Dr. Paul hates to be misquoted! er, um, paraphrased!
June 2, 2003
Initially, Wolfowitz did not characterize the paraphrase as a misquote, but sought to provide fuller context for his comments.
DefenseLINK transcript of May 28, 2003 interview of
Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz with Karen DeYoung, Washington Post
DeYoung: As Kevin probably told you, I was initially calling to find out about this quote that's in the Vanity Fair article. I don't know if you've seen it or not. And Kevin gave me this sort of additional context to it, but I did want to ask... This quote where it says "for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue - weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." And I sort of have just kind of taken that apart to ask you what you meant by "bureaucratic reasons."
Wolfowitz: The truth is, we've always had all three of those reasons, and in fact, if you look at Powell's presentation, there have always been all three. There has been a tendency to emphasize the weapons of mass destruction issue. But, as I said in the fuller quote, the real thing that has concerned the President from the beginning and which I think is even the "axis" that's referred to in the "axis of evil" is the connection between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. So in a way, that's always been the main thing. But if you look at where the intelligence community tends to go, the issue about weapons of mass destruction has never been in controversy. Whereas there's been a lot of arguing back and forth about how much Iraq is involved in terrorism. At the end of the day, it's actually the connection between the two that was seen as completely different in the light of September 11th.
After various cynical interpretations were given to the quote (e.g. WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz, The Independent, May 30, 2003), Wolfowitz sought to characterterize the paraphrase as a misquote.
US Department of State transcript of May 31, 2003 interview of Wolfowitz with
Cable News Network in Singapore
Q: There is a report in Vanity Fair today that just quoted you as saying that the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was just a bureaucratic reason. Can you respond to that?
Wolfowitz: No, it's a misquote. In fact, the full quote you can see on our website where the whole interview is there. What I was trying to explain there is a complicated situation. ...
And here's the DoD version of the original interview. Kellums is a DoD PR guy.
DefenseLINK transcript of the May 9, 2003 interview of Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz with Sam Tanenhaus, Vanity Fair
Tanenhaus: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into --
Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- hold on one second --
(Pause)
Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to --
Wolfowitz: -- there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again.
Kellems: By the way, it's probably the longest uninterrupted phone conversation I've witnessed, so --
Tanenhaus: This is extraordinary.
Kellems: You had good timing.
Tanenhaus: I'm really grateful.
Wolfowitz: To wrap it up.
The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation.
Commentary
To risk the wrath of Dr. Paul, let me paraphrase his comments on the "motive" question based on the text of the Vanity Fair interview transcript (linked above).
There were three main reasons: 1) WMD, 2) links to terrorism, and 3) Saddam was bad for Iraq. Number three didn't justify an invasion. Number two was weak. Number one was something we could get people to rally around.
Also, the hidden agenda was to remove a threat to the "friendly governments" in the region, and to satisfy bin Laden's demand that we vacate Saudi Arabia.
Click through to the comments page for Kristol's analysis of Tanenhaus' distortions, and my analysis of Kristol's distortions. And feel free to point out my distortions.
William Kristol, in a
Weekly Standard piece, has joined the fray. Regarding the Vanity Fair article, Kristol says "distorting an on-the-record interview with a Bush administration official in order to create a quasi-conspiratorial narrative of deceit and deception at the highest levels of the U.S. government is a disgrace."
I don't buy Kristol's analysis of Sam Tanenhaus' Vanity Fair piece. I'll tackle just one particular, and leave the rest as an exercise for the reader. Kristol says ...
For that matter, the notion that the Bush administration really, really, in its heart of hearts, had other, preferred reasons for taking out Saddam Hussein--particularly, that it did so to justify removing its troops from Saudi Arabia--and that the entire war was therefore a fraud . . . well, this idea, too, is crackpot.
After following Wolfowitz's interview trail for a few weeks, I know how to cut and paste to make Dr. Paul say the most outrageous things. But I try to fairly represent the underlying meaning of the full interview by using exerpts to provide context, and links to the full text. Often the conversation is a flow of interconnected ideas, and making those snips is a difficult choice.
In his article and my commentary in the main post, Kristol and I made similar choices for putting the "bureaucracy" phrase into context. Although Kristol does snip the parts in which Wolfowitz undermines reasons number two and three. Perhaps this distortion was introduced by Kristol purely for reasons of space, and not to undermine Tanenhaus' interpretation that reason number one was the "one reason" that mattered.
Kristol and I have made very different choices for putting the "Saudi Arabia" discussion in context. Below on the right, I provide overlap with the other exchange to put this particular Wolfowitz statement into context. On the left is Kristol's edit of the passage.
Kristol's version ...
There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. . . . I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.
|
In context.
Wolfowitz: [snip]
There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.
I don't want to speak in messianic terms. It's not going to change things overnight, but it's a huge improvement.
Tanenhaus: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into --
Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. ... [begin "bureaucracy", three reasons, etc.]
|
After stating the "huge" benifits vis-a-vis Saudia Arabia and bin Laden, Wolfowitz agreed with Tanenhaus' suggestion that this was a motivation for the war. Wolfowitz specifically agreed that the linkage between Iraq, our presence in Saudi Arabia, and bin Laden's rage about that presence was a motivation for the war.
Kristol snips a statement out of a "statement-question-confirmation" sequence. And then he deletes two key sentences from the middle of Wolfowitz's statement. Why does Kristol makes this editing choice in a distortion critique?
Perhaps Kristol deleted Wolfowitz's reference to bin Laden and his grievances out of this passage specifically to undermine the notion of motivation. To be clear, Kristol's implication that withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia should be seen as an unintended consequence of the invasion of Iraq is ... well, a crack pot idea, and insults the intelligence of Dr. Paul.
more trailer trash.
Holy cow. Front page metafilter. Nice flow.
Kudos Markus
Joshua Marshall took Kristol to school in a manner very similar to my critique.
Marshall has more to say here about mismatch between the Vanity Fair article and the transcript.
The New Republic takes on the Vanity Fair topic (but not as well as I did).
At my local B&N I checked the Kristol editorial in this week's W.Standard. I wanted to see if the print version matched the web version. In particular, I wanted to see if the questionable excerpt (shown in the side-by-side) is the same. It is.
The local Knight-Ridder McNewspaper was astroturfed by a conservative frequent writer who plagiarized Kristol. My two-hundred-words-or-less parry&riposte should be in the morning paper. My 473 word version was a beauty. The letters editor wrote me a note, which was a nice touch, so I did a re-write for length. I wacked off a hundred words without much pain, but every word after that hurt.
I wasn't able to provide as much backup as I wanted for each of my assertions. And I had to take out a paragraph that fell into the category of balestra&lunge. The Sept 10, 2002 quotaton about "all the instruments of national power across the whole world" tends to be an eye-opener. But I didn't have room to bring in a second topic.
|
June 2, 2003
Initially, Wolfowitz did not characterize the paraphrase as a misquote, but sought to provide fuller context for his comments.
DefenseLINK transcript of May 28, 2003 interview of Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz with Karen DeYoung, Washington Post
After various cynical interpretations were given to the quote (e.g. WMD just a convenient excuse for war, admits Wolfowitz, The Independent, May 30, 2003), Wolfowitz sought to characterterize the paraphrase as a misquote.
US Department of State transcript of May 31, 2003 interview of Wolfowitz with Cable News Network in Singapore
And here's the DoD version of the original interview. Kellums is a DoD PR guy.
DefenseLINK transcript of the May 9, 2003 interview of Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz with Sam Tanenhaus, Vanity Fair
Commentary
To risk the wrath of Dr. Paul, let me paraphrase his comments on the "motive" question based on the text of the Vanity Fair interview transcript (linked above).
There were three main reasons: 1) WMD, 2) links to terrorism, and 3) Saddam was bad for Iraq. Number three didn't justify an invasion. Number two was weak. Number one was something we could get people to rally around.
Also, the hidden agenda was to remove a threat to the "friendly governments" in the region, and to satisfy bin Laden's demand that we vacate Saudi Arabia.
Click through to the comments page for Kristol's analysis of Tanenhaus' distortions, and my analysis of Kristol's distortions. And feel free to point out my distortions.
- mark 6-02-2003 9:10 pm
William Kristol, in a Weekly Standard piece, has joined the fray. Regarding the Vanity Fair article, Kristol says "distorting an on-the-record interview with a Bush administration official in order to create a quasi-conspiratorial narrative of deceit and deception at the highest levels of the U.S. government is a disgrace."
After following Wolfowitz's interview trail for a few weeks, I know how to cut and paste to make Dr. Paul say the most outrageous things. But I try to fairly represent the underlying meaning of the full interview by using exerpts to provide context, and links to the full text. Often the conversation is a flow of interconnected ideas, and making those snips is a difficult choice.I don't buy Kristol's analysis of Sam Tanenhaus' Vanity Fair piece. I'll tackle just one particular, and leave the rest as an exercise for the reader. Kristol says ...
In his article and my commentary in the main post, Kristol and I made similar choices for putting the "bureaucracy" phrase into context. Although Kristol does snip the parts in which Wolfowitz undermines reasons number two and three. Perhaps this distortion was introduced by Kristol purely for reasons of space, and not to undermine Tanenhaus' interpretation that reason number one was the "one reason" that mattered.
Kristol and I have made very different choices for putting the "Saudi Arabia" discussion in context. Below on the right, I provide overlap with the other exchange to put this particular Wolfowitz statement into context. On the left is Kristol's edit of the passage.
There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. . . . I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.
Wolfowitz: [snip]
There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.
I don't want to speak in messianic terms. It's not going to change things overnight, but it's a huge improvement.
Tanenhaus: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into --
Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. ... [begin "bureaucracy", three reasons, etc.]
After stating the "huge" benifits vis-a-vis Saudia Arabia and bin Laden, Wolfowitz agreed with Tanenhaus' suggestion that this was a motivation for the war. Wolfowitz specifically agreed that the linkage between Iraq, our presence in Saudi Arabia, and bin Laden's rage about that presence was a motivation for the war.
Kristol snips a statement out of a "statement-question-confirmation" sequence. And then he deletes two key sentences from the middle of Wolfowitz's statement. Why does Kristol makes this editing choice in a distortion critique?
Perhaps Kristol deleted Wolfowitz's reference to bin Laden and his grievances out of this passage specifically to undermine the notion of motivation. To be clear, Kristol's implication that withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia should be seen as an unintended consequence of the invasion of Iraq is ... well, a crack pot idea, and insults the intelligence of Dr. Paul.
- mark 6-03-2003 4:00 am [add a comment]
more trailer trash.
- dave 6-03-2003 2:42 pm [add a comment]
Holy cow. Front page metafilter. Nice flow.
- jim 6-03-2003 6:19 pm [add a comment]
Kudos Markus
- jimlouis 6-04-2003 12:00 am [add a comment]
Joshua Marshall took Kristol to school in a manner very similar to my critique.
Marshall has more to say here about mismatch between the Vanity Fair article and the transcript.
The New Republic takes on the Vanity Fair topic (but not as well as I did).
- mark 6-04-2003 10:56 pm [add a comment]
At my local B&N I checked the Kristol editorial in this week's W.Standard. I wanted to see if the print version matched the web version. In particular, I wanted to see if the questionable excerpt (shown in the side-by-side) is the same. It is.
The local Knight-Ridder McNewspaper was astroturfed by a conservative frequent writer who plagiarized Kristol. My two-hundred-words-or-less parry&riposte should be in the morning paper. My 473 word version was a beauty. The letters editor wrote me a note, which was a nice touch, so I did a re-write for length. I wacked off a hundred words without much pain, but every word after that hurt.
I wasn't able to provide as much backup as I wanted for each of my assertions. And I had to take out a paragraph that fell into the category of balestra&lunge. The Sept 10, 2002 quotaton about "all the instruments of national power across the whole world" tends to be an eye-opener. But I didn't have room to bring in a second topic.
- mark 6-10-2003 6:43 am [add a comment]