If not A, then not A

Donald Rumsfeld is stumped. On yesterday’s release, again, of the news that, again, Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction, he said:

“And why the intelligence proved wrong, I’m not in a position to say. I simply don’t know.”

Goodness gracious, must the Secretary of Defense be expected to follow these sorts of developments? The intelligence proved wrong because it was wrong. This should not be any sort of surprising or epistemologically puzzling idea.

On second thought, my instinct to snark actually gives Rumsfeld too much benefit of the doubt, because with every day that one more senior military or intelligence official reveals that the case for war was pitifully weak from the beginning, it becomes more clear that the intelligence was right; what was done with it has been proven wrong.