« "She attacked life," | Main | The Subject Line in a SPAM Email »

April 18, 2006

I Hate to NitPick Semantics

UPDATE: I've actually been called a 'poophead' ('smug' even!?!) in public by my brother, St. Bingley Bastard. So I am taking my semantics ~ which I do truly love to argue, so there ~ to the extended section to sulk. A pox on it.

UPDATE REDUX: I have also sent a Clintonesque apology the the maligned pundits:

My brother says I was petulant and smug. (Or was it smog? Smaug?)
Regardless, I'm sorry if I appeared so.
ths

...but since they (Jonah Goldberg's "Gotchya" and Prof. Reynolds with "Ouch ~ Zinni is fact checked") started it with this:

Former Clinton CENTCOM commander, Anthony Zinni — the most prominent of the retired generals attacking Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld — now says that, in the run-up to the war in Iraq, "What bothered me ... [was that] I was hearing a depiction of the intelligence that didn't fit what I knew. There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD."

But in early 2000, Zinni told Congress "Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf region," adding, "Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions ... Even if Baghdad reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months."


...I wanted to share my take on this shocking revelation.
Dear Professor Reynolds (I'm asking Jonah Goldberg too, but he doesn't talk to me either.) ~

How does PROBABLY as in ( doubtless, likely, presumably, but WE'RE NOT SURE) ""Iraq PROBABLY is continuing clandestine nuclear research, [and] retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions ... "

negate

NO, as in "...There was NO SOLID PROOF, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD." ?

The way I'm reading Zinni's Congressional testimony tells me probably means 'not sure', 'can't say definitively' and his later statements about 'no solid proof' are a continuence of (and entirely consistent with) that. If he'd said "Iraq HAS..." or "Iraq IS..." without a qualifier, then I'd agree with a 'gotcha'. But I sure don't see one worth crowing about here.

tree hugging sister

And don't hand me the 'and retains'. That's still part of the 'PROBABLY" sentence. (He didn't say "Probably blahblah, BUT retains...") I mean, dang. If you're trying to nail someone, you've got to do better than accuse him of being sure of what he wasn't sure of, when he already said he wasn't sure. Twice. I'm sure of it.

Posted by tree hugging sister at April 18, 2006 01:41 PM

Comments

His entire statement:

While Iraq's WMD capabilities were degraded under UN
supervision and set back by Coalition strikes, some capabilities
remain
and others could quickly be regenerated. Despite claims
that WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing
clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and
biological munitions, and is concealing extended-range SCUD
missiles, possibly equipped with CBW payloads. Even if Baghdad
10
reversed its course and surrendered all WMD capabilities, it
retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure
to replace agents and munitions within weeks or months. A
special concern is the absence of a UN inspection and monitoring
presence, which until December 1998 had been paramount to
preventing large-scale resumption of prohibited weapons programs.
A new disarmament regime must be reintroduced into Iraq as soon
as possible and allowed to carry out the mandates dictated by the
post-Gulf War UN resolutions. The Iraqi regime’s high regard for
WMD and long-range missiles is our best indicator that a peaceful
regime under Saddam Hussein is unlikely.

Not sure I agree with you, Sis. He sounds a bit more sure in the full statement, and the is in the last part of the probably sentance seems to me means the probably only applies to the first part of the sentance, not all three points within it, so the retains seems a bit more sure sounding than probably. But that's just my reading of it.
YMMV

Posted by: Crusader at April 18, 2006 03:04 PM

Nope. Don't agree.

Posted by: tree hugging sister at April 18, 2006 03:09 PM

She's being a semantic poophead. I guess that makes me anti-semantic. Any reasonable reading of his statement supports the way Jonah and Glenn read it. No one is saying that he said before that Saddam 100% had WMD, but he clearly says that all the intel he has seen leads him to state in his professional opinion he thinks they probably are. sure, he says 'probably' but the weight of the evidence leads him to say 'are'.

and the 'ouch' they are calling him on is his moving of the goalposts.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at April 18, 2006 03:40 PM

A SEMANTIC POOPHEAD?! In public you call me this?! And who are YOU to decide reasonable, you smug, East Coast, academic elitest, when I treat you with all the deference in the world due a pillar of the community of your stature?

BASTARD!!

Posted by: tree hugging sister at April 18, 2006 04:00 PM

And who are YOU to decide reasonable

Well, he is the centrist....

Posted by: Crusader at April 18, 2006 04:05 PM

Oh you silly siblings. First of all the time of General Zinni's report to congress was when? 2000 when everybody thought the same thing that old Saddam had the weapons and certainly the capability. To blast Zinni now is ridiculous. As you may remember the weapons inspectors were in there well after Zinni's comments, they found nothing before getting kicked out. That is what Zinni's beef about this war is and the fact that the plan for it's aftermath was shelved. I'll stop there before I go over the edge, that UCMJ thing you know.

Posted by: major dad at April 18, 2006 04:11 PM

Hey, I'd stick up for her too if I knew my martinis depended on it.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at April 18, 2006 04:13 PM

My husband is a GOD among current active duty men and EVERYONE else, too!

Posted by: tree hugging sister at April 18, 2006 04:20 PM

Not blasting anything, MD (other than THS's premise), just pointing out that the tone of his 2000 statement does not match the surity of the statement he is making now with regard to what he saw at the time. Zinni is the one trying to hide behind semantics. He says now, that at the time, he saw no solid proof, yte at the time he made statements that at the time implied surety on his part. Or are we going to get back into the whole 'what the meaning of is is' crap again?

Posted by: Crusader at April 18, 2006 04:21 PM

Or are we going to get back into the whole 'what the meaning of is is' crap again?

NO, it's 'what the meaning of PROBABLY is', you miserable little puke.

Posted by: tree hugging sister at April 18, 2006 04:25 PM

I was referring to the ...and is concealing extended-range SCUD
missiles...
part. Sheesh....

Posted by: Crusader at April 18, 2006 04:33 PM

Sorry THS, I disagree with you on this one. On the nuclear research he qualified it with a probably. On the "retains" part though, it read to me like he was stating it as a certainty.

(eyes exit) Of course, I like Rumsfeld.

Posted by: Dave E. at April 18, 2006 07:17 PM

Hide behind semantics? What are you talking about? Zinni's comments were in 2000, his comments now don't reflect that brief. Probably means probably, Zinni is the type if he was absolutely sure he would have said so. In that statement he talks of inspectors, they were not there at the time, remember they went back in and found squat. Take the WMD off the table, not there. Just because they won't admit maybe there was a mistake is beside the point. Saddam needed to go. Zinni's beef is that he was contained (could argue both sides) and that the conduct of the war and it's aftermath were flawed and he is correct. Yes a lighter swifter force kicked their ass but guess what, you still have to take care of the aftermath. The SECDEF's plan was to be out of there in the fall of 03 ~ not there, are we? Could someone in that office just say "we miscalculated"? Dismissing the idea of an insurgency was dumb especially when the field commanders were reporting about it. The Secretary is a super smart guy, but. I'll stop there. Senior officers follow the "commander's intent" and they have done that. Retired officers have the right to say it's jacked up. I'd like to see Zinni and the Secretary in the same room and argue, it'd be bloody.

Posted by: major dad at April 18, 2006 07:49 PM

But I think they clearly do reflect the 2000 brief. He says, now, "There was no solid proof, that I ever saw, that Saddam had WMD." I don't think his 2 statements are mutually exclusive, however. When he said 'probably' in 2000 I'm not saying at all that he had polaroids of glowing warheads; but what he did have was solid enough evidence that made him think and publicly declare that Iraq probably had them, that they certainly had some capabilities and the will to research them, which are pretty serious charges for someone in his position at the time to make. His beef with the conduct of the war as you describe it may certainly have its merits, but that issue is irrelavent to this issue: Is he now saying he was wrong in his 2000 testimony? Or is he moving the goal posts?

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at April 18, 2006 08:38 PM