Instahonky Strikes Again
This is one of Glenn’s most all-time retarded posts ever:
A PROBLEM FOR THE REVISIONISTS:
The administration’s overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.
(Via Paul Mirengoff, who wonders why it took Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus so long to admit that).
Oh my God. Glenn. Did you bother to actually read the entire Milbank/Pincus story, or just the little snippet you picked up at the PowerTools’ place? If you’re too lazy to read the whole thing (to coin a phrase), here are some snippets (emphasis added):
President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.
Neither assertion is wholly accurate.
Holy crapinski! That doesn’t look like much of a “heh-indeedy” for the Bush administration, does it? Let’s continue:
The administration’s overarching point is true: Intelligence agencies overwhelmingly believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and very few members of Congress from either party were skeptical about this belief before the war began in 2003. Indeed, top lawmakers in both parties were emphatic and certain in their public statements.
OK, Glenn, so this is the passage you quoted to prove that the Bush administration is being unfairly maligned by evil, objectively pro-Saddamocrats. But as usual, there’s a big “but” being left out here. Look at the next paragraph:
But Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material.
So yeah- a lot of Democrats thought Saddam had WMDs in some capacity. But this alone wasn’t enough to justify a preemptive war, especially when there were zero meaningful ties between the Iraqi regime and al-Qaeda. So to make their case for preemptive action stronger, the administration came out with a bunch of bogus claims about aluminum tubes that could only be used to develop nuclear weapons, as well as fake stories about shady meetings between Saddam and 9/11 conspirator Mohammed Atta.
While it’s very difficult to determine whether or not the administration officials were lying per se (and for my money, I think they genuinely believed Saddam to be a threat), I think at the very least they exhibited a willful disregard for the truth that was very similar in nature to Dan Rather’s and Mary Mapes’ unquestioning acceptance of the authenticity of the George Killian National Guard memos. The Bushies so believed that Saddam was secretly developing massive stockpiles of WMD that any evidence to the contrary was simply discarded or ignored- and unlike the debacle at CBS, this exercise in arrogance and groupthink has cost America dearly in blood and treasure. This is why I want the Senate to finish their investigation into whether the administration manipulated intelligence- we deserve to know the truth.
While it’s very difficult to determine whether or not the administration officials were lying per se (and for my money, I think they genuinely believed Saddam to be a threat)
A generosity of spirit like that will either get you incredibly far in life, or leave you shivved in an alley somewhere. I sure as heck hope it’s the first, mon ami.
As for me, I am giving some thought to having my middle name legally changed to “I fucking told you so, you morons”.
A generosity of spirit like that will either get you incredibly far in life, or leave you shivved in an alley somewhere. I sure as heck hope it’s the first, mon ami.
I knew this would get me in trouble.
Based on everything I’ve read about this administration (including books on the Iraq war by Woodward, Sy Hersh, and George Packer), many in the administration had an ideological conviction that the CIA was woefully underestimating Iraq’s WMD capabilities. So they basically latched on to all sorts of ludicrous, thinly-sourced charges, thinking that they’d eventually find some kind of banned arms at the end of the day.
I think you might be right, and honestly, I kind of think that theory makes it worse – if only because now their attitudes should have changed. They should have gotten to Baghdad, realized they were wrong, and no longer been interested in pursuing this abomination.
Instead, they piled groupthink on groupthink and are staying the course. If they actually believed that they were bringing democracy to the ME, or simply were evil and attacked for no reason, then at least they’d be acting consistently.
Brad: the same people did made the same mistake with “Plan B” and the Soviet Union and clearly didn’t learn anything. how many strikes do they get before it’s intentional?
Brad: the same people did made the same mistake with “Plan B” and the Soviet Union and clearly didn’t learn anything. how many strikes do they get before it’s intentional?
Good point. Why do you think Tommy Franks called Feith “the fucking stupidest guy on the planet?” 🙂
Well done.
Based on everything I’ve read about this administration (including books on the Iraq war by Woodward, Sy Hersh, and George Packer), many in the administration had an ideological conviction that the CIA was woefully underestimating Iraq’s WMD capabilities.
Sure, but since the default for Republicans (and all neo-conservatives) is that they’re lying, about everything, all the time, they needed vastly more than this to convince normal people.
And did they? Sadly, n…
*maglalang maglalang*
Oops, gotta go. Phone’s ringing.
I knew this would get me in trouble.
No trouble at all, Senor Sexypants! I admire your desire to thoroughly examine all sides of the argument and give your opponent the benefit of the doubt – no sarcasm; I really do.
I just hold this administration in lower esteem than you do (which is not to say that you think they are righteous dudes in any way) – I actually think they are guilty of criminal conspiracy, and that guilt goes all the way to the top.
With an administration this packed with neoconservatives, and neocons themselves being rabid ideologues (which is not inherentlly a bad thing), and their ideology requiring of necessity a war with Iraq…I just don’t know what else to think.
This kind of shit has happened before in history, you know. THIS is where the relevant analogies between this administration and the Nazis are drawn, not the stupid “being evil and hating gays” style analogies people fling around, chimp-poo-flinging style, all over the net.
Hitler spends major portions of Mein Kampf talking about how he’s going to invade the hell out of all Eurasia; how he’s going to turn Russia in particular into a German-dominated serfdom where the Slavs work the soil for the benefit of their Aryan overlords who live in scattered metropoli all throughout the steppes. There was absolutely no reason to take Hitler’s claim that he was going to stop with Czechoslovakia seriously when he had already said he had no intention of stopping there.
Now, people can say all kinds of crap any time they want to, and there’s no reason for anyone to take any of it seriously. That is, unless, they actually start doing the things they talk about doing.
Let’s face it: if I say that if I ever meet you, the first thing I’m going to do is smack you upside the head, and the next thing I’m going to do is kick you in the dangly bits, there’s no reason at all to take me seriously, unless we do meet, and the first thing I do is smack you upside the head. A reasonable response at that point would be to ever so swiftly remove your groin from within my kicking range, n’est-ce pas?
When the neocons (who learned everything they know about the way to drive an ideological agenda from Comrade Trotsky, remember) preach an agenda which begins with hegemon status in the Middle East, and ends with armed conflict with China….well, it’s just talk. And anybody can say anything. Until they invade Iraq – then it’s not just talk anymore. Then they’re launching us down a path that none of us really want to think about very much.
Now, I’m not some alarmist predicting the sky is going to fall tomorrow or anything. But in a situation like this, it’s never too soon to be on one’s guard, either. Think how much nicer the last century would’ve been if Chamberlain and Daladier had gone to the table with the Chancellor with such an attitude.
Or, if that is still too conspiratorial for you, think of it this way: It’s not like Presidents have ever lied to us before about the reasons behind why we got ourselves involved in military action.
But I still admire you for taking a stand for your argument, even if I disagree with it.
For what it’s worth, the idea that they went in there believing he was a threat sounds fishy to me. What’s with this war between Cheney and the CIA we keep hearing about?Sounds like if the administration were really listening to the experts and taking the evidence on the whole, instead of cherry picking misleading bits here and there and spitting them out at the press, there’d be over 2000 american troops alive and some 40 grand Iraqi’s still breathing.
I simply don’t believe it. Remember Colin Powell practically refusing to give the WMD speech at the UN because he thought it was bullshit? That might be because it was bullshit, and any real military analyst (who had access to what the president had access to) could’ave told you that.
No, instead they sold lies and half truths, and pressured Colin into making the speech anyway, a moment he now calls “A blot” on his career.
For what it’s worth, the idea that they went in there believing he was a threat sounds fishy to me. What’s with this war between Cheney and the CIA we keep hearing about?
Basically, Cheney and the neocons thought that the CIA were a bunch of multiculturalist pansies who didn’t see the need to forcefully re-make the Middle East.
Yeah, Jillian nailed it. 🙂
I knew a few days after The Day That Changed Everything ™ that we were going to invade Iraq, whether they had anything to do with it or not.
Am I an incredibly connected policy wonk like Juan Cole who knows the nuances about Middle Eastern politics? No, just a working stiff who knows how to use Google and remembered the PNAC manifesto from the late 90’s. From 2002 on, I knew that it was going to happen and the details of how it was sold to the rubes were irrelavant. They wanted their fucking war and they got it.
If they really believed in the WMD myth why was the postwar search for said WMD’s so perfunctory and disorganized? It doesn’t fit unless this administration is just so supremely incompetent that it can’t so anything right, even when it wants to. Hmm, now that I mention it ….
If they really believed in the WMD myth why was the postwar search for said WMD’s so perfunctory and disorganized?
Because the postwar EVERYTHING was perfunctory and disorganized?
Please donate now to the “Teach Glenn Reynolds to Read” campaign. With your help, this college law professor will no longer have to go through ihs day pretending that he is literate.
Please donate now to the “Teach Glenn Reynolds to Read” campaign. With your help, this college law professor will no longer have to go through ihs day pretending that he is literate.
His ablity to filter out points of view that don’t mesh with his preconceived notions is just uncanny.
I actually read quite a few conservative blogs (Cole, Maguire, Belgravia Dispatch, Drezner, Hit & Run, etc.) whom I find interesting, even though I don’t usually agree with them. Reynolds, though, has been descending further and further into the wingnut hole with every year.
many in the administration had an ideological conviction that the CIA was woefully underestimating Iraq’s WMD capabilities.
As aaron points out, they did this with the Soviet Union as well. It’s a trait of the neocons to be imaginative in their estimates of what our enemies can do, and to put the burden of proof on them, whereas the CIA seems to be mainly reality based.
I remember arguing with my grandfather before the war, and he was saying “we don’t know that he doesn’t have them, so we have to assume that he does.” And that’s the neocon opinion as well.
As aaron points out, they did this with the Soviet Union as well. It’s a trait of the neocons to be imaginative in their estimates of what our enemies can do, and to put the burden of proof on them, whereas the CIA seems to be mainly reality based.
To be fair, though, the intelligence community really did underestimate Saddam’s capabilities prior to the first Gulf War. The neocons weren’t totally pulling it out of their asses.
Anyway, I highly recommend three books: PLAN OF ATTACK by Woodward, CHAIN OF COMMAND by Sy Hersh, and ASSASSIN’S GATE by George Packer. Packer does the best job of really understanding the philosophy of the neocons and how they let their ideology cloud their decision-making process. Woodward is good for presenting a fairly even-handed factual overview, while Sy does his usual “uncover secret nastiness” thing. All worth checking out.
You’re mistaking Glenn’s intentions: he’s writing this purely for his core audience, the kind of folks who would never dream of going anywhere else for a debunking. He’s grasping at straws — struggling for his very blogvival!
(See what I did there? Okay, I promise never to do it again…)
Well, he’s got that much right. It IS a problem for the real revisionists. AKA the usual suspects, the usual gang of idiots, et al.
I guess Karl’s back from his… absence.
On Friday, President Bush struck back at critics who claim he misled the country into war, asserting that ?more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. We all had access to the same intelligence that my administration fabricated.?
More fake news at martymusings.blogspot.com
We may have underestimated Saddam’s weapon capabilities before the first war, but my understanding was the weapons inspections before the current war showed that the weapons had been destroyed and had not been replaced. I think the administraton knew this better than anyone, and proceeded in bad faith. If they were really worried about weapons, why were they so adamantly opposed to the inspections continuing, to the point of actually ordering the inspectors out?
I don’t buy for a single moment that these assholes actually believed a word they said prior to the war. They were hellbent on having a war precisely because they knew Iraq was unable to effectively defend itself. And was sitting on all that luscious, luscious oil. They really weren’t expecting any WMD-type resistance; they didn’t equip the Army with even a token amount of chemical protection gear. Remember Gulf War I? Remember how often you’d see soldiers in chemwar outfits? How often did you see that this time? Of course, the Bushies don’t actually seem to give a shit about properly protecting soldiers, thus their ongoing lack of armor. But they had the UN weapons inspectors leave when they did to prevent them from certifying Iraq WMD-free. They were seeing their little war slip from their fingers–they didn’t expect Saddam to allow the inspectors entry or to cooperate–so they had to act quickly. They all belong in jail cells in the Hague.
The question of whether the villains of life are acting ‘in good faith’ is rather theological, isn’t it? Like, did Pilate think Jesus was guilty?
Inaccuracies in Bush’s defense of lead-up to war / Congress had far less information than White House had
President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent day
True-however you cut it, the results are awful.
OT, Anntichrist S Coulter has experienced a nasty death in her family. Go drop her some condolences, and read the post–it’s fairly shocking.
I wish I could source this, but I remember reading that Chimpy was asking his aides for dirt on Saddam almost immediately after being sworn in for his first term. Like a couple of posters have already pointed out, PNAC had already created a blueprint for the “new improved” Middle East. Also, call me a conspiracy nut, but I still think that 9/11 was a little too convenient for the Bush Administration…(can anyone say “Reichstad”?). I’m just sayin’.
celticgirl, the building was/is actually called the Reichstag
OT – did you guys know Bill O’Reilly is a terrorist sympathizer?
oops! “Bill O’Reilly” was supposed to look like this
I wish I could source this, but I remember reading that Chimpy was asking his aides for dirt on Saddam almost immediately after being sworn in for his first term.
Well, not right after he was sworn in, but at early cabinet meetings. At least, that’s what Paul O’Neill claimed in THE PRICE OF LOYALTY.
But yeah, there was a real obsession on the part of many civilian leaders with Iraq ever since the first Gulf War. They saw it as the key to remaking the Middle East.
Also, call me a conspiracy nut, but I still think that 9/11 was a little too convenient for the Bush Administration…(can anyone say “Reichstad”?).
OK. You’re a conspiracy nut 🙂
Maybe I’m misunderstanding your point, but “good faith” or bona fides is not a theological term. According to the only documents we have on the matter, Pilate apparently didn’t think Jesus guilty and said so, but was unwilling to risk his own career to oppose the punishment. For what it’s worth, I don’t think that’s analogous to the administration knowing their case for war was false, but actively pressing forward with it, and purposefully lying to obtain support: they did not act in compliance with “standards of decency and honsesty.”
Or honesty either, for that matter 😉
Glad to see someone else who shares something similar to my POV on the Admin, Brad and tigrismas.
It’s delusion on their parts, to be sure, but I have a hard time thinking that they don’t think this is what’s best for America (they’re wrong, of course, but the action is not so terrible as to justify anything other than civil action to stop, I.E. kicking the administration and their intellectual decendants out of power through the vote).
Oh, ,i>right, through the vote…
(note to secret service-yes, that was sarcasm. get a sense of humor, boys)
To paraphrase a line from Men in Black…
“We at the Secret Service have no sense of humor we are aware of, sir.” (Marq is then summarily dragged away to Gitmo after being tranqqed).
Glenn, you ignorant slut!
[muffled] Help-I’m being repressed!