pudge's Journal: "Substantiated," Revisited

They printed it, hooray.

Evidence

[extra88]

To substantiate is to "support with proof or evidence." Every definition of the word has the sense of using facts, evidence, etc. to back up an assertion. But the memorandum merely makes an undetailed claim, without even attempting to back it up.

When someone who is well informed makes a claim, that can be considered evidence so the use of the word "substantiates" is justified.

If a police officer says "the suspect was behaving in a suspicious manner" he's making a claim but if that's the conclusion he cam

Re:Evidence

[pudge]

When someone who is well informed makes a claim, that can be considered evidence so the use of the word "substantiates" is justified.

It depends on what is said. In this case, no.

To give one obvious example: it is entirely plausible, given what we know -- which is not much -- that the individual based his claim (that the intel was being fudged to fit the policy) solely on the fact that Richard Clarke told him so (as Clarke was working in the administration at the time). In that case, it would not be sub

Re:Evidence

[pudge]

You haven't read the whole memo

Yes, I have. You don't understand my argument, or the nature of substantiation.

Re:Evidence

[pudge]

You said, "the memo never gives any details, gives no basis, for the claim," that, as the memo says, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Which is correct. And your quote provides none; why do think it does? He says the case is thin; according to whom? Did the U.S. people think that, or is it only his opinion? No basis for the statement is given. This is clear.

And as we have learned, fabrication of false warnings about Iraq's WMDs occured in at least four seperate instanc

Re:Evidence

[pudge]

The documents suggesting that Iraq was seeking yellowcake uranium from Nigeria, forming the basis for that claim in the 2003 state-of-the-union address, are known to be forgeries

That's false. Why do you think this? Yes, there were forged documents, but no, there is no evidence those documents formed the basis for the "16 words" in the State of the Union. Those "16 words" contained the basis: British intelligence, which was separate from those forged documents.

So again: any evidence at all?

Those are

Re:Evidence

[pudge]

Why would Tenet mention the documents that "had not yet been determined to be forgeries" -- and no other intelleigence

Because that is the only intelligence the *CIA* had access to. What he's saying -- what he actually says, but you are too daft to understand -- is that the deal could not be confirmed by the only intelligence the CIA had available (the forged documents), and that the word of the British alone (without corroboration by the CIA) should not be sufficient justification for the claim's inclusi