Decision ‘08

This Is Called “Picking The Wrong Guy To Argue With”

If one is to tangle with Christopher Hitchens, one had better come well-prepared, a lesson David Corn has learned the hard way. Corn purports to show Hitchens is wrong about Niger (and by extension, about Joe Wilson) here:

In mid-October 2002, a nuclear analyst named Simon Dodge in the State Department’s intelligence division was forwarded copies of documents purporting to outline a recent sale of 500 tons of yellowcake uranium—which can be enriched for use in nuclear weapons—from the impoverished African nation of Niger to Iraq. As he reviewed the papers—which had been handed to the U.S. Embassy in Italy by an Italian journalist who had received them from a not-so-credible paid source—Dodge zeroed in on a bizarre companion document. It described a secret 2002 meeting at the home of the Iraqi ambassador in Rome of representatives of the world’s outlaw states—Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Libya (and Pakistan, too). The purpose of this session was to form a clandestine alliance against the West and to concoct a “plan of action” for “Global Support.”

Iran and Iraq in a secret pact to create a partnership of rogue states? This was something out of James Bond—or Austin Powers. Dodge considered it “completely implausible,” as he later told congressional investigators. Yet this memo bore the same “funky” (as he saw it) embassy of Niger stamp that appeared on the uranium-deal papers. That was, for Dodge, a telltale sign. If the uranium-agreement papers were coming from the same source as the outlandish rogue-state alliance memo (and bearing the same suspect markings), they, too, must be fishy. He concluded that the entire set of papers from Italy was likely fraudulent and e-mailed that assessment to colleagues within the intelligence community. Three months later, he reiterated his concerns in a Jan. 12, 2003, e-mail to other intelligence-community analysts and warned that the uranium-purchase agreement “probably is a hoax.”

…Dodge’s evaluation should have ended all talk within the Bush administration about Saddam Hussein’s supposed pursuit of uranium in Niger.

Hitchens responds:

Wissam al-Zahawie did indeed have “a simple explanation” for his 1999 trip: low-level sanctions-busting. He had another equally simple (and laughable) disclaimer: He did not even know that Niger produced uranium. But I repeat the question that Corn declines to ask himself: What is an ambassador to the Vatican, with a background in nuclear diplomacy, doing on such an out-of-the-way mission in the first place? It’s hardly my fault if the Senate intelligence committee and the ISG don’t ask themselves this: Ambassador Rolf Ekeus (who does ask it) outranks them in the sort of expertise that Corn selectively affects to value. Of course, one may always prefer to rely on the “excerpts of Zahawie’s travel report,” and the IAEA’s discovery that Saddam’s envoy—a former friend and colleague of theirs—did not choose to claim that he talked about uranium. This might be described as the Joseph Wilson standard of forensic investigation.

The related question—was Niger open for business?—is partly answered by the presence of A.Q. Khan on its territory in 1999 and again in 2000. Corn ignores this completely while making feeble jokes about an Austin Powers alliance between rogue states. Has he cared to look at the list of countries visited and armed by A.Q. Khan, from North Korea to Libya? Has he ever asked himself how our “intelligence” community missed all that, too? The supposed “box” that contained Saddam Hussein contained A.Q. Khan and the nuclear black market as well, not that the CIA had the vaguest idea of that fact or any other.

From the simple-minded presumption of Iraqi innocence to the conspiratorial assumption of American guilt: Corn’s original charge was that the administration broke the law in an attempt to expose Wilson’s wife. Now that we know that this is false he falls back on the discovery that there were people in the administration who didn’t like Wilson and wanted to explode his claims. Well, fine. But how does that become the business of a prosecutor who sends one of our fellow journalists to jail? Meanwhile, for Corn to say that Richard Armitage was “most likely not part of a White House campaign” is to invite and deserve utter ridicule.

Corn can’t resist digging at Hitchens regarding his former Nation co-worker’s ‘about-face’ politically:

It pains me to engage in this sort of tussle with Hitchens. Twenty-five years ago, we shared an office, and I learned much from him (and watched in awe as he socialized around the clock and still managed to file perfect-prose copy the morning after). In the years since Hitchens so publicly defected from my home base, The Nation, I’ve resisted invitations to comment publicly upon his unusual journey and his subsequent writings. But now that I have a book out and Hitchens has trained his poison darts upon it, reluctance yields to self-preservation (and, yes, self-promotion).

To which Hitch replies, “Save the crocodile tears”:

Incidentally, I begin to tire of this sickly idea that I used to be a great guy until I became fed up with excuses for dictators and psychopathic murderers (let alone for mediocre CIA fantasists). Alexander Cockburn is surely nearer the mark when he says that I was a complete sh** and traitor all along.

Nobody does it like the Hitch…

11 Responses to “This Is Called “Picking The Wrong Guy To Argue With””

1 HenryH Says:
September 26th, 2006 at 2:56 pm
You gotta be kidding here Mark. You find Hitch’s response compelling? That would be funny were it not so sad. He’s just floundering around, making irrelevant side charges, and basically just “getting tired”.

Corn nailed this perfectly. The whole Niger story was cooked up spin to try to advance the war argument. It rested always, on suggestive non-evidence posing as proof. “We dont believe the guys story for why he was in Niger, therefore there is no explanation, therefore our made-up explanation must be true”. Or “the Niger official speculated that the upcoming visit would be about uranium - therefore Wilson was lying to say there was no seeking of uranium” (even though the speculation turned out to be false and uranium was never mentioned).

So A.Q Khan was in Niger! What does that prove? No one has ever claimed that Niger didnt have uranium, and thus wouldnt have any reason to meet with a nuclear expert. The claim is that Iraq wasnt interested in uranium. Put AQ Khan in Iraq and maybe you have something. That Hitchens can believe that a Niger-Khan connection would indicate anything about a Niger-Iraq connection must mean that he has really got a bigger drinking problem than we fear.

And on and on he rants about Fitzgerald and the investigation, as if that had anything to do with the particular issue at hand, which is wheter or not Saddam tried to buy uranium in Africa, as Bush asserted and used to gin up support for the war. Nobody believes that anymore, except Hitchins, and probably a motly collection of RW deadenders.
2 Dop Says:
September 26th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Larry worked there. He went to the farm with Plame. So, knowing this about Hitchens, why would Plame go ahead anyway?
3 Robert Says:
September 26th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Besides the point. The whole war is a scam. Hitchens has an airs about him and for no good reason.
4 Mark Says:
September 26th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
So, Henry, like Corn, you find it plausible that Saddam’s embasssy to the Vatican was headed by a nuclear expert who visited Niger to…well, to do what, exactly?…
5 megapotamus Says:
September 26th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Okay, let’s say all this particular event is as dismissable as the naysayers say(though it ain’t)… would it be convincing or even perhaps dispositive of the No WMD claims if Saddam DID have large quantities of uranium ore? Trick question of course, cuz he did. Not only did the Big He have 500 tons in just one stockpile of yellowcake, he was also blessed with about 1.7 tons of low enriched uranium, which for those keeping score, is the precursor to Highly Enriched Uranium which is the precursor to one big stinky mushroom cloud. Where did it come from? Well, there aren’t exactly barcodes on the stuff so no one really knows but if it ain’t Niger does that really matter so much? No need to defile your eyes with any right wing rag on that one, the NYT did a piece on it. And as for the transparent forgery of SOME of the documentary evidence on this (and this is one of those elements of the Wilson story that really stinks as he claims to have seen them prior to the time the US intel services had them in hand. Odd, eh?) it does not invalidate ALL said evidence, especially as the incompetent forging of documents to toss mud on others is an old and well travelled counter-intel technique. Sadly, the anti-WMD “argument” rests on a vapid judgement call like the anti-rape arguments of the Clintonoids; in sum… “That just doesn’t sound like our guy.” To which the only appropriate response is, “Yes, it do.”
6 Mark Says:
September 26th, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Interesting sidenote: there is pretty good cause to believe that Khan DID offer nuclear assistance to Iraq in the early 1990s…is it so hard to believe he would try again?

From a very interesting source, the Carnagie Endowment for International Peace:

An Iraqi memo, found during inspections in 1995, indicates that Khan may have offered significant nuclear assistance to Iraq in late 1990. He offered to sell Iraq a nuclear bomb design and guarantee material support from Western Europe for a uranium enrichment program. Khan stated that any materials needed from Europe could be routed through a company he owned in Dubai and that a meeting with a friendly intermediary could take place in Greece. However, Iraq is believed to have turned down the offer, suspecting it to be a sting and no known follow-ups were made after the 1991 Gulf War. The investigation in the 1990s was inconclusive in its efforts to determine the authenticity of the memo.

If I grant you that Hitchens indulges in a lot of speculation (and I do), it’s at least informed speculation, and if it can’t be conclusively be proved that Saddam did seek uranium from Niger, it certainly can’t, contra Corn and Wilson, be disproved…
7 Hitchadmirer Says:
September 26th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Megapotamus, you could not be more wrong! I do not remember a single person, after Juanita Broderick’s rape claims, saying “that doesn’t sound like our guy”. I mean, how could they? It sounded just like him.
8 HenryH Says:
September 26th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
“you find it plausible that Saddam’s embasssy to the Vatican was headed by a nuclear expert who visited Niger to…well, to do what, exactly?… ”

Gee Mark. Must be to buy yellowcake to add to his already existing stockpile of it, to feed into his nonexistent nuclear program.

“there is pretty good cause to believe that Khan DID offer nuclear assistance to Iraq in the early 1990s…is it so hard to believe he would try again?”

Of course not. If Saddam had a nuclear program (which we know that he didnt) , then surely Khan might try to offer assistance. Therefore what?

Saddam had no program. Khan had no reason, therefore, to offer any assistance. There is no evidence whatsoever that Khan did offer any assistance. What is the relevance of even bringing up Khan’s name here?

Look Mark, this isn’t complicated. Saddam was a bastard, but he didn’t have an active nuclear program. Period. He didnt try to buy yellowcake from Niger. Period. It wasnt just Wilson who put to rest this story - there were 2 or 3 others who were sent to investigate the issue, including a US general from NATO (forgot the name, sorry). We know all this now, indisputably. The whole dispute is not over whether there was any attempt to buy yellowcake, it is over the question of whether Bush knew that, or was in a position where he should have known that, when he stated the opposite in the SOTU.

It is a function of the GOP strategy of always engaging in character assasination as a means of advancing political agendas that everyone on the right continues to focus on demonizing Wilson. Wilson was right. Get over it already.
9 Mark Says:
September 26th, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Sir, we must agree to disagree; Joe Wilson hasn’t been right about anything that I can see. One example: how did he manage to determine the Italian documents were a forgery (which they were, everyone admits that), before they had even been shared with U.S. intelligence?

Or do you claim psychic abilities for Saint Wilson?…
10 Mark Says:
September 26th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
One more thing, lest I be accused of kool-aid drinking; our intelligence on Saddam’s WMDs was horribly, horribly wrong. It was and is a national disgrace. I’m not engaging in apologetics; I’m just saying Corn and Wilson claim far more certainty on this matter than in fact exists…
11 The Real Sporer Says:
September 26th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Hitchens is brilliant. Why more of our leaders don’t adopt this fact + logic = debate victory approach is beyond me.

The closest a lib like David Korn gets to facts or logic is citing some fact totally out of context-like their recent foray into the NIE debate shows.

http://therealsporer.blogspot.com/