"Russian President Vladimir V. Putin said Friday that his intelligence services had received several reports before the war last year that Iraq was planning terrorist attacks against U.S. targets." LA TIMES cite.
When I read that I wondered how it would be dealt with by those who think that Iraq wouldn't engage in anti-US terrorism. (Those who don't think that Iraq would engage in terrorism at all are completely irrational.) If Kevin Drum and Matthew Yglesias are any indication, they don't feel the need to deal with it all.
Instead they merely assume it away. It is so completely clear to them that Iraq cannot have been linked to anti-US terrorism, that they must assume that Putin's statement is a lie. This allows them to move directly forward into speculating about why Putin is lying.
This is the kind of analysis which the Catholic Church used to ignore the evidence for a heliocentric system. If you are so convinced that you are right, it can be easy to dismiss the evidence that shows you are wrong.
Not to be (terribly) snide, but the pro-war side is hardly in a position to proclaim
If you are so convinced that you are right, it can be easy to dismiss the evidence that shows you are wrong.
without some serious gestures of contrition.
Posted by: Anarch | June 21, 2004 at 03:49 AM
Dammit, postus interruptus. [Turns out, the preview button isn't where I thought it was. Huh.] The previous post should read something like:
"...without serious gestures of contrition of their own."
Point being that, even if this is an accurate description of Yglesias' and Drum's response, no-one's got the moral high ground here.
That said, I believe you're mischaracterizing the arguments being made over at Kevin Drum's site. The general response seems to be that, since Putin has directly contradicted his previous statements, he must have been lying either then or now and -- for various reasons, depending on the poster -- it's more likely that he's lying now. [See also the State Department's recent response to Putin, IIRC.] Except, of course, for the cynics, who are maintaining that Putin always lies so who cares what he says?
Myself, I'd like to know a) what, precisely, Putin is alleging, and b) whether those allegations are true, before moving on to c) determining what game Putin thinks he's playing right now.
Posted by: Anarch | June 21, 2004 at 03:55 AM
Any and all post-war magic-pieces-of-evidence-the-administration-had-before-the-war are pretty much moot. If they had good evidence that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., don't you think they might have … er … said something about that in that whole huge debate over why we should go to war? More to the point, can you come up with a good reason they wouldn't have used Magic Piece of Evidence X when they were willing to toss out half-truths, one-quarter truths, one-sixteenths truths and so on with staggering aplomb? And no way does the "it might have had something to do with national security" argument cut it, since this team has proven time and time again that national security is not an impediment to advancing their side. So of course there's a natural tendency to view this as irrelevant at best and generally highly suspect. Combine that with the trustworthiness of Putin as a source, and you're looking entirely the wrong way as to which bloggers are primarily driven by ideology on this one.
Posted by: carpeicthus | June 21, 2004 at 07:44 AM
Any and all post-war magic-pieces-of-evidence-the-administration-had-before-the-war are pretty much moot. If they had good evidence that Iraq was a threat to the U.S., don't you think they might have … er … said something about that in that whole huge debate over why we should go to war? More to the point, can you come up with a good reason they wouldn't have used Magic Piece of Evidence X when they were willing to toss out half-truths, one-quarter truths, one-sixteenths truths and so on with staggering aplomb? And no way does the "it might have had something to do with national security" argument cut it, since this team has proven time and time again that national security is not an impediment to advancing their side. So of course there's a natural tendency to view this as irrelevant at best and generally highly suspect. Combine that with the trustworthiness of Putin as a source, and you're looking entirely the wrong way as to which bloggers are primarily driven by ideology on this one.
Posted by: carpeicthus | June 21, 2004 at 07:47 AM
Has the right wing now abandoned the UK intelligence apparatus in favor of Russia's? Can't blame them, our's isn't giving them the answers they demand, so they now depend on Putin, the ex-KGB chief whose prime responsibility was to weaken and vanquish the United States. Will you please listen to yourself, Sebastian? Your argument depends on the veracity of an ex-soviet KGB head.
Posted by: Fabius | June 21, 2004 at 08:19 AM
Just to point out something that may be implied and/or surmised ...
There is no evidence that AQ conspired with Iraq to perpetrate terrorist attacks in the US before 9/11. The fact that Iraq may have planned an attack during the run-up of the war is entirely possible, but a different matter altogether.
Posted by: roxanne | June 21, 2004 at 09:30 AM
Because Putin knew of Iraq's plans he of course supported an American invasion of that country.
Except he didn't.
Hmmm.
Posted by: carsick | June 21, 2004 at 09:46 AM
It's rather easy to dismiss Putin's recent statements for a number of reasons. First, his recent comments conflict with what he was saying at the time the US was seeking European and Russian support to attack Iraq. Second, our own State and Defense Departments (along with various intelligence agencies) seem to be have caught by surprise by Putin's most recent comments.
Those are the facts. There also is a not insignificant amount of circumstantial evidence--or speculation--suggesting a motive for Putin's recent remarks. I'd offer Colin Powell wouldn't have had to present such flimsy and false intel to the UN about aluminum tubes and trucks in the desert if we had intel about Iraq planning an attack against the US/US interests.
Posted by: Jadegold | June 21, 2004 at 10:45 AM
"It's rather easy to dismiss Putin's recent statements for a number of reasons. First, his recent comments conflict with what he was saying at the time the US was seeking European and Russian support to attack Iraq. Second, our own State and Defense Departments (along with various intelligence agencies) seem to be have caught by surprise by Putin's most recent comments."
These are fair points, but it should be noted that there are scenarios that explain it. Frex: Putin is lying when he said that he gave this information to us back then, but the Bush administration is letting him get away with it because he's telling the truth now when he says that this information exists, and this is the price for the data. Or he's lying both times, but we've got enough official pieces of paper extracted from enough Bagdhadi filing cabinets to hang him, and he and we both know it. Or the entire official Russian belligerence was disinformation all along, and State is officially lying to further muddy the waters and wind things down, now that we don't need it anymore. Or, indeed, that Putin and Bush are just lying sack of sh*ts.
The problem is, absent full data we're all going to default to picking scenarios that are consistent with what we already believe*. Which goes back to what I perceived to be Sebastian's point. :)
Moe
*Yes, of course that applies to me, too. I said 'we', after all.
Posted by: Moe Lane | June 21, 2004 at 10:56 AM
Read these questions somewhere else. Notice I'm not engaging in Operation: Infinite Strawman by claiming that Putin is lying, strangely enough:
1: How much credibility did Russia assign to that information?
2: How much credibility does the US assign to that information?
3: Why are we just hearing this now?
4: Are we just hearing about this now because the information was dubious?
5: Through what kind of sources did Russia get this information? If they came from Russia's own intelligence work, they would have more credibility than if they came from Iraqi (dis)informants (read: Chalabi's INC)
Add to that carsick's #6.
Posted by: Norbizness | June 21, 2004 at 11:13 AM
Or he's lying both times, but we've got enough official pieces of paper extracted from enough Bagdhadi filing cabinets to hang him, and he and we both know it.
I dunno about the secondary conditional, but I'll certainly buy the antecedent :)
Posted by: Anarch | June 21, 2004 at 11:35 AM
The problem is, absent full data we're all going to default to picking scenarios that are consistent with what we already believe*. Which goes back to what I perceived to be Sebastian's point.
You said "we", Moe. Sebastian compared Yglesias and Drum to the Catholic Church during one of its unpleasant episodes. I perceive Sebastian's point to be a partisan attack based on dubious data.
Posted by: Fabius | June 21, 2004 at 12:23 PM
"I perceive Sebastian's point to be a partisan attack based on dubious data."
Very possibly. I missed the part where it was proved that being partisan and working from incomplete information made him (or anybody else) automatically wrong, though.
Posted by: Moe Lane | June 21, 2004 at 12:54 PM
I missed the part where it was proved that being partisan and working from incomplete information made him (or anybody else) automatically wrong, though.
And so's the case. But, given that, to be right has to be a coincidence. If it is found that Matt and Kevin are comparable to the Catholic Church during one of its unpleasant episodes then Sebastian isn't the one who has convinced us.
Posted by: Fabius | June 21, 2004 at 01:10 PM
"And so's the case. But, given that, to be right has to be a coincidence."
Or intuition. Yah, I admit, kinda hard to tell the difference sometimes. :)
Posted by: Moe Lane | June 21, 2004 at 01:17 PM
It seems to me that what got the Church into trouble is that when presented with hard evidence they ignored it. Not vague, unverified stories about evidence that even Galileo was unwilling to confirm. Actual hard evidence. Is my understanding of this episode off the mark?
Posted by: Gromit | June 21, 2004 at 03:01 PM
IIRC what got Galileo into trouble with the Church was his attempting to interpret Scripture and his lampooning Urban VIII—never a wise move especially considering that Urban had been Galileo's patron.
Posted by: Dave Schuler | June 21, 2004 at 03:09 PM
I was under no illusion that anyone was going to be deeply convinced by Putin. I commented on the flip character of the the dismissal. And I don't see any reason to think I was wrong about that at least.
Posted by: Sebastian Holsclaw | June 21, 2004 at 09:45 PM
I was under no illusion that anyone was going to be deeply convinced by Putin. I commented on the flip character of the the dismissal.
If you think it's appropriate to dismiss Putin's claims, why does it bother you that some people dismissed his claims flippantly?
Posted by: Jesurgislac | June 22, 2004 at 07:48 AM
Sebastian Holsclaw: I was under no illusion that anyone was going to be deeply convinced by Putin. I commented on the flip character of the the dismissal. And I don't see any reason to think I was wrong about that at least.
You compared the dismissal of Putin's claim to the historical blunder of clinging to the geocentric model of the universe. I think this goes a bit beyond the above characterization.
Posted by: Gromit | June 22, 2004 at 11:49 AM
strategies for playing video poker, I don't think you've read Gromit's post clearly.
Posted by: James Casey | October 25, 2004 at 05:02 AM
Hi, Great site with perfect informations. Go on like this! - Greetings - please visit mine too. http://www.reisen2000.at/
Posted by: lastminute reisen | October 30, 2004 at 09:06 AM