There seems to be some general agreement so far, with the exception of one or two people. Let’s rehash (note- some slight edits):
1.) Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, was stationed in Washington at the time of her outing, and previously had been a covert agent. 2.) Joseph Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame and former ambassador to Iraq, was sent by the CIA to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was interested in/trying to buy uranium (ignore precisely what he was doing in Niger for now- we can get to that later).
3.) Valerie Plame recommended her husband to CIA authorities for the job, as he had extensive contacts in Africa from his numerous years of previous service.4.) Joseph Wilson, either on his own volition, or at the behest of the NY Times, wrote an editorial critical of the Bush administration and many claims made by the Bush administration and was quoted widely in major media outlets prior to the ‘outing’ of his wife.
5.) After 9/11, the administration advanced the argument that it was no longer acceptable to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, as he had used chem/bio weapons in the past, it was believed (or at least asserted) that he had stockpiles of weapons, he seemed intent on obtaining WMD, etc. Thus, a main argument used to sell the necessity of the war in Iraq was that he should no longer be allowed to possess WMD. This was not the only argument for removing Hussein from power, but it *WAS PERCEIVED BY MANY AS* the focal argument for galvanizing support within the general American public *AND WITH THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY* (updated).
6.) On 28 January 2003, President Bush, stated the following during the annual State of the Union address:
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
That paragraph was one of 18 paragraphs in the part of speech *IN WHICH BUSH ASSERTED THAT SADDAM HUSSEIN WAS A THREAT*, and the veracity of the bolded words *LATER* became known as the “Sixteen Words” in an ensuing media firestorm *LATER ON IN THE YEAR WHEN NO WMD WERE FOUND IN IRAQ.*
Asteriks denote updates to the generally agreed upon statements to date. If you have a problem with 1-6, please note it in the comments. And now, one more for the day:
7.) Shortly after the State of the Union Address, Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, addressed the UN Security Council, presenting the administration’s case regarding Saddam Hussein.
Unmoved,The Security Council did not provide the authorization the United States had sought, yet Coalition forces proceeded to initiate Operation Iraqi Freedom on 20 March 2003. In the aftermath of the invasion, no WMD stockpiles were found.This, and other developments we will discuss in other points, led to renewed focus on the intelligence used to advocate for the invasion.
Again, yes or no. Let’s clear all this up before we move on to the really thorny stuff. This is the last one for tonight, and tomorrow we will start anew, with revisions to Step #7, if necessary.
Tim F
Yes.
heh.
neil
Yes, although I move to strike “unmoved.”
Defense Guy
Yes.
The discussion about why the security council voted the way they did can wait.
Tom Johnson
Almost….I’d strike the word “yet”. It seems to place a value-judgement on the fact that the US sought, but did not receive Security Council authorization.
Mr Furious
Yes, that’s what happened.
Zifnab
I fail to see how anyone has assertained the “moved” – “unmoved” status of the UN. That said, there is nothing factually wrong about this statement.
Yes.
demimondian
Yes
MikeAdamson
Yes
synuclein
Yep
eileen from OH
Yes.
(reserving right to hopefully revisit the others at some point, specifically #4)
eileen from OH
Anderson
Yes.
John Cole
Eileen- I forget what your objection was…
JG
Yes but didn’t we ask for a second vote which we eventually cancelled when a head count revelaed it was going the same way as the first?
Harley
Yep.
Keith
Yes.
David Janes
Yes.
Tim F
JG,
I propose that we vote on what John put in the text of this blog post.
Darrell
Yes
____________
JG, Bush wanted a UNSCR vote, remember the “show your cards” business? But France preemptively announced, before even reading the final resolution, that they would veto it.
Jeff Medcalf
Yes.
I would strike “yet” and make the clause (beginning with “Coalition”) a distinct sentence. This would add clarity, by removing the implied “disregard what has gone before” attached to works like yet, however, though and but.
Not entirely sure where you are going, but it might also be worthwhile to note that this was not the first resolution on use of force to invade Iraq; though if you are aiming to see how far we can get on Wilson/Plame/Rove, that is irrelevant.
JG
Thanks.
Tim F
Oh, I misunderstood what JG was asking about. NM.
Steve
What, no one wants to argue that some suspicious tin can we found in Baghdad counts as WMD? I vote yes with the rest of this reasonable bunch.
Defense Guy
Since the evil neocons Darrell and I voted yes as well, does that mean we are reasonable as well?
Nikki
Yes
Johno
Yes.
Trevor
Yes
Kirk Spencer
Yes.
Kirk Spencer
Yes.
foolishmortal
Yes
However, I must reiterate my frustration with the “a main argument” phrase. It could be that there were many excellent reasons to go to war in Iraq, but we only had a national debate regarding one of them. If I recall correctly, the “remaking the Middle East/Democracy Domino Theory” wasn’t floated until well after the congressional resolution authorising the use of force.
This is of course speculation, but while I can well imagine the war having proceeded without the platitudes regarding the transformative power of democracy, the idea that, absent the WMD angle, the American people would have supported a war of choice to grant Iraqis suffrage strikes me as absurd.
Hence my objection.
And there’s “really thorny stuff”? God help us all.
JC
Eh, well, this has gone past me now – “you had me at three oh, but you lost me at four-oh”.
4. “and many claims made by the Bush administration” – Again, Wilson reported on his trip – what “many claims”?
Here are the claims from the July 6th op-ed –
“I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat”
and
“Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa” (Not a claim, really, statement of fact)
“If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses”
So what “many claims?”
By the way, this was pointed out by P Lukusiak, and someone else, but that didn’t matter.
5. This simply got too long – again, should have stayed with the initial one sentence claim, and switched the “one of” to main or primary. Where did the extra sentences come from?
6. Qualified YES. High strength aluminum tubes was also a dud, but I grant that th 16 words caused most of the MEDIA firestorm.
7. YES
So at any rate, I’m out at 4.
Andrew J. Lazarus
Yes.
folkbum
I know #1 was hashed out yesterday, but there’s a new piece out today by a contemporary of Plame’s in the Agency which reads, in part:
For starters, Valerie Plame was an undercover operations officer until outed in the press by Robert Novak. [. . .] The lies by people like Victoria Toensing, Representative Peter King, and P. J. O’Rourke insist that Valerie was nothing, just a desk jockey.
Jackmormon
Yes.
eileen from OH
John, re: my objection to #4, this is what is there now:
4.) Joseph Wilson, either on his own volition, or at the behest of the NY Times, wrote an editorial critical of the Bush administration and many claims made by the Bush administration and was quoted widely in major media outlets prior to the ‘outing’ of his wife.
Joseph Wilson’s editorial was NOT critical of “many claims of the Bush administration.” He was critical, and indeed the whole focus of the editorial, was about ONE “claim” of the administration – i.e., the African/Niger claim. For it was THAT claim about which he had specific knowledge.
In short, Wilson, while he was obviously concerned with the lead-up to the war, did NOT address any claim specifically other than the African connection.
Hence, my objection to #4.
eileen from OH
Demdude
Yes.
John Cole
folkbum- we will address her status at the time of the ‘outing’ later. We were settling agrred upon facts that were obvious.
p.lukasiak
Yes.
(notwithstanding previously stated objections to aspects of “facts 2-4).
The Disenfranchised Voter
Yes, but I object to your use of the bullshit term “Operation Iraqi Freedom”.
It is the Iraq War.
Jake S.
On Point 7, yes.
However, seeing as how I’ve gotten into this argument a bit on the late side, I’d have to say I have problems with Point 3. I still find the evidence of Plame’s recommendation of Wilson for the trip to be unconvincing. Instead, I will still hold to my understanding that this was a mission organized by the State Department. Unfortunately, without internal CIA and State documents falling from the sky and into our collective laps, there’s no way to determine this for fact.
Jonas Cord
I don’t have it with me, but the Senate Intelligence Report states fairly clearly that Plame did recommend Wilson to her superiors, and that they lacked any other choices and went with him. Meanwhile, if I recall correctly State was used only to coordinate the trip and provide some contacts.
JC
Also, as a matter of “meaning” of words – go back to #1 –
“…and previously had been a covert agent”.
Does this “previously” mean she WASN’T a covert agent, at the time of Rove’s leak? Isn’t that still up in the air?
Or does this previously mean “earlier” she had been a covert agent?
CaseyL
What is the purpose of this exercise?
Is it to determine whether Rove outed a covert CIA op?
If so, then all we need to know is what Rove knew, or should have known, about Plame’s status when he went journalist-shopping.
Joe Wilson’s NY Times editorial is irrelevant.
Unless the angle you’re going for is that political revenge is a legal justification for outing a covert CIA op?
John Cole
It means that there is no argument whatsoever that at one time she was undercover. Everyone agrees on that.
The point of this exercise is to slowly advance, fact by fact (as we see them and can agree on them), until we reach the point where we can no longer agree. Thus, since we all agree that she was at one time an undercover agent, that is why I phrased it that way. Later on, in subsequent points, we can debate other issues, like her current status.
Again, I am trying not to advance any particular narrative, but I am trying to find where the actual point of departure is on what most people agree upon…
Jimmy Jazz
Yes on 7.
Re. #6: I submit that “not allowing Saddam to remain in power with WMD” was not the focus of the Bush argument. The focus was: allowing Saddam to remain in power with WMD was unacceptable because he might give the WMD to stateless terrorists.
No one could reasonably argue that Saddam using WMD on any of his neighbors or on our forces was a reasonable threat, since we could have wiped him off the map if he ever did that (a course of action I would have wholeheartedly supported).
Most of us anti-war folks believed that Saddam had some rump chem, and possibly bio weapons. The weakness of the pro war argument, at least to me and many others, is that a secular control freak like Saddam would never give these weapons to fundie terrorists.
Jimmy Jazz
Sorry I meant 5, not 6.
Cliff
[Side note: John, I’d like to offer my general praise for your approach, and yeoman work, here — the scientific/technical troubleshooter approach (back up to last known good assumptions, work forward carefully) applied to disagreement. It’s difficult to stay rational and reasoned discussing these matters we feel strongly about, and this is a good framework to encourage the attempt. I say formalize the format a bit, lay down some ironcast rules, and this would be a killer regular feature on all sorts of subjects. Doesn’t have to aim towards agreement — just finding out where exactly the paths diverge is worthwhile.]
I have some minor quibbles, and a big No on 5 with argument and citations.
NOTE: A useful link: You can search all of Bush’s (and others’) speeches at VoteSmart.
1) Yes
2) Yes
3) I would endorse “recommended or endorsed” — there is circumstantial evidence for both, but at this time unknowable. Not a critical difference, so Sure.
4) Yes
5) No.
The “main argument” was not that “he should no longer be allowed to possess WMD” — that was a rhetorical next step following the central argument: Saddam is an urgent threat, and if we don’t Act Now, millions might die (see bolded quote). IOW, why should country X no longer be allowed to possess WMD, unlike say France or Israel? That reason why is the argument.
The specific points used to sell the argument that He Is An Urgent Threat were 1) Saddam has or is about to have WMD, specifically (at times this was only implied) nuclear capabilities, and intends evil with them, and 2) Saddam has ties to terrorism in general and Al Qaeda specifically (the latter again at times was only implied; and a 9/11 link was at times implied but was not AFAIK explicitly stated by the admin).
A few key citations, there are many more:
I won’t bother going into the mushroom clouds or Cheney’s many quotes. The above should suffice to show that the central/main/focal argument being made for war was He Is An Urgent Threat. That is, in my opinion, the only persuasive argument one ever could make for a preemptive war and that is the the argument they made.
6) Yes, although I seem to recall some comments at the time he made the statement, not just later — but not necessarily using that “sixteen words” phrase. I believe that particular phrase was pushed especially hard by right wing commentators (to make it seem nitpicking, eg, it’s just 16 words). Too pooped to do the research, so Yes.
7) Yes.
Cliff
A few followup notes now that I’ve read actual comments:
4) I withdraw my Yes and am holding him hostage until such time as my demands are met, my demands are a) replace “many claims” with “one claim” and eh… b) pancakes.
Jimmy Jazz: “No one could reasonably argue that Saddam using WMD on any of his neighbors or on our forces was a reasonable threat, since we could have wiped him off the map if he ever did that (a course of action I would have wholeheartedly supported).”
Whether or not anyone could reasonably argue so, argue so some did in at least one case: He has unmanned drones with the range to reach us. Not sure how strongly this was claimed or whether it was claimed by the admin, but it was put out there.
Mason
Yes.
Christie S.
Yes
whew
rr
BinkyBoy
Yes
folkbum
Thanks, John. I was just a little confused by the syntax–as apparently JC was–which makes #1 sound like she had been undercover previous to Novak’s outing her, but not at the time.