David Albright Responds, sort of Cannot Backup His Claims
by Richardson ~ April 8th, 2007. Filed under: Axis of Evil, Fiskings, Nuclear Proliferation, Six-Party Talks.Update 3: North Korea has admitted - for the second time - to having an HEU program. It will be interesting to see what the apologists have to say now.
Update 2: In a sad turn of events, David Albright decides that he is unable answer direct questions pertaining to his accusations, and instead will resort to avoidance:
I am not going to respond to unqualified slander and bizare venting. Most of Richardson’s responses to what I wrote are aimed at him avoiding doing the real and honest work of correcting his many mistakes. By the way, why do you need to be anonymous? Is Richardson your real name? What is your full name and where are you located?
I am not sure what my full name or location has to do with Albright’s shirking the questions (hint: the “About” pages has some clues). Yet I am accused of, “unqualified slander and bizare (sic) venting.” One more time for the record. You made the charges, it’s only fitting that you put some words where your mouth is:
• Point out which quotes are not correct, and what you claim to actually have said.
• Point out where I seem to have gone astray on what a, “centrifuge program is and how it must develop.”
Also, you are invited to point out my “many mistakes.” Quote them, and correct me. That would be great if you could do that. Thanks.
Update: Albright responded a second time (via email rather than comment), but failed to answer my challenge in regard to his claim of being misquoted, or my knowledge of centrifuges. Sort of disappointing, really. That email is below. Also see Joshua’s OFK post of questions to Albright.
Original post: In February I posted, David Albright: North Korea’s Latest Apologist?, which took Albright to task over various comments he made about North Korea’s nuclear programs. Today Albright posted a comment in response. Joshua had a related post at OneFreeKorea, and Albright commented there this morning as well.
He was a bit more direct in his criticism of me in his comment at OFK than on my own site, which does not raise my estimation of him, since he had the opportunity to make the same comments directly to me.
Both of his comments invited us to go to his organization’s website – the Institute for Science and International Security – if, “interested in the truth,” and, “[f]or those truly interested in learning about North Korea’s nuclear program.” However, he points only to the sites main page, and not to any article or documents that would actually make his case, if that’s even possible. I say he responded “sort of” due to the weak nature of the responses.
At any rate, in response to some of his accusations about me, I have challenged him to specifically:
- Point out which quotes are not correct, and what you claim to actually have said.
- Point out where I seem to have gone astray on what a, “centrifuge program is and how it must develop.”
I do hope he responds, I’d like the answers. Continue to read Albright’s response sent via email (but I’d still like the answers):
The misquote I am talking about is from Kirk, which you used prominently. I have never challenged whether North Korea got assistance from Khan or tried to procure aluminum tubes. I laid this case clearly at two briefings and in numerous interviews. You must have learned that at some point, since you referenced the piece I did on the issue. Did you deliberately ignore what I wrote?
Did I ignore what you wrote? Again, you’ll have to be more specific. I’m not going to sift through various reports and guess as to what you’re talking about. Provide some links and quotes.
Also again, I have to ask for exactly what Mr. Kirk misquoted you on, and what you claim to have actually said. I am not sure why you have failed to provide this information, which goes to the core of your accusation of being misquoted.
Are you “deliberately” avoiding answering those questions?
For your information, the flaw is the CIA extrapolation to both the construction of a large-scale centrifuge plant under construction and a time-scale for this plant’s completion. This dramatic jump in capability was hyped up by the Bush Administration in 2002 to kill the Agreed Framework. That this is was a flawed analysis is now widely acknowledged by administration officials and in the media.
I’m familiar with the issue, and flawed reporting on it, but disagree with your opinion as to the motivation of the Bush administration. And to speak of being blinded by biases!
You complain about what I do not say to you directly. Yet you attack me in an unfair manner without seeking any comment from me at all and then “challenge” me when I defend myself. You should have checked the quote in the first place from Kirk’s piece. Kirk’s piece was shallow, agenda driven, and filled with mistakes.
You’re comparing apples to bowling balls. You made a comment about me at OFK, and then to me at my own site later. Buck up and at least make the same accusation directly to me if you’re taking the time to comment here.
I should have checked the quote? Perhaps you should have published some corrections?
If the quotes are wrong, as you’ve claimed several times now, why don’t identify exactly which quotes, and provide exactly what you supposedly said, as requested? Really, I would love to read that.
Also, please provide a list of the mistakes in Don Kirk’s article. You’re the expert, so it should be extremely elementary for you to do that.
You may also want to spend some more time learning about centrifuges, if you plan to write about them. Knowing the difference between a few dozen centrifuges from Khan and a program to produce HEU is important and you do not seem to understand it. I will repeat. You suffer from a lack of information and a poor understanding of the underlying technical facts of centrifuges, as well North Korea’s nuclear program.
When people who have no idea what I know or what I have access to tell me I have a lack of information, it really does help put that person into perspective.
You’re making an accusation, but completely failing to back it up. Very telling.
Please show me anything I’ve written – search this site, check the archives! – that says or implies I think, believe, or know that North Korea was attempting to produce enough HEU for a weapons program with a couple dozen centrifuges. As nothing of the sort exists, I’ll look to your answer with exceeding interest.
Again, I’m calling you out on this – show me specifically (try a link and a quote) what you are referring to.
I and others at ISIS do have a wide variety of inside information about North Korea’s nuclear program. I have studied and written technical reports on this program since the early 1990s. I am also writing a trade press book on the Khan network, so I also have collected a large body of information on the relationship between Khan and North Korea.
Information is one thing, interpretation analysis of it is quite another. You also appear to be interjecting yourself into the political side of things, or attempting to, where you seem to be quite out of your reckoning.
With regard to being naïve, time will tell who is naïve and who is just blinded by biases.
Sincerely
David Albright
But North Korea is ready to “take the first step,” right? Right.
Also see Joshua’s pointed list of questions in this OneFreeKorea post.
I will point out to Albright that stirring the pot and not answering these questions will be an answer as well.
April 8th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
This would seem to be the heart of the matter pretty much all the way around - both in this blogger exchange and the media vs White House:
[The argument is that the US was claiming the HEU program was developed to X extent —- and now we know via Y information that the program isn’t close to being at X extent.]
I’m not going to sift through media and gov websites looking to check exactly what claims or strongly implied claims were made back in 2002 or since…..
….and I shouldn’t have to.
It would seem the burden of proof is with Albright since for a couple of reasons…
1 being that he went to the press to claim the US government was the one at fault and clearly laid the ground work for justifying claims by NK about its HEU program and its level of compliance with the new Accord.
Another 1 being that he is claiming that the press misquoted him.
And another being that he has taken the time to refute claims here and at Onefreekorea.
And another being the fact that Richardson took the trouble to cite specific sources with specific quotes.
What did the CIA specifically say about the time-table and level of development in 2002?
That should be a swell place to start getting specific, since it is the very heart of this claim that the US fudged up the intel (again).
I’m sure if Richardson were making big claims in the press (that eventually make excuses for Pyongyang saying it doesn’t have an HEU program and/or that the US is using HEU as an “excuse” to break the new Accord) that the US intel was screwed up — he would cite sources and make quotes —– since he does that routinely just for the blogger-reading masses…..
What does Albright claim the US gov said was the level of HEU program development in 2002?
Where did he get that info so we can check it out?
April 8th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
I freely admit I know diddly squat about centrifuges and very little about NK’s nuclear program.
However, I am very willing to be enlightened. Saying someone else is ignorant doesn’t do much to bolster one’s own claims when one isn’t making specific claims….
I don’t need to know diddly squat about cerntrifuges to get that much…
And again, I can read well enough to understand some key positions which I noted in the previous comment above:
everything we are talking about here hinges on what the CIA and US government claimed was the level of HEU development.
I don’t need to know diddly squat about centrifuges here or in what Albright is saying.
Albright is saying without actually making a case that the CIA/US was saying —- basically —– “North Korea’s HEU program is WAY advanced!!! Both, they are just on the verge of pumping out Uranium based nukes!!! This clearly violates the 1994 deal!!!”
To which Albright is responding, “Horseshit! Their HEU program, if they even have one, is tiny and nothing like what you claim!!!”
And others are saying, “Hey, I don’t remember the CIA/US saying ‘NK has a huge HEU program running hog wild’. That isn’t what I claimed at all.”
Richardson offered quotes and links to sources making an argument saying —– basically —– “See, NK clearly has a HEU program. And if you look closely at what Albright is saying, he even admits they have such a program (with ’such a program’ including the procurment of necessary parts).”
So, again —– the ball would seem to be in Albright’s court and a very winning stroke would be to bat the ball back over the net by —
—–showing us what level of program development the US claimed back in 2002 ——
—-and how those claims do not stack up with what we know or what the US said it knew…..
This is what I’m saying he should do with claims about the CIA and US.
I know and like Richardson, but in the broad scheme of things, whether Albright takes the time to quote Richardson to prove his point isn’t important in the broad scheme of things.
HOWEVER —- going out in press conferences and making claims that DO matter in the big picture —— making claims that end up setting up a defense by Pyongyang —— WITHOUT bothering to solidify those claims with quotes and citations —– then just saying you were misquoted (without specifics again) —— does bother me a good bit.
I wish my professors in college would have let me get away with this kind of argument making……
April 8th, 2007 at 8:40 pm
If Albright would even answer a single question in an academically acceptable way, well that would be outstanding.
But from his responses here and at OFK, that’s not going to happen. Apparently it’s “unfair” to expect him to backup his claims with anything like “quotes,” etc.
April 8th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
I’m starting to get just a whiff of a hint of silly sally going here…
Maybe somebody should email Albright via his think tank for confirmation?
April 8th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Amazingly, he’s legit. He subscribed to comments with a work email address, and replied back to comments send via the subscription.
April 8th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
Thanks. Good to know when you are talking to the real person…
April 9th, 2007 at 1:01 am
The last link in the current version of the post is broken. This one:
April 9th, 2007 at 2:44 am
I too started smelling something fishy when I read that quote in the Update 2. That response of his had a very 7th grade, blogesque ring to it; not something you would expect from the supposed analytical experts. Sorry to hear he is legit. That now lessens my faith in our “experts.”
April 9th, 2007 at 3:40 am
MrChips stole the words right out my mouth of what I was thinking. This is one of America’s best and brightest in regards to nuclear proliferation?
April 9th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
One reason I gave up the hard work of years aspiring to a Phd was —- that if finally dawned on me —— I had been a complete idiot all those years I thought —– the more education you gain, the smarter you become. What an idiot….
Learning that lesson wasn’t so painful…
Paying back the student loans is, however….
April 9th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Albright isn’t a PhD, but has, I believe, an MS in both physics and math. Oh, and he claims access to “inside information,” which is code for, “explaining or proving anything is beneath me.”
I think I’ll dub my washing machine my “clothes centrifuge,” and declare myself an expert, making information gathering trips to the basement, where my wife will watch over me, making sure I don’t’ mix whites with colors. I will then “reprocess” everything in the dryer.
April 9th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
I keep looking at this site and onefreekorea to see where David Albright backs up his charge that he was misquoted in a piece I did for Asia Times, Feb. 24, “Yes, We Have No Uranium.” So far, though, all I see is stuff about centrifuges, etc., a word or even an idea that does not enter into my report.
Here are the paragraphs mentioning Albright, on which specific comment from him wd be welcome:
Actually, if Albright’s remarks are any guide, the Japanese have a lot more to worry about when it comes to North Korean terrorism.
Albright quoted Kim Kye-gwan as asking, in a rhetorical flourish, “Does the underground explosion signify much?” The clear inference, Albright suggested, was that North Korea has the capability of miniaturizing nuclear warheads and mounting them on missiles with ranges anywhere in the region.
He and analyst Paul Brannan expanded on the theme in a widely quoted report - based, it seemed, on little beyond their own lively imaginations - that speculated that North Korea could conduct another nuclear test and “may detonate a warhead over the sea as a further demonstration”. And if such “warning shots” didn’t work, they said, North Korean nukes might hit “military targets and population centers” in Japan and South Korea.
April 9th, 2007 at 5:18 pm
Mr. Kirk,
You are correct that you will find no specifics from David Albright concerning his accusation of being misquoted, among other things. This is despite numerous request for just that from both Joshua and myself.
In effect, Albright has made a few drive-by accusations, and then pulled a Cartman when called on his behaviour.
April 9th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
Think-tank people and now the actual well-known journalist in question…..
…..my envy knows no bounds….
………………………………..(but at least I’ve got hair….)
April 9th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
I’ve got lots of hair… just not on my head.
April 9th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
“I’m starting to get just a whiff of a hint of silly sally going here…”
Don’t compare Albright to Silly Sally. There are pearls of wisdom in Silly Sally’s troll bait.
April 9th, 2007 at 9:32 pm
As Bruce Campbell would say, “Ooooow, that’s gotta sting.”
April 14th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
[…] do criticize what has been released in their news articles, Hanley and his crew become the David Albright of the news world and use ad hominem attacks instead of ending the controversy all together by […]
September 18th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Bump: Update 3: North Korea has admitted - for the second time - to having an HEU program. It will be interesting to see what the apologists have to say now.