WWII and not fought the Cold War?

Another point, come to that, is that the Cold War killed an incredible number of people. That the final act of this drama was relatively bloodless is a good thing, but shouldn't blind us to the fact that setting up for that final act was not without incredible human cost over many years. If it hadn't been for nukes and MAD, you could make a good argument that a briefer "hot war" with the Soviet Union would have taken fewer lives total, as well as freed people much earlier, than what we did instead.

Anon: regarding "costs and benefits"- I don't know about you, but my life is extremely valuable (to me, at least). Those people are coming here to kill us. Should we:
A: stay here and die.

B. go there and kill them first

I'll take B every time.

Semper Fidelis

So, the people we have and are killing in Iraq (and Afghanistan) are people who want to kill us?

Does everyone else agree?