Josh Marshall and Frederick Shmidtt on (AD) and (AI)
and
The Aluminum Tubes Argument (Initial Version)

at TPM Marshall and Frederick Shmidt make it clear that they think the case is strong for what we're identifying around here as:

(AD) The administration deceived us

and

(AI) The administration acted irresponsibly.

In particular they make a point that I've made around here several times: the administration didn't even care very much about the truth-values of their claims. Rather, they undertook to make a case for war like a lawyer makes a case for his client--they used and exaggerated whatever evidence supported their pre-determined conclusion and ignored and minimized any evidence that didn't.

This is what C. S. Peirce calls "the courtroom model of inquiry," and it stands opposed to the rational method of inquiry--which he calls the "the scientific model of inquiry"--in which one begins with the evidence and follows it where ever it might lead.

One important point here though is that although it is common for people in heated debates to employ the courtroom model, it is also common for people in such debates to falsely accuse their opponents of using the courtroom model. So such charges must be made with care and carefully substantiated.

Schmitt mentions two of the salient arguments, and we might as well make a first pass at laying them out systematically.

So far as we can tell now, the following argument is sound:

(AT1)
(1) The evidence available to the administration about the infamous aluminum tubes was equivocal at best (i.e. at best there was no better reason for thinking that they were for use in making nuclear weapons than that they were for something else (e.g.rockets)).

(2) The administration's public pronouncements indicated that the tubes were very likely for use in making nuclear weapons.

Therefore:

(3) (ADAT) The administration deceived us with regard to the aluminum tubes

We can question this argument in several ways. We could, for example, try to plead down to:

(AIAT) The administration acted irresponsibly with regard to the aluminum tubes.

One way to do this would be to argue that they had misunderstood the clearly equivocal nature of the evidence. Of couse if premiss (1) is false, this entire argument fails, so that's one place where assembling evidence (in this case about what evidence was actually available when the relevant public statements were made) is important. But the defender of the administration seems to have a rather long row to hoe here. At any rate, by being very clear about the nature of the charges and reasoning in question we can get clear about what will count as evidence for and against the various claims and hypotheses at issue.

It's important to note that even if the case for (ADAT) turns out to be as strong as it initially seems to be, this will be insufficient to prove the important case against the administration. The real charges, of course, have to do with significant (e.g. systematic) deception and/or irresponsibility, not merely isolated cases of it.

So, e.g., the truly important version of the deception claim is something like:

(ADS) The administration deceived us to a significant degree.

I think that almost everybody has to acknowledge that there was at least a little bit of deception and irresponsibility going on (though I sometimes get the feeling that some are trying to deny even that minimal claim). But unless something like (ADS) turns out to be true, the administration is morally in the clear.