I haven’t seen that Michael Moore film yet; there were special previews in London on Sunday, but you couldn’t get a ticket for love nor money[1]. It strikes me, however, that those critics of the film who are currently doing such a sterling job (by using words like “deceits”, “cunningness”[2] and “misleading”) in convincing me that there are no actual factual errors in it, are failing to look at the big picture.
The big advantage of the “he’s implying this without saying it” critique, and the main reason I use I myself so often, is that since he isn’t saying it, you can chosse for yourself what you want to claim he’s implying. For example Jane Galt is cutting up rough about the timing of various Carlyle Group investments, compared with the timing of George Bush Senior joining the board. And indeed, Moore’s film would be deserving of censure if he had been attempting to make the claim that there were specific quids pro quo on those specific deals. But he doesn’t actually make that claim, as far as I can see. Now he might have been attempting to imply that claim without making it, which would be bad. But he might just have been using the revolving door between defence contractors, large investors and the highest echelons of government, to support the following assertion:
Wealthy individuals and capital have far too much influence in American politics, and members of the Bush family have provided numerous examples of this proposition.
Which would not be bad. Pace my esteemed colleague Mr. Bertram, the reason why Bush’s misleading implications are not on the same footing as Moore’s tendentious use of the facts, is that Bush was attempting to establish a specfic false claim (that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the USA) while Moore is attempting to support a general claim of opinion (that Bush as President has been bad for the USA and Americans should vote for someone else).
Footnote:
[1]Although actually, I can’t be sure of this since I only really offered money.
[2]The word is “cunning”, btw.
{ 63 comments }
Steve 07.07.04 at 2:36 pm
Cunningness is acceptable.
Matt Weiner 07.07.04 at 3:02 pm
the reason why Bush’s misleading implications are not on the same footing as Moore’s tendentious use of the facts, is that Bush was attempting to establish a specfic false claim (that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the USA) while Moore is attempting to support a general claim of opinion (that Bush as President has been bad for the USA and Americans should vote for someone else).
And that’s why the “He’s implying it without saying it” criticism isn’t as adaptable as you say, done right. The thing about e.g. Bush’s claims about British intelligence thinking that Saddam sought uranium from Africa, aside from the issue of their literal truth (the factivity of ‘learned’ ‘n’at), is that Bush’s mentioning them in that context implicated that his Administration had reason to trust the opinion of British intel on that matter, whereas we now know that they did not have such reason.
(Note that I’m not saying that Saddam didn’t seek uranium from Niger. Whether or not we can trust recent information on that subject, the Bush Administration themselves has already admitted that the evidence they had at the time of the State of the Union speech was inadequate to justify the claim. If it turns out to be true they don’t get any points.)
So to put Michael Moore on the same level as Bush, you have to come up with a case where he does something that implicates a specific false factual claim. I know of one such thing–the line about the haves and the have-mores is presented as if it was delivered during Bush’s reign, when it was actually from the Al Smith dinner of Oct. 19, 2000.
Another difference between Moore and Bush is that this doesn’t make a damn bit of difference to the larger point Moore is making here, which is that Bush’s policies favor the rich and have a disproportionate effect on the poor. Another difference between Moore and Bush is that, as Matthew Yglesias says, “while George W. Bush is president of the United States… [tendentious but true statement elided], Michael Moore is a somewhat famous guy who makes movies.”
digamma 07.07.04 at 3:50 pm
Moore sucks. Bush sucks worse. I’ll never spend money on the former, and I’ll never vote for the latter.
SomeCallMeTim 07.07.04 at 4:16 pm
Pretty wienie takedown for the great and powerful Dsquared. Especially with the word “cunning” floating about in there. What’s wrong with you? Are you in love?
nick 07.07.04 at 4:22 pm
Jane ‘the plural of “anecdote” is “data”, honest’ Galt? That’s bloody hilarious.
lemuel pitkin 07.07.04 at 4:49 pm
I’m very, very tired of the double-standard defense of Moore. It’s a complete cop-out when made by those who think that Bush should be held to a higher standard, e.g. all CT contributors. Yes, Bush is a liar. Now what do you think of Moore?
(This isn’t actually directed at dd so much as at some other folks here…)
mg 07.07.04 at 5:05 pm
So you’re tired of the double standard defense but not of the double standard itself, or, at any rate, find the former more noteworthy? Now that’s a double standard I’m tired of.
Karl Marx 07.07.04 at 5:09 pm
I’m very, very tired of the double-standard defense of Moore.
Since the double standard point _isn’t_ a defense of Moore, but rather a critique of his critics, perhaps you should wake up.
mc 07.07.04 at 5:40 pm
“Yes, Bush is a liar. Now what do you think of Moore?”
That he’s not the President of the USA?
You know, even assuming he was a “liar” (lied about what, is unclear – plus, if there’s outright lies, how come he hasn’t been sued to bits already?) and his work total crap and his attitude obnoxious and in short, that he’s just a big asshole, what blows my mind is how could anybody put him on the same level of influence _and accountability_ with the man sitting in the White House.
Surely there’s no need to outline that difference?
His critics are proving his point for him. IT appears the President and all his men are sacred and untouchable and the effect of propaganda is just so ingrained by now you don’t even notice it.
Matt Weiner 07.07.04 at 5:42 pm
Yes, Bush is a liar. Now what do you think of Moore?
I think that once we’ve established that the President of the United States is a liar, the appropriate follow-up question is more like “What are we going to do about it?”
Sebastian Holsclaw 07.07.04 at 5:43 pm
“Note that I’m not saying that Saddam didn’t seek uranium from Niger. Whether or not we can trust recent information on that subject, the Bush Administration themselves has already admitted that the evidence they had at the time of the State of the Union speech was inadequate to justify the claim. If it turns out to be true they don’t get any points”
Interesting. It turns out that there is pretty strong and now publically available evidence that Saddam was seeking uranium from Niger and you want to dismiss it? This isn’t about ‘points’. It is about the fact that Saddam really was seeking to build a nuclear bomb. So much so that despite a decade of sanctions, and in the middle of an ongoing fight with the UN, he was still seeking uranium.
This speaks directly to Bush’s general claim about Saddam not being detterable, and you want to dismiss it?
As for the main post: “Now he might have been attempting to imply that claim without making it, which would be bad. But he might just have been using the revolving door between defence contractors, large investors and the highest echelons of government, to support the following assertion:
Wealthy individuals and capital have far too much influence in American politics, and members of the Bush family have provided numerous examples of this proposition.”
This is so pathetic. If this was the point, perhaps the movie would have been called something else. But in fact its title intentionally evokes 9/11 and terrorism and the movie revolves around the war on terrorism.
Moore is making the claim that Jane Galt suggests. He is just making the claim by suggestion and implication because he knows that the claim is false. If he was proposing your claim, he would have made a completely different movie.
If you want to cut Moore’s movie into snippets and strip them of context, you might be able to defend such an interpretation–and in fact you would be misleading people exactly as he does.
But you would not be ‘analyzing’ or ‘critiquing’ or ‘interpreting’. You would be merely pointing out the places where he provided pseudo-deniability. You would be intentionally misleading people about his movie.
jack pugh 07.07.04 at 5:54 pm
I think conservatives are frustrated at their inability to out-think and out-hype Moore, not to mention at their inability to find a right wing film-maker/propagandist who can counter his skill at entertaining. Maybe Rove can morph “Triumph of the Will” into a promo for the world’s Most Bewildered War President, get the “feel” they want, grandeur, spectacle, gravitas. Take out the Hitler stuff and splice in some clips of Bush in his flight suit, codpiece prominently displayed, big thumbs up. Rename it “Can Do America”.
Keith M Ellis 07.07.04 at 5:57 pm
I’ve resolved not to see F9/11. I’ve always pretty much been in near-total agreement with Moore’s sentiments, but it always makes me feel tainted. I already know the content of the film and the allegations and insinuations—the film isn’t going to provide any more factual information to me. And it’s not possible that I could think less of BushCo than I already do.
But Moore’s tendentiousness could very well push me in the other direction. So, I’m not seeing the movie.
I really wish that some folks would acknowledge that it’s possible to be critical—or at least uneasy—with Moore without being implicitly a shill for the GOP.
Erik 07.07.04 at 6:10 pm
sebastian — there is zero new evidence that Saddam sought Nigerian uranium. What FT reported was potentially new evidence that Nigerian exporters of illegal uranium thought that Saddam might be a possible customer — I say potentially because these same people apparently thought China might be a customer too, which makes no sense whatsoever.
If I talk about hiring you to commit a murder, does that automatically make you guilty?
BigMacAttack 07.07.04 at 6:10 pm
I hope your intent was to look like a spineless weasel hooked up to jumper cables.
Only time for one small specific backing up the above metaphor.
The statement that Saddam was a threat to the US is about as freaking general as you can get.
Specific would be Saddam intends to use Sarin gas in the Barnes and Noble at the Potomac mall on 7/16/2004.
HP 07.07.04 at 6:33 pm
It seems to me that most of the “balanced” critiques of Moore simply chastise him for not being someone else. If we had a surfeit of brilliant documentarians across the political spectrum making wildly popular, entertaining, and moving films of high artistic merit, Michael Moore would be only one voice among many, lending his particular viewpoint to a vast dialogue.
But instead we just have idiosyncratic Moore, representing only himself, toiling away head and shoulders above his competition of bland talking heads, computer graphics, and stock footage.
Matt Weiner 07.07.04 at 7:08 pm
Not one of your better posts, Sebastian. I said that the current evidence–such as it is, arguendo let’s say it’s convincing–has no bearing on Bush’s honesty, because Bush and his Administration did not know of that evidence. The Administration itself has admitted that the African uranium claim should not have been in the SOTU. You completely disregard that point.
So let’s take the point you’re trying to make–that Saddam wanted to build a nuclear weapon. Did he want a pony as well? He wasn’t going to be able to build a nuclear weapon, the Bush Administration repeatedly exaggerated the extent of his weapons of mass destruction program-related activities (“the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud” rather than “Saddam is absolutely no threat to the US”), and in the meantime they ignored a much worse threat from North Korea. (I know that you think allowing NK to reprocess its fuel rods into weapons-ready plutonium was part of a brilliant long-term strategy, but it isn’t.)
So–Bush was being specifically dishonest there, and on the most generous interpretation of our current evidence the facts do not support his policies. This is much more important than the question of whether Michael Moore told a stretcher.
Sebastian Holsclaw 07.07.04 at 7:18 pm
Erik, read left-wing-darling Wilson’s book. I was not relying on an FT report.
What we know from Wilson:
Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (‘Baghdad Bob’), a very high-ranking Iraqi official went to Niger for a trade mission.
Niger’s main export is uranium, but trade would have been illegal with Iraq. Its next major export is livestock. Iraq had a number of more palatable livestock trading options.
During that trade mission a Niger official believes that Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf suggested a uranium purchase.
The official from Niger declined to pursue that line.
Trade talks ceased quickly thereafter and were never resumed.
In my opinion this is exactly as much evidence as one could expect from the proposal of one of the most dangerous and illegal transactions possible in the world today. If you disagree, please outline what evidence you would normally expect from a failed uranium transaction. Notarized letters with Saddam’s signature in blood perhaps? Vidoetapes from Saddam with labels marked: DO NOT GIVE TO UN INSPECTORS OR US OFFICIALS?
Walt Pohl 07.07.04 at 7:22 pm
Whether or not Moore distorted the truth is a worthy subject for discussion. (Most of the examples I’ve heard are debateable, but it’s certainly possible.)
But people like the Volokh conspirators or Jane Galt are not interested in discussion — they are engaged in propaganda. After the bullshit they and their ilk have been peddling these past four years, the sight of them whining because someone else might be playing fast and loose with the truth makes me sick to my stomach.
Sebastian Holsclaw 07.07.04 at 7:24 pm
Matt, you write: “Bush and his Administration did not know of that evidence.”
They did not know of it independent of the British report which has been shown to be correct (or at least as much shown as is at all likely in the real world of failed illegal and highly dangerous to have other people find out about nuclear transactions). The Bush claim in the State of the Union specifically cites British intelligence and was correct.
As for the rest of your reply, you apparently know almost nothing about nuclear technology if you don’t realize that the very hardest part is getting the fissile material. I hate to be so blunt. But there you are.
RD 07.07.04 at 7:50 pm
“Whether or not Moore distorted the truth is a worthy subject for discussion. (Most of the examples I’ve heard are debateable, but it’s certainly possible.)”
Whether or not Bush distorted the truth is a worthy subject for discussion. (Most of the examples I’ve heard are debateable, but it’s certainly possible.)
There you go, end of double standard.
Anything else I can do for you…it’s free! You don’t have to buy a ticket or pay dues.
Maureen Brian 07.07.04 at 7:50 pm
Let’s get real! Saddam Hussein definitely wanted nuclear weapons but despite various efforts never quite got them. Now SH is in jail. George Bush, who has already shown himself to be mendacious and morally compromised, has dozens of nuclear weapons and sits there within feet of the button. Whom should we most fear at this moment?
And half the planet is wearing itself to a frazzle about Michael Moore’s style. Displacement activity, pure and simple!
RobotSlave 07.07.04 at 8:10 pm
Sebastian:
a) OK, if having an unsuccessful meeting with an Al Qaeda member constitutes “ties to Al Qaeda,” then yeah, I can see how an unsuccessful trade mission to a country that happens to mine yellowcake would constitute a “nuclear program.” You pillock.
b) Since when yas yellowcake been fissile material? Did I miss the relevant article in Popular Science, perhaps? Are you ignoring the wee problem of refining the stuff, or are you simply ignorant of it? Maybe you’ve got a revisionist “Aluminium Tubes” story to go along with your revisionist “Nigerian Yellowcake” story?
robbo 07.07.04 at 8:42 pm
It’s hilarious to read Sebastian’s complaint that the film’s title “intentionally evokes 9/11 and terrorism.” I must have missed his outrage over the past 2.5 years, as Bush and other Republicans cynically squeezed gallons of political juice from the same source.
Will the microscopic vetting of Michael Moore from both right and left eventually lead to similarly focused, bipartisan examination of Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly, Coulter, et al.? No, it won’t. Because Republican politicians, followed by members of the media, discovered that popularity can be easily achieved by (1) wrapping themselves in the flag, (2) praising Jesus loudly, (3) openly questioning the patriotism and spirituality of “liberals,” and (4) flattering their constituents for being well-informed and worldly. The prescribed response to the emergence of a Michael Moore is to try and crush him, immediately, because he threatens your ill-founded popularity and the wealth and power that accompany it. If 9/11 proved anything, it’s that honest, critical, self-examination is not part of the current Republican mind-set.
Do I wish that more serious left-wing thinkers and commentators enjoyed a more prominent place in America’s public discourse? Sure, and I’d take the pony, too. But, predictably, America’s swing voters have developed a taste for easily digested TV news. It must be fast-paced and emotionally laden. Their charismatic heroes have made an art of shouting down dissent, no matter how well-reasoned. Really, the only element missing from Hannity and Colmes is Sean’s end-zone dance before they cut to commercials.
So what do I think of Michael Moore? I think it’s about time. Pick and parse him to your heart’s delight, Republicans. Knock yourselves out. His film is having the desired effect on segments of the population that your party has cynically pandered to for many years. You have only yourselves to blame for Moore’s rising star.
Robin Green 07.07.04 at 8:44 pm
Firstly, I’m very suspicious of the whole Niger claim because the innuendo was based on “obviously forged” documents, even though (as per usual) they’ve later tried to rewrite history and imply that it wasn’t.
(Only the latest example of the Bush administration and/or campaign team backpedalling and lying about their own lies was them phoning round various newsrooms and giving interviews in which they furiously badmouthed Farenheit 9/11 and implying that it was full of untruths … and then later pretending that their response to the movie had been dignified silence [“We tried to think of what Moore would want, and then do the opposite”]. But I digress.)
But even if we accept – for the sake of argument – that Colin Powell and his staff were totally nonduplicitous and merely innocently taken in by these “obviously forged” documents (emphasis added)… there’s this: according to the Telegraph (hardly a hotbed of Michael Moore supporters):
“The French ambassador to Niger intensified the British Government’s discomfort over its claims to justify going to war in Iraq when he dismissed intelligence reports that Saddam Hussein had sought to buy uranium from the African state in the 1990s. …
“His comments will add to the British Government’s embarrassment over its use of intelligence reports alleging that Iraq had tried to buy “yellowcake” uranium from Niger for nuclear weapons. It continues to insist that it has evidence showing that it did happen, even suggesting that the evidence comes from the French intelligence services.
“America, however, has admitted that the claim, which was published last September, and was included in President George W Bush’s state of the union speech in January, was based on forged intelligence documents.
“The ambassador, who has been in Niger for three and a half years, insisted: “It is inconceivable that uranium could be sold to another country without anybody knowing. Nuclear arms require enormous quantities of uranium, and the mining companies check and monitor the amounts that leave Niger all the way from the mines to the ports. If any were to go missing it would be obvious and the inspectors would pick it up straight away.”
Walt Pohl 07.07.04 at 9:04 pm
rd: I see that, like the rest of your kind, you are a firm believer in postmodern notions of truth. The difference is that I am right and you are wrong. Saying that Bush lied is the _charitable_ interpretation. The alternative is that he is that he is so out of touch with reality that he should be checked for signs of dementia.
Sebastian, you are a patsy. Every couple of months, some story pops up that gives you hope that you haven’t been played like a sucker, and then you peddle it relentlessly. A couple of months ago you were pushing the oil-for-food corruption scandal, before all of the supporting documentation disappeared down the memory hole along with Ahmed Chalabi. Now it’s the supposed FT scoop. When that doesn’t pan out, I’m sure someone in the Bush administration will leak some other bogus revelation that you can cling to. I can’t fault you for getting taken in initially — I know I was. But one would think that after the sheer repetition you’d begin to notice how the Bush administration burns you time and again. I’m beginning to think you _like_ getting conned. Maybe there’s some thrill in walking into a three-card Monte game knowing that you’ll walk out with less money than you walked in with, but if so, that’s a thrill that’s pretty much unique to you.
rosa 07.07.04 at 9:38 pm
walt – Clinton says he thought Iraq had SMD. Is he a liar or so out of touch with reality that he should be checked for signs of dementia?
rosa 07.07.04 at 9:38 pm
walt – Clinton says he thought Iraq had WMD. Is he a liar or so out of touch with reality that he should be checked for signs of dementia?
BigMacAttack 07.07.04 at 9:47 pm
robbo,
Excellent point. Until the arrival of Limbaugh and company political debate was almost entirely civil and rational.
Unfortunately conservatives and Republicans were naturally losing such a debate. So via Limbaugh they resorted to dirty tactics.
Moore would of course prefer to be making nuanced documentaries. Documentaries that present both sides of the issue, the wrong conservative side, and the correct liberal side.
Unfortunately he has been backed into a corner by Limbaugh and is being forced to defend liberalism with illiberal propaganda.
Walt Pohl 07.07.04 at 9:52 pm
Yes! We have acheived Clinton! My work here is done.
robbo 07.07.04 at 9:56 pm
Clinton says he thought Iraq had WMD. Is he a liar or so out of touch with reality that he should be checked for signs of dementia?
Rosa, a recent conversation between Mr. Clinton and David Corn sheds a little more light on this:
“Clinton, who later told Diane Rehm that he had indeed been concerned about the possibility of unaccounted-for WMDs in Iraq after inspections ended in 1998, dismissed WMDs as a reason to go to war. ‘Paul Wolfowitz tried to get me to invade Iraq,’ he recalled. In the 1990s, he said, Wolfowitz considered Iraq to be ‘the biggest problem’–greater than terrorism or the absence of peace in the Middle East.
“Being kind to an ideological foe, Clinton noted that Wolfowitz had developed a whole theory about how a US invasion of Iraq would lead to a democratic Iraq and that the existence of this new Iraq would remake the region. Clinton indicated he never accepted this point of view, but it was, he said, a theory worth debating. Referring to the Bush administration’s rationale for war, he remarked, ‘They should have just said that, without the pretext [of WMDs].’ It was a polite way of saying the Bushies had been untruthful. After all, who is Clinton to call another president a liar?”
http://www.thenation.com/capitalgames/index.mhtml?bid=3&pid=1531
robbo 07.07.04 at 10:08 pm
Walt, forgive me for failing to congratulate you–“achieving Clinton” truly is the point of most of these debates.
Sebastian Holsclaw 07.07.04 at 10:33 pm
Walt Pohl, I am certain you are well-read enough in lefty circles to know who Ambassador Wilson is. Husband of Ms. Plame? Darling of the left for a brief period just before the war for suggesting that BUSH LIED about Saddam seeking uranium. Hello? Anyone in there?
He is the source for the story that Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf sought uranium from Niger.
I’m so sorry I couldn’t get Chomsky to source the story for you so you could believe it.
And for robotslave, you write: “OK, if having an unsuccessful meeting with an Al Qaeda member constitutes “ties to Al Qaeda,†then yeah, I can see how an unsuccessful trade mission to a country that happens to mine yellowcake would constitute a “nuclear program.—
I am saying that an unsuccessful mission to obtain uranium under the guise of a trade mission constitutes an attempt to obtain uranium. I can see how you might want to avoid the obvious interpretation of my writing since it leads to the uncomfortable revelation that Saddam was seeking uranium.
rosa 07.07.04 at 10:46 pm
well, walt, now that presumably your victory jig is up, what’s your answer?
robbo, inferences from David Corn? Not my kind of proof.
Better proof, although admittedly also from Mr. Corn, is in the prior paragraph you so kindly provided: “Clinton, who later told Diane Rehm that he had indeed been concerned about the possibility of unaccounted-for WMDs in Iraq after inspections ended in 1998.”
Hillary, too, is on record as having believed in the existence of WMD. Is she a liar or deluded?
Kevin Donoghue 07.07.04 at 10:58 pm
If I believe in the possibility of an unaccounted for God then surely I must be considered a true believer.
Walt Pohl 07.07.04 at 11:04 pm
Sebastian, now you’ve gone too far. Chomsky is the Dick Cheney of the left — if he says X, then a pretty good rule of thumb is that X is probably false. (And that’s difference between the left and the right. We leave our liars to the obscurity of academia; the right puts them one heartbeat away from the Presidency.)
Matt Weiner 07.07.04 at 11:15 pm
Sebastian–
Robotslave is pointing out that obtaining yellowcake is not obtaining fissile material. Robotslave’s statement: Since when yas yellowcake been fissile material? relates directly to your extraordinarily condescending statement you apparently know almost nothing about nuclear technology if you don’t realize that the very hardest part is getting the fissile material.
(Elementary reading comprehension tip, Sebastian: If someone responds to you a phrase like “fissile material,” perhaps it’s related to your earlier use of the exact same phrase.)
Accordingly, the yellowcake stuff, no matter how true it might be, provides utterly no evidence against my claim that Saddam wasn’t going to be able to build any nuclear weapons. Pity, because that is the exact claim that your “fissile material” quote was directed against.
Anyway, you obviously know almost nothing about nuclear technology if you don’t know what fissile material is. This explains how you’ve been able to live with yourself while peddling so much bollocks about Bush’s North Korea policy over the last few years.
As for this:
“The Bush claim in the State of the Union specifically cites British intelligence and was correct”
I give you this:
“White House Admits Information on African Uranium Should Not Have Been Used in State of the Union Speech.”
Is that clear enough for you? No “right-wing darling”ing necessary, is there? Your own boys in the White House have admitted that they shouldn’t have said that.
So on both your points, even given the most charitable interpretations of your facts, you’re completely busted. I hate to be blunt.
fdl 07.07.04 at 11:33 pm
Sebastian: I confess I’m baffled. In the SOTU, the president said: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Now, as many bright people have pointed out here and elsewhere, this statement is not, in fact, a lie, unless you start parsing what it means when you say that a third person has “learned” something. Since we don’t know what Bush knew about what British Intelligence knew about Iraqi visits to Niger, we cannot say for certain that the statement is true or false.
BUT. The SOTU is for many people the defining point of the administration’s case for war. When the president makes references to buying “uranium” (being vague, in retrospect whether it was fissile grade or yellowcake), and when Condi Rice makes comments about the first cloud being a mushroom cloud, I BELIEVE THAT I AM ENTITLED TO HOLD THE PRESIDENT TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN A FILM-MAKER. THIS IS WAR WE’RE TALKING ABOUT, NOT AN ELECTION. Honestly now, what do you believe was the president’s intent in saying those words? Was he just passing along gossip? Or telling stories about how hard the intelligence agencies of the West work, and how good their cooperation is? Come off it. The purpose of that line was to create legitimacy for invasion on the grounds that the bare attempt to obtain yellowcake justifies war.
So, your best case is that some Iraqi government officer went to Niger to buy enough yellowcake to make Bombs, found out he couldn’t get it and went home. And the administration knew, from Wilson’s report, that whether or not the visit occurred, it was impossible for Iraq to get Niger yellowcake in sufficient quantities, at least not without the West having knowledge of the mining and export activity. And this justifies war.
I could not possibly disagree more. If the unsuccessful efforts of every two-bit dictator to get the Bomb justified [mandated, even] war, then you better get ready for much higher taxes, because we need to start occupying a lot more countries.
The similarities between the uranium story and the Al Queda story being told by Cheney is
remarkable. Apparently, in Cheney’s world and Sebastian’s, the mere fact that people talk, disagree, and break off communication is grounds for reprisal. Boy, you and he better hope your telephone calls aren’t being recorded.
Sebastian, you have never explained why our war against religious extremism required invading first the one country that had most successfully suppressed religious extremism. A trial run? Because we could? Practice? Are we trying to induce Iran to attack us in Iraq, so we can counter-attack?
You are one of the most articulate war-bloggers, yet I remain utterly baffled by your support of the administration’s method of pursuing its war on islamism.
Francis
Walt Pohl 07.07.04 at 11:49 pm
Rosa: Yes, Bill Clinton was worried about Iraq getting WMDs. So was I, which is why we (and any number of other Democrats) backed Bush’s Iraq strategy. The mark of a good con is its superficial plausibility. Bush had an excellent case to use the threat of force to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq. What he did not have was sufficient WMD evidence to make a case for war. So what did he do? He made one up. The only question left for posterity is: why? Why did he do it?
robbo 07.07.04 at 11:54 pm
Better proof, although admittedly also from Mr. Corn, is in the prior paragraph you so kindly provided:
Yes, I “kindly provided” the somewhat mitigating context that David Corn included in his account. Since the issue is nuanced, it would be improper to portray it as if black-and-white. This is called “intellectual honesty” — are you familiar with the concept?
Hillary, too, is on record as having believed in the existence of WMD. Is she a liar or deluded?
Perhaps she believed what the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and all the other top administration officials were saying so confidently. You’ll recall that they claimed to have intelligence that mere senators didn’t have access to. Dick Cheney’s still claiming to know more than even the 9/11 commissioners know about these matters. Do you remember Rumsfeld stating that he knew the precise locations of WMD caches? Confronted daily with those unvarnished assertions of top secret information on WMD, it’s not surprising to me that many otherwise reasonable senators decided to give the President full leverage to pressure Saddam’s regime. In retrospect, Hillary Clinton’s gravest mistake was placing her trust in George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condaleeza Rice, et al.
What’s your point again?
Sebastian Holsclaw 07.08.04 at 12:05 am
Wow, elementary reading tips from a philosophy professor. I hope I don’t have to pay university fees.
I understood why robotslave used the term ‘fissile material’. I have yet to hear anyone here explain what trade Iraq was going to have with one of the poorest countries in the world if they weren’t trying to get uranium. Perhaps he couldn’t get enough pigs? I have further failed to hear an explanation of what peaceful use Saddam had for uranium. And if he had a peaceful use for it, I fail to hear an explanation for why he chose to attempt to acquire it clandestinely.
Let me outline for your own argument.
1. British Intelligence suggested Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa
2. The CIA could not confirm the claims independently.
3. Bush used the British intelligience in the STOU and claimed that the information was from the British Intelligence service.
4. Therefore Bush misled the public (though you specifically avoid saying misled them about what).
Unstated to your argument
1. It turns out that Ambassador Wilson, who was your darling only one year ago ON THIS VERY TOPIC, now knows that Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf (‘Baghdad Bob’), went on a trade mission to a state which trades in very little but uranium.
2. Muhammed Saeed al-Sahaf is a high-ranking Iraqi official.
3. Wilson was told by the official who met with al-Sahaf that the Iraqi minister suggested uranium sales.
Therefore there is strong evidence that the British Intelligence was correct. Furthermore the above is just about the maximum information that could be expected from failed overtures regarding attempts to obtain uranium. If you disagree, please outline what you would normally expect to support contentions such as ‘Saddam seeks uranium in Africa’.
With those additional facts your argument becomes:
1. British intelligence reports Saddam seeking uranium in Africa
2. Bush publicizes the reports.
3. Reports look like they are correct.
Therefore Bush lied or seriously misled the public because he told them Saddam was seeking uranium while in fact Saddam was seeking uranium.
Bravo. An argument that I’m certain makes perfect sense in the ivory tower. (Yes, I know it sounds a bit more convincing when you hide the actual argument a bit more. Sorry about that.)
FDL, I’m not going to eat up more bandwidth here by posting all my view on the reason we invaded Iraq. If you really care what I think you can look at a view posts of mine from many months ago entitled “The reasons for the War” Parts I, II, and III. They are, I admit, a bit dashed-off. But they accurately represent the general thrust of my thinking.
q 07.08.04 at 12:32 am
If the President of the USA, as Commander in Chief, launched a war based on false information, isn’t there an accountability and constitution issue here?
The Supreme Court and Congress should be investigating to see if the power of the presidency is being used unconstitutionally.
(stupidity is not usually a crime, but misrepresenatation often is…)
Zizka 07.08.04 at 12:37 am
Lemuel, if you’re tired, take a nap. Fatigue is not an argument.
It’s pretty telling when mainstream, mostly-apolitical professionals like them come out against a sitting President (as a considerable number of ex-ambassadors and ex-generals also have done).
But Wilson and Clarke have their own agendas. It’s not a knock-down argument to point out that we accept what they say in some respects, while disagreeing in other respects. If someone tries to use that weak argument, they discredit themselves;. It’s so obviously hackish and highschoolish.
Zizka 07.08.04 at 12:49 am
Congratulations, Walt, but don’t you have to achieve Clinton’s actual penis in order to score? Or is it like horseshoes, where leaners count?
bob mcmanus 07.08.04 at 1:23 am
I smell sweat, and hear the clackety-clack of ball-bearings. They will be weighing the strawberries soon.
Many, many Republicans with visions of orange jumpsuits and empty bank accounts. They may retain power this time, but oh, the price they will have to pay. Probably have to chew off a limb or two.
Michael Moore has them scared.
robbo 07.08.04 at 1:29 am
Rosa, BTW you also wrote:
robbo, inferences from David Corn? Not my kind of proof.
I’m sure you read that Grover Norquist was “squeezed next to” Mr. Clinton during the conversation that Mr. Corn recounted, so when you question Corn’s veracity (without, of course, stating why he shouldn’t be trusted) you’re simultaneously suggesting that Grover Norquist would let Corn’s published misrepresentation of the exchange stand unchallenged.
Do I have that right?
Walt Pohl 07.08.04 at 3:04 am
Zizka: That’s a question on which connoisseurs disagree. Many are of the same school of thought as you, but I personally believe that for people of a certain political persuasion, Clinton _is_ his penis, and thus invocation of his name is sufficient.
J Edgar 07.08.04 at 5:29 am
For years when I’ve seen clips of our President showing what a spoiled, selfish fool he is, I have wondered of the effect of seeing some of these clips in a series with an audience to display their saner emotions and thoughts. I’ve known that some people would automatically condemn the use of such ugly facts as a slander of the dear president.
So, I’m very grateful that Michael Moore fulfulled my wish and probably that of informed others.
And I think it makes a lot of sense to ask questions about the Bushes and Baker and the Saudis. Saudi Arabia is NOT America. Why did the G H Bush take such obvious risks confusing official American policy makers with his friendship with Saudi Arabia. Just how much money do Bush and Baker have to have when they must realize the confusion they cause? There should have been Pulitizer Prize winning articles about this, but it was left up to Moore to say much of anything to a large audience.
“The Saudis? 9/11? Well… hey – Iraq! Yellowcake! Torture!”
rosa 07.08.04 at 11:08 am
Walt – you’re backsliding and waffling and wrong. Clinton was not “afraid of Iraq getting WMDs.†He believed Iraq had WMDs. CNN, 6/23/04:
“Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.
Noting that Bush had to be “reeling” in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush’s first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining “chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material.”
“That’s why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for,” Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.â€
Robbo – “Perhaps [Hillary] believed what the President, Vice President, Secretary of Defense, and all the other top administration officials were saying .†Nope. She said on NPR and elsewhere that her husband’s administration received the same kind of intelligence reports regarding WMDs. So that’s my point – that Hillary believed the same things that Bush believed, and thus according to Walt’s standards, is either a liar or deluded.
The question remains: are Bill and Hillary deluded or liars?
lady c 07.08.04 at 2:34 pm
Kevin Drum suggests:
So maybe the debate at heart isn’t over whether Moore implied such-and-such but what each of us inferred.
By contrast, there is no debate over what the public was expected to infer from the misrepresentations of the Bush Admin before the Iraq invasion. Rather it is over the degree to which the Bush Admin should be held responsible for the public’s misapprehensions, as reflected in frequent polls of why Americans think we went to war against Saddam, both before the war and since no WMDs have been found and since no meaningful relationship or collusion between al-Queda/Saddam has been uncovered.
robbo 07.08.04 at 5:51 pm
It’s my belief that politicians — effective ones, anyway — say all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, routinely contradicting themselves, but safe in the knowledge that (1) their base will support them through just about anything, and will not hold them to any sort of purity test, (2) their antagonists will antagonize them, and if they do so on grounds of honesty most will be hypocrits, and (3) the ill-informed or apolitical will judge them based on general impressions or their own personal circumstances, if they care at all. The end result is what matters, both to politicians and to most of their constituents.
That said, Rosa, yes, Bill Clinton is a liar. Did you miss the whole blue dress saga? And I have very little doubt that Hillary has shaded the truth with some regularity throughout her life. Again, what’s your point?
At the level of ex-president and US Senator, politicians are expected to generally support the President — or at least mute their criticism — when he’s way out on a dangerous geopolitical limb. This is because (a) it’s in this nation’s best interest, and to some extent (b) it’s easy for rivals to portray each other as un-American to undecided voters. In Hillary’s case, her reason for giving Bush credit is partly self-serving, since she voted to allow the war.
Leaving politicians aside, my personal problem with the Iraq war is not so much that Bush lied, per se, but that he was so inept, bumbling, and transparently determined to become a “war president” that he alienated most of the planet while failing to appreciate the efforts that would be needed to ultimately resolve the situation to America’s and Iraq’s best interest.
I don’t expect anyone to vote Bush out of office “because he lied.” I expect him gone because it’s embarrassing to see him attempt to speak in public, and because his poor leadership has harmed most Americans while greatly lowering our nation’s standing in the world community.
Zizka 07.08.04 at 5:55 pm
“Are Bill or Hillary liars or deluded?” Hm, I think that Rosa needs to take her meds and have a timeout.
rosa 07.08.04 at 6:32 pm
zizka – It’s a long thread, but if you follow it you’ll see that I’m just applying walt’s and robbo’s standards.
I think Bill and Hillary are neither liars nor deluded re WMDs, that they believed the same things that W believed re WMDs, and that therefore a lot of this “W lied” hysteria is a load of hooey.
And, yes, I agree that walt and robbo need to start taking their meds more regularly.
robbo 07.08.04 at 6:56 pm
Way to go, Rosa. You managed to avoid all constructive discussion. You must be a real treat in person.
GMT 07.08.04 at 6:58 pm
I’m beginning to wonder if Rosa can read. He/she/its quote referred to what Clinton thought Bush was thinking.
GMT 07.08.04 at 7:00 pm
Make that his/hers/its.
And Sebastian has yet to explain what Saddam was going to do with what he didn’t need and couldn’t use. But, since once again ‘darling of the left’ is supposed to do all his arguing for him, maybe we shouldn’t expect much.
Sebastian Holsclaw 07.08.04 at 7:51 pm
Who argues that Saddam couldn’t use uranium? Do you think that if he went to the trouble to obtain it that he wouldn’t find a way to use it? Look at the time frame. Not lots of inspections going on in early 2002.
RD 07.08.04 at 9:02 pm
q-“If the President of the USA, as Commander in Chief, launched a war based on false information, isn’t there an accountability and constitution issue here?”
There would have to be some determination regarding the source of the false information. Michael Moore has managed to prove with very little doubt that all the false information is coming from anti-war zealots intent on removing a president from office regardless of the qualifications of the opponent and the impact it has on the future of our country. Ahhhhh! That felt good, was it good for you?
Jack 07.09.04 at 10:02 am
It’s doing great business in Monaco.
rosa 07.09.04 at 11:14 am
gmt – you’re wondering if I can read?! The 1st paragraph did indeed refer to what Clinton thought Bush was thinking, but the 2nd and 3rd did not, and, more importantly, it is absolutely clear that Clinton received the same intelligence briefings as Bush and believed them. Having a discussion based on that simple fact is apparently not possible on this site. You guys believe what you want to believe, facts be damned. That is why, and don’t cry in your lattes now, I’m outahere.
robbo 07.09.04 at 6:26 pm
[Closeup on milk foam; teardrop bores through the foam in slow motion; slight hissing]
[Man stands sobbing, chest heaving] Rosa!!! Rosa, come back, you were right!!!
[Expectant pause, then his head drops to his chest; he mutters only to himself] Dammit Rosa, you were right…
[Fade to black]
longinus 07.09.04 at 7:08 pm
Robbo,
When you have come to terms with your grief, please note that Rosa’s argument depends on reading the observation that “there was a lot of stuff unaccounted for†as a statement of belief that Saddam had WMD. On that basis Scott Ritter and Jacques Chirac believed Saddam had WMD (and still believe it because it is still unaccounted for).
Still, I’ll miss her too. I think she was very close to a knockdown proof of the existence of God. Any physicist will tell you that there’s a lot of unaccounted-for stuff out there.
L 07.09.04 at 8:14 pm
Wow. This is what an ‘intellectual’ discussion looks like. At least now, I know.
Comments on this entry are closed.