Who to Trust?

I keep not blogging on Israel's strike of what we're supposed to believe were North Korean components for a Syrian nuclear weapons program, because the whole thing seemed murky and shrouded in mystery, but after today's story in The New York Times by Mark Mazzetti and Helene Cooper, it looks a lot less murky.

Basically, there's a "sharp debate is under way in the Bush administration about the significance of the Israeli intelligence that led to last month’s Israeli strike inside Syria" and it "has fractured along now-familiar fault lines, with Vice President Dick Cheney and conservative hawks in the administration portraying the Israeli intelligence as credible and arguing that it should cause the United States to reconsider its diplomatic overtures to Syria and North Korea." As Eric Martin says it's a no-brainer to conclude here that the crazy-and-always-wrong faction of the administration is wrong here.

Comments

Seems like an ideal topic which will prompt the regular nut squad to show up.

Posted by El Cid | October 10, 2007 12:21 PM

I suppose it would take a philosophy major to deploy the last man standing fallacy so effectively. Dreary.

Posted by southpaw | October 10, 2007 12:41 PM

1. Aside from everything else, one certainly can't believe anything that dictatorships like North Korea and Syria say. On the other hand, this should be an easy question to address. If the site bombed was indeed a nuclear site and was severely damaged or destroyed, one would expect there to be detectable radiation in the area. Certainly, US intelligence has the means to verify the presence or absence of such radiation.

2. Just based on the bald statement that Israel supplied intelligence on alleged nuclear activity on the part of Syria, in the absence of the details of the information supplied and how it was obtained, the man on the street is in no position to render a judgment on the matter.

Posted by SLC | October 10, 2007 12:44 PM

in the absence of the details of the information supplied and how it was obtained, the man on the street is in no position to render a judgment on the matter.

And yet, here you are.

Posted by mds | October 10, 2007 12:53 PM

Re nds

Obviously, Mr. nds has a reading comprehension problem. In no way, shape, form, or regard did I register a judgment on the issue. Just to make it perfectly clear so that there be no misunderstanding, at this time, I have no opinion as to the truth or falsity of the alleged Israeli claim or even if the NY Times article is accurate. Or for that matter where there was such a bombing raid at all (the Syrian Government has been contradictory in that regard, at first denying such a raid and then doing a 180 and claiming that an empty building was hit; the Israeli Government has only said that an overflight occurred).

Posted by SLC | October 10, 2007 1:05 PM

SLC you could be pretty fair advanced on a nuclear program without having radioactive material immediately on site. You could be installing large arrays of centrifuges or a reactor for a long time before you got to the point of fueling.

mds just because we are in no position to render a factual judgement on what actually was or was not present doesn't mean that we are not situated to pass judgement on the actors involved. The people around the VPs office have been openly pushing for military attacks on Iran and Syria, and for that matter China and North Korea, for years. Suffice it to say that their track record doesn't support 'Trust Us'.

Posted by Bruce Webb | October 10, 2007 1:14 PM

And yet, here you are.

soaking, scrubbing, brushing off; nothing seems very effective in keeping the eliminationist rhetoric of SLC out of these comments.

like they say, there is one batshit insane wacko in every crowd.

Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | October 10, 2007 1:14 PM

If the site bombed was indeed a nuclear site and was severely damaged or destroyed, one would expect there to be detectable radiation in the area. Certainly, US intelligence has the means to verify the presence or absence of such radiation.

Exactly. And none was detected. That is the point.

Posted by Eric Martin | October 10, 2007 1:21 PM

Dangit.

Bruce Webb is right, obviously, that there are other elements of a nuclear program that wouldn't produce radioactive traces post-strike.

Still, the most credible theories that I've seen (from Jeffrey Lewis, the Nelson Report and Joseph Cirincionne) suggest that, at most, there were SCUD missiles at the site, and that it was more of a warning shot to Iran than an exercise in counterproliferation.

Again, though: If Gates and Rice are dubious of the nuke angle (or at least the most alarmist aspects of such angle), and Cheney and his hawks are pushing it, I would tend to give Gates/Rice the benefit of the doubt.

It's not that this is absolute proof, or ultimately dispositive of the truth, but it would be foolish to completely disregard the Cheney gang's track record, and ever-present ulterior motives.

The Cheney gang should have a higher burden of proof/persuasion given their history.

Posted by Eric Martin | October 10, 2007 1:38 PM

Re mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari

Ms. al-jafaari is a poopy head.

Re Bruce Webb

A good point but I suspect that, assuming that the London Sunday Times and N. Y. Times are right, one would assume that the site wouldn't have been bombed in the absence of any evidence of nuclear material.

Re Eric Martin

Would Mr. Martin like to present some evidence that no nuclear material was detected on the site. This, of course, assumes that the NY Times article is accurate and previous London Sunday Times articles are correct. I am not convinced as yet that anything other then an overflight to test out radar jamming equipment against Syrian air defenses was performed. I would also point out that a Yedoith Ahronoth reporter visited close to the scene of the alleged attack and observed nothing untoward.

Posted by SLC | October 10, 2007 3:17 PM

Wait, you don't even think an airstrike happened at all, yet you want me to provide evidence that after the airstrike that didn't happen there was no radioactive material detected?

Huh?

Regardless, should I prove the negative, or you the positive? I recall reading of groups in the area conducting such tests - with negative results - but I can't hunt down the link now. On the other hand, if the tests came back positive, one would assume there would be less disagreement about the presence of nuke material between Gates, Rice, Cheney et al. Right?

Posted by Eric Martin | October 10, 2007 4:30 PM

1. According to several reports the soil samples taken from the area show the presence of nuclear material. Here is one such report.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/the-magazine/features/222736/we-came-so-close-to-world-war-three-that-day.thtml

2. Even if there was nuclear material, it certainly does not mean we should scrap our deal with NK. Just that we have now more leverage to negotiate for even tighter oversight.

Posted by Dave | October 10, 2007 4:42 PM

Re Dave & Eric Martin

Again, what we have is newspaper article based on unnamed sources. In fact, I linked to a report last week that claimed that it was US aircraft that bombed a site in Syria and Israel took the blame as a part of a cover operation. Clearly, what we have here are contradictory reports, not all of which can be true. I am only suggesting that we await more information before jumping to conclusions. Remember the newspaper coverage of Mike Nifong!

Posted by SLC | October 10, 2007 4:59 PM

I can safely say that no one on this board has anything useful to say about the Israeli intelligence on this -- one way or the other. Unlike here, they know how to keep a secret. But let the lefty morons speak loudest of all....

Posted by yglesiasisignorant | October 10, 2007 6:04 PM

From the article:

"The Israeli strike occurred at a particularly delicate time for American diplomatic efforts. In addition to the North Korean nuclear negotiations, the White House is also trying to engineer a regional Middle East peace conference that would work toward a comprehensive peace accord between Arabs and Israelis."

And that's WHY it was timed that way.

Everything the Israelis are claiming is absolutely undoubtedly a flat out lie.

Most experts, which the article doesn't mention, believe Syria is in absolutely NO position to be doing anything with regard to any "nuclear weapons." This is clearly bullshit, and an attempt by Israel to 1) connect Syria with the Iran crisis, and 2) lay the groundwork for a justification for the attack on Syria (and Lebanon as a side issue) that the Israelis are clearly planning, in conjunction with a US attack on Iran.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 10, 2007 6:34 PM

RSH,

If Israel is planning to scuttle the conference then why are daily stories being leaked to the Israeli press about the ONGOING negotiations with the Palestinians over the terms that each side is negotiating for the conference.

Nice try. But this time, "Israel is always wrong" won't work. Israel crossed a red line by bombing syria and they wouldn't have done it without

Your conjecture is just that. Pure BS

Posted by Richard Steven Hack is dumb | October 10, 2007 7:55 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

Well, our favorite jailbird contributes his unique loonyness to the discussion. He accuses Israel of lying. Actually, they haven't said anything. All the leaks of speculative commentary are coming out of Washington.

Posted by SLC | October 10, 2007 8:10 PM

"If Israel is planning to scuttle the conference then why are daily stories being leaked to the Israeli press about the ONGOING negotiations with the Palestinians over the terms that each side is negotiating for the conference."

Where did I say Israel was planning to "scuttle" the conference BEFORE the conference takes place?

Israel doesn't "scuttle" conferences. They just make them fail.

Besides which, the primary purpose of the attack - if not the timing - was for entirely different reasons having nothing to do with the conference. I was merely pointing out that it was no accident that the attack occurred at this point because Israel would benefit from painting Syria as a "nuclear threat" prior to the conference. But the primary purpose of that phony intelligence was to justify a later war.

And of course, SLC can't even read, as usual. I said nothing about Israel lying in public - which is not to say that said "leaks" aren't heavily promoted in the Israeli press. I said their so-called "intelligence" was a lie. Again, should I post in Hebrew so SLC can perhaps just get the gist of my comments without straining his brain?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 10, 2007 11:07 PM

Did he just accuse Cheney of having a reptile brain?

My favorite bit from the article is this, "'You can’t just make these decisions using the top of your spinal cord, you have to use the whole brain,' said Philip D. Zelikow, the former counselor at the State Department. 'What other policy are we going to pursue that we think would be better?'". The point seems to be that Cheney et al. have no higher central nervous system than their brain stems. I guess my title is unfair to the reptiles, since they actually do have a rudimentary cortex atop their brain stems.

Other than that, the article had bits hinting that missiles themselves, rather than what type warheads they might be throwing, may have been the real worry for the Israelis about this site.

I've never understood all the hype about so-called WMD in general, and nukes in particular, so admittedly I have a tendency to read other concerns into narratives that present themselves as being concerned with nukes. If I were running Israel, I would be far more worried about Syria or Hezbollah acquiring pinpoint targetable SSM (i.e., cruise missile type devices), or RPVs, than about them getting nukes. The Hezbollah response to the IDF's bombing of Lebanon was mostly sound and fury because it was mostly highly inaccurate SCUDs. If they'd had anything pinpoint targetable, they could have done Israel some real damage, like taking down their electric grid. If the other side could do to them what they can now do unilaterally to Gaza, then Israel would have to adjust to living on equal terms with its neighbors. Can't have that! Nukes, in contrast, would not be usable. MAD makes them useless for anything except regime change insurance.

Posted by Glen Tomkins | October 11, 2007 12:08 AM

Why would anyone take the word of a war profiteer when it comes to war? Of course Cheney wants war.
He makes some pretty good money off of it.

Posted by merlallen | October 11, 2007 4:17 AM

The article is unconvincing (anyone who claims that bombing Syria would cause World War III is almost by definition nuts) and based on unsubstantiated claims by unspecified British government ministers.

It is odd that no photographs of the bombed missiles, if missiles there were, have been leaked to the media. Hi-rez satellite photoes are not secret any more.

Posted by MFB | October 11, 2007 4:51 AM

Attachked is a link to an article in todayks' NY Times that seems to indicate that no attack occurred. It could well be that the reports in the London Times and other publications are wildly exaggerated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/world/middleeast/11syria.html?hp

Posted by SLC | October 11, 2007 6:09 AM