U.S. President George W. Bush has just delivered his 2004 State of the Union address. I must say that this bit disturbed me, and I have other reservations as well - but I'm not an American, so I'll steer clear of domestic issues here.
John Cole of Balloon Juice describes his favourite part of the speech, and I agree. It starts like this:
bq. "Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized.... [read the rest]"
President Bush's well-aimed kick at those who "view terrorism as a crime" was also very strong, but I liked this next paragraph even more - because it laid out the central rationale of the war in a very understandable way. A.L., do speeches like this begin to address your issues?:
bq. "As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny and despair and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friends."
That seems pretty clear - and Bush's clarity may well be a case of timing. It's important to grasp this point, because as we move on to the midgame of the War on Terror, timing is growing in importance.
As any sports fan understands, the order in which things are done is a huge part of strategy. A good strategy creates openings, and suddenly a move which would have been disastrous in early play becomes possible - or even powerful - in later play. Which is what I think we're looking at here. A successful Iraqi invasion has created important openings, allowing America to finally be explicit about its war aims and pursue the larger war of ideas more openly throughout the Middle East.
Before the invasion of Iraq, Bush's strategy statement would have greatly complicated America's war aims by endangering support from key allies. Now fast-forward to the aftermath. With Saddam gone and a significant base for American combat power located in the region's heart, the picture changes. The rulers face a reduced regional threat level. Their people, meanwhile, are stirring with sense of both renewed possibilities (note the Shi'ites insistence on more rights in Saudi Arabia, for instance) and bruised illusions (the exposure of Arab war coverage delusions in the fall of Baghdad was profoundly embarassing). These factors give states in the region a bit more breathing room to accept such statements - and a lot less leverage if they don't.
Hence Bush's November speech at the National Endowment for Democracy. Hence this clear statement of his aims in the 2004 State of the Union address.
Meanwhile, the war continues - and our desires in this matter are frankly irrelevant. It only takes one to fight, and significant sections of the Islamic world have chosen. Banagor's point bears repeating:
bq. "The reason we are fighting this war is not because nineteen hijackers crashed into a burning building and a handful of others cheered, but because the entire Muslim world not only cheered, but then turned around, pointed at "The Jews" and said that it was their fault, denied they ever did it, denied that it ever could be them, screamed that they hated us anyway, danced in the streets, printed up posters about the heroes who did the deed all while denying they ever really did, and then increased their threats to tell us that if they didn't get more capitulations that it would happen yet again."
As I noted in an earlier article, "it's the hate, stupid!"
Unfortunately, the concrete benefits of hatred's incitement are too significant for to the Islamic world's theocrats, dictators, and demagogues to give it up - unless and until the cost of their behaviour is raised to a level that makes it unprofitable. Only then can the hatred begin to recede. Only then will we be able to say that we can glimpse victory in the war of ideas.
Until then, however, that carefully cultivated hatred makes war inevitable - whether we wish it or no. Bravo to President Bush for making these points so clearly, and for confronting the fundamental evasions of those who still refuse to grasp these truths.
Yes, winning this war will be difficult. We grope toward a solution that seeks to change the course of an entire civilization by means short of total war, an endeavour with few historical precedents. There is no one plan guaranteed to work, and despite all our strategizing nobody really knows what the future will bring. The way forward will surely feature setbacks and surprises, many of which will be measured in blood and horror.
Yet I retain hope. We come from a culture skilled in war, seductive in peace, and formidable beyond words when aroused. The determination and flexibility of free peoples harnessed to a worthy goal is a force that has achieved great things in the world. Perhaps we will indeed find the right way forward, and succeed, and sit with pride in the company of those who have gone before us and built all that we have.
What is certain, is that we must try.
The terrorists and their supporters have declared war on the United States - and in many places, war is indeed what they have received. Yet the clock is still ticking, and the dynamics behind the danger have not changed. The technology curve is inexorable, and the Islamic world's underlying pathologies of hatred are not going away.
Until they do, victory will continue to be our only option. Otherwise, the looming alternatives of catastrophe and/or genocide are too terrible to contemplate.
Yes, well, Bush wasn't quite confident enough about this New Middle East vision to omit a deceptive reference to the Kay Report and "WMD program activities". I don't know exactly what a program activity is, but I suppose if it's ever defined, and it wasn't in Iraq either, we'll hear about "WMD program activity plan blueprints". (Maybe he's hearing echoes of Ayatollah Sistani's New Middle East vision.)
I'll try to make this clear enough for even a liberal to follow.
Blueprints and programs are plans and people that could be activated by Saddam or his successors (like his insane sons, for instance) once their patrons in France and Russia finally succeeded in removing the sanctions and surveillance they had worked so hard and so consistently to weaken over the years.
This was not a threat the USA could let stand. Especially after 9/11, and after the scare at the end of Gulf War I, when we found out that Saddam had been much closer to nukes than we thought.
In case this isn't obvious to you, it's better to be wrong the other way than to make this mistake again.
Of course, removing the hostile regime responsible for the WMD program has the effect of removing this worry, and makes its future desires and plans irrelevant. This works to transfer initiative to our side (important in a war), and allows us to begin moving on to the broader vision for the region - a vision that would not have been possible or credible had we left Saddam in power.
Since the forces involved are different, activities against al-Qaeda can continue throught. And do, and did.
Success in removing Saddam's regime also empties children's jails, allows us to begin cataloguing the mass graves instead of watching quietly while Saddam adds to them, turns plastic shredders into something toys come from, makes restoration of the Marsh Arabs' whole ecosystem possible, and gives the Iraqis a chance at a free future.
Among other trivialities.
Which now include renunciation of WMD by Libya because - oh wait, I know - because its leader and his son saw what happened in Iraq.
I guess that makes for the demise of not one, but 2 sets of "WMD program activities." Among, as I say, other trivialities.
Hmm.....
"Unfortunately, the concrete benefits of hatred's incitement are too significant for to the Islamic world's theocrats, dictators, and demagogues to give it up - unless and until the cost of their behaviour is raised to a level that makes it unprofitable."
Hate incitement comes from the scummy elites...
Wow Joe I think I heard that somewhere before?
:-)
Cheers
Liberrocky
Liberrocky, no-one observing the level and extent of the hatred in the Islamic can doubt the reality of a very widespread, organized effort behind it. LGF is particularly good at highlighting the poisonous bilge cvoming from mosques and government controlled media, for starters.
The principle is simple: as long as the anger over their societal failure can be focused outward, it will not be focused inward. As long as kids can be brainwashed with promised of 72 virgins in paradise and generous financial support (you saying that doesn't come from elites?) in exchange for murder, the elites can continue to enjoy their 72 virgins right here in the real world.
No amount of reason or goodwill will break that cycle. Only making it too costly to continue will do that.
Goodwill I often give my old MC Hammer parachute pants to Goodwill.
But the point maid by me in previous points...
and the point maid by the president in his SOTU...
and the point maid by you in your post is that the regimes are the problem.
There are only two real methods to achieve regime change.
1. Cold War
Seduce them with McDonalds and Mickey Mouse
This worked in the cold war...but It took 50
years and thousands of deaths in proxy
conflicts (Not mention the creation of those
damn hippies).
Also the religousness of the neighborhood
makes this less likely. Too many Anti-Britney
Spears Fatwas to have western culure be
palatable.
2. Kill the A-Holes
World War II showed us that waiting around for
threats is foolish. The Cold War again showed
that waiting is just going to get a lot of
people killed. Another? Not finishing Saddam
off the first time. 9-11 was the worst lesson.
De-a-holeization is the only solution. No
repressive regime should be safe from the
getting a MOAB up the wazzoo.
The section Baloon Juice liked in the SotU was good. The one you emphasized was good, too. But my favorite section was the one that came immediately after, and I was so surprised that people haven't given it greater attention that I've blogged about it, here:
http://www.porphyrogenitus.net/archives/week_2004_01_18.html#002076
P., that was a really great part of the speech. I picked the paragraph I did because it was the strategy under which all of those worthy initiatives clearly fit and are justified.
Still, I think it's worth calling more attention to your post and the points it highlighted...
i am european and I have grown in a free country because usa soldiers finished, with the threaten of nazis and comunists.I expect iraqui people to have the same chance.
Would be nice if i could spell! Maid?!? Ugh
sorry,my english is not fluently, please do not use irony,what do you mean.
I imagine we will soon see which is a more powerful sentiment in Iraq: anti-colonialism or pro-democracy. In theory, there's room for both, but in practice, history suggests that anti-colonialism's pull is stronger.
The major successes in Third World development seem to take a third path: autocratic, pro-market governments such as those in Turkey, Thailand, Singapore, and South Korea.
Perhaps we're painting ourselves into a corner here with all of this talk of democracy; I hope not, but I find the future quite opaque on this point.
With smart policies and leadership, we may be able to avoid the terrifying prospect that the pathology of hatred be intensified against us.
I'm holding my breath that Sistani will play ball, because if he doesn't, we could have a disaster on our hands.
Juan,
Your English is better than my Spanish - though I hope to improve very soon. Liberrocky was talking about his own earlier comment, in which he had misspelled a word. It wasn't about your comment, which was fine. Thanks very much for dropping by and reading Winds of Change.NET!
I'll try to make this clear enough that a hawk can understand.
One year ago, George Bush (and his Administration) treated us to a barrage of terrifying information about Saddam's WMD capabilities, so grave as to justify a pre-emptive war. Here's one ["I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now."] but we all know I could supply a score.
Brushing aside the weapons inspectors, who were having a great deal of trouble verifying our WMD tips, for reasons that are now pathetically obvious, we invaded.
All—every last one—of those statements referred to in the first paragraph turned out to be crap. So we saw an Orwellian shift in vocabulary to "WMD programs", figuring that at least Saddam had a factory or serious quantities of raw materiel, with some timetable to convert them into weapons. We sent David Kay to ferret out these programs.
Rather than admit defeat, Kay returned with a report that was, I suppose, technically correct, but written in such a way as to obscure just how wrong the Administration's initial judgment had been. Toxic agents with absolutely no known biowarfare use were identified as suspicious. Laboratories which could be used to produce WMD, like laboratories everywhere, were touted as something sinister. Eventually, however, as all the skilled personnel got tired of the charade and went home, it became obvious Saddam's scientists weren't working on WMD.
Once more, rather than admit defeat and confess to either a terrible failure of the intelligence services or a deliberate deception, the offical vocabulary morphs into "WMD-related program activities". Now what the heck Newspeak phrase does that mean? A subscription to "Scientific Iraqi"?
Very simply, Saddam had WMD desires. I have movie starlet conquest desires. Neither of us were making much progress. At the time we invaded, the French and Russians had not helped Saddam restore a weapons program, and the inspectors were back in place.
You can come up with other reasons for this unprecedented pre-emptive war, but they're not how the war was sold. Even to this day Bush finds it necessary to exaggerate and confabulate a WMD threat to the greatest extent possible.
Although the alternative justifications are adequate for you, I think you must admit they wouldn't have been enough for Congress and the American public. Pro-war Andrew Sullivan:praktike, are South Korea and Taiwan still autocratic? I see your point when it comes to development, but IMO all that shows is that elections aren't the only preconditions to develop, but I'd also say that authoritarianism only takes one so far. IMO some of those examples show the limits of that model.
India, on the other hand, hasn't had dictatorship. THey had uneven development (at best) for a number of decades, mostly because they followed the wrong path, a Socialistic model. Pakistan has been more disapointing still on both fronts, and I'm not sure one could argue that bouts of authoritarian rule have helped them.
As for Sistani, if he means what he's said recently about being willing to reconsider if it's demonstrated that elections aren't feasible right now, then things should go ok. I'm not panglossian about things, and it clearly isn't going to be easy. But he's not inciting violence, either.
Andrew Lazarus: Yah, Bill Clinton was in on the conspiracy, too. He pointed to the same intelligence on WMD, framing Saddam and telling the American people that Saddam continued to have WMD and was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program. Tony Blair was also in cahoots with this conspiracy to falsify intelligence and frame Saddam. Even French and German intelligence agencies were in on Bu$h's Conspiricy to Fabricate WMD Intelligence. As Kenneth Pollack wrote in a piece that I analyized here:
They were all in on it! A vast right-wing conspiracy indeed!Either that, or it is the Left, in the form of people such as yourself, who are presenting a misleading and deceptive account of events.
Porphyrogenitus-
Sorry to be unclear.
What I meant was that recent history seems to suggest that the path to democracy is through capitalism, not through direct elections.
Thailand and South Korea are generally more democratic than not--and S. Korea more so than Thailand.
This happens gradually, and requires the right strongman. Witness what is happening in China for one example of positive, albeit slow, change. Witness Iran under the Shah for an example of how this can backfire.
India seems like the best example of a case where democracy led the way for development.
Pakistan seems to have tried democracy too early, although I wonder if perhaps Musharraf should go ahead and hold elections.
WRT Sistani, he seems to be moderate, but his supporters may not be:And further:
Maybe he's just trying to gain leverage, but you have to admit that this kind of language is disturbing.
Hmmmn. . .I do get your point. But I believe it's better to attempt the positive than to simply settle for less.
While I'm big on free markets and capitalism, I might say that the route to development, both of capitalism & democracy, is in the rule of law (properly understood though varied from place to place perhaps). IMO this is the crux of, for example, Hernando de Soto's work.
That is, there was something more going on in the Asian examples you use than simply autocratic government and markets. Latin American countries have swung back and forth, many being state socialist, at other times being "capitalist" but of the corrupt sort, caudillo-capitalism without a strong rule of law. None of those did very well, neither the Socialist ones (obviously) nor the pseudo-Capitalist ones in dictatorships.
It's only when they began to realize it took some other ingredient that some began to break out of the cycle and take off (for example, Chile). IMO Chile didn't prosper because of Pinochet's rule, anymore than it would have prospered because of Allende - it began to prosper because of the institution of other policies, which then led to both capitalist development and real democracy.
I guess where I was unclear is that I hope that we (and by "we" I mean not just the U.S.) have learned some things by now and can cultivate things in Iraq so they more closely aproximate the Indian example than the Pakistani one. I do realize that it's going to be hard and it may not come off without a hitch, but I'm certainly for the effort in a way I wouldn't be if we were just going to put in a strongman and hope for the best.
I mean, you point to examples that illustrate things, and IMO patterns form that we can learn from and I hope we have.
Aha. I remember disagreeing with you about something in the past, but we're getting somewhere now.
Yes, rule of law is a key precondition for development. Property rights must be protected in order for markets to function properly. the threat of arbitrary seizures make long-term planning difficult. Markets thrive on certainty.
I had been worried for a while that the U.S. was going down the Russia route in Iraq--privatizing without forethought in a way that would lead to asset-stripping, while tossing angry Iraqis out onto the streets without a social safety net to absorb the transition.
Faced with the reality of Iraq, the CPA seems to have moderated its timeline a bit, which I think is smart policy.
Yes, I hope so.
One of the things I've been harping on is that we need to be clearer about why and how we've achieved what we have, that is, what makes for success (or relative success, given that I'm not saying we're perfect). I think - and hope - that some of the people working on things now have a better understanding than some of the alternatives would (if there were a different Administration making different apointments).
As for Sistani, the glass-half-full thing is that he has people demonstrating for elections. I certainly wouldn't favor giving them everything they want (they're also against the idea of a Federal Iraq). It won't take too long to see if he's unbending - that would be a bad sign for sure.
By and large, though, people have thought the Shia Clergy would be a pain over this that or the other thing since day one, and though the rhetoric coming out of a good number of them has supported such concerns, actions haven't, yet. That is, ultimately they've compromised previously rather than being intransigent, and not been a hotbed of violent unrest. Protest, sure, and protests that have at times gotten out of hand, but then cooled off rather than heated up further.
So we'll see.
I'll mention again: I think, although one can't prove this, that Bill Clinton and all those other agencies would have re-evaluated our "intelligence" in the light of events in early 2003, viz., the inspections. We didn't. We were 100% cocksure we were right, even when our tips to the inspectors turned out to be, as they themselves put it, "shit". In the alternative, we didn't care whether we were right, we had a war jones for the reasons Joe outlined above, and/or others.
I'm inclined to the cocksure explanation, because overconfidence is a good explanation for the systematic mistakes we made in the first days of the occupation.
Porphyrogenitus:
Bill Clinton was in on the conspiracy, too.
True, there was overestimation of Iraq's WMD assets before ever GW Bush came to power. But true also, it increased a good deal on his watch. "The dramatic shift between prior intelligence estimates and the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, together with the creation of an independent intelligence entity at the Pentagon and other steps, suggest that the intelligence community began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views sometime in 2002." CEIP, WMD in Iraq. See also that Pollack piece you cited.
Tony Blair was also in cahoots with this conspiracy to falsify intelligence and frame Saddam. Even French and German intelligence agencies . . .
As I'm sure you're aware, reports of spinning and politicization of intelligence are rife in Britain too.
In Germany, the problem seems to be more in the intelligence service itself and less with the politicians; German intelligence has been sourced for a string of bogus stories, from Kosovo on.
In sum, no one doubted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Scott Ritter, March 2000: ". . . by the time 1997 came around, Iraq had been qualitatively disarmed."
Glen Rangwala, September 2002: "There is no evidence that it has new weapons of mass destruction, or that it possesses the means of delivering them."
Robin Cook, March 2003: "Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target."
Now, I don't blame J. Random Citizen for believing the POTUS, the NIE, etc., rather than Scott Ritter; but the fact is, the truth was out there,
it just wasn't the POTUS who was dispensing it.
We're seeking all the facts. Already, the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictatator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.
There was an opportunity to show some grace, courage, character; to say "We got it wrong; that matters; we're going to find out why; but let's be grateful for what went right." So of course you get instead denial and deception -- "we're [still!] seeking . . . the [non-existent] programs would continue . . ."
After everything, Joe Katzman's faith in George Bush's "new strategy of freedom" is . . . beyond admirable . . . touching, really.
Abu wrote:
"See also that Pollack piece you cited."
And see my breakdown of the Pollack piece, which I also cited.
As for quoting Saddam's bought man, Scott Ritter, that does more to discredit what you're saying than to credit it.
As for politicization of intelligence, those who think that the Defense department should have no role in intelligence analysis and who selectively adhere to those in the intelligence community who would rather we did nothing, often for their own political reasons, doesn't evidence a well-rounded, clear-eyed, and non-partisan evaluation of the matter. Andrew and yourself and others who claim that Bush lied and fabricated intelligence while dismissing everything else that went before shows who the blind partisans are here, and it isn't the "Hawks". While decrying the politicization of the issue, you're the ones who are engaging in most of it.
Take your hero, Scott Ritter. When he left Iraq - that is, at the time when he was in the best position to know - he was singing a quite different tune about Saddam's WMD than he is now. Once he was out of Iraq and no longer in an official capacity, receiving official intel reporots, and was getting his payoff, what new information would he have received to make him change his tune? The word of his Ba'athist paymasters?
As for the "Bush Lied!" meme, as Steven Den Beste posted yesterday, in line with what I wrote in my comments:
And finally, they conflate "the utterance of falsehoods" with "lying", which is wrong, and are trying to apply deductive standards to an inductive process, which is invalid.
And that is why I characterize them as creative liars; they are making statements with the deliberate intention of deceiving. Some of what they say is true, some is false, but all of it is intended to mislead, because they know the truth and seek to obscure it.As for Pollack, to boil down what I posted, he makes assertions that the Intelligence was "politicized" simply because the Bush Administration's policy makers treated the threat as graver than others wanted to. But as Wesley Clark said in his 2002 Congressional Testimony, before he became a partisan hack for the other side seeking political advancement, the matter was serious, ongoing, and needed to be dealt with and we had every reason to take action.
The Left might not like it, but their continual efforts to demonize those who enacted a policy they don't like says more about you all than it does about Bush. The willingness of people like Andrew to be continually disingenuous while decrying "deceit", rather than engage in honest debate, again says more about them than Bush or Blair. The Left has made an art form out of the abuses of discourse that they accuse the Bush and Blair Administrations of engaging in.
The bottom line fact is that Saddam was and intended to continue to be in violation of the post-Gulf War cease fire terms and UN Resolutions. People slip that down the memory hole when they go about demonizing Bush. The Left decries selective accounts of the matter but then present only selective accounts themselves in order to produce a picture of things that is far more distorted and manipulative - intentionally so - than anything Bush did.
As for the controversy in Britain over intel, it turns out that one of the key figures in that which has been used to flagelate Blair with believed Saddam had WMD that posed an immediate threat.
Porphyrogenitus:
. . . those . . . who selectively adhere to those in the intelligence community who would rather we did nothing, often for their own political reasons . . .
I'd "selectively adhere" to those who get things right.
Sometimes the professionals push back against the political appointees because they have their own agenda, sometimes because the appointees are talking shit. You need to be able to tell the difference and act on it. Evidently, in this case, the latter applied; evidently also, the appointees either couldn't tell the difference, or didn't care.
As for Pollack, to boil down what I posted, he makes assertions that the Intelligence was "politicized" simply because the Bush Administration's policy makers treated the threat as graver than others wanted to.
No, because they undermined good professional practice (such as assessment of sources), filtered everything against their own preconceptions, and zealously harrassed all dissenters. Under those circumstances, a decline in objectivity and accuracy was predictable, and achieved.
Porphyrogenitus:
the "Bush Lied!" meme
Not a matter of great concern, since:
In the present case I'd guess that DOOTL and self-deception are more important than plain old lying; but in any case that's a secondary issue. What's primary is that the professionals got it wrong; the politicians got it wronger; and rather than face up to the problem, the POTUS is still DOOTLing through the SOTU. Whether he actually believes what he insinuates, that significant WMD-related discoveries are still likely, or that significant WMD programs have been interrupted, who knows, who cares? Whatever the reason, he failed to face up and 'fess up.
. . . Andrew and yourself and others who claim that Bush lied and fabricated intelligence while dismissing everything else that went before . . .
Please to note that I don't do that. There are two facts to keep hold of; 1), the overestimation of Iraq's WMDs began under previous administrations, 2) it got worse under the present administration. And the reason for holding on to them isn't to play political games, it's to identify and fix both sets of problems, the Bush-specific and the administration-generic.
Porphyrogenitus:
your hero, Scott Ritter
Neither my hero nor, I think, the villain you make him out to be. As far as I can tell -- and I don't speak with any great confidence on this -- he's a sincere guy with a big ego and a poor head for politics, who's better at explaining what he's against than what he's for. What I do know about him is that (along with some others) he's been telling the truth about Iraqi WMDs for some years, since before it became fashionable; and that he's getting smeared for being right too early:
Saddam's bought man, Scott Ritter
Well, he tried to buy him, but it doesn't appear he succeeded. (Telegraph, 2003-05-04)
Once he was . . . getting his payoff, what new information would he have received to make him change his tune?
Yes, he accepted money from an Iraqi-American businessman to make a film promoting his own views. It doesn't appear he was doing it for the money; rather, it was a conviction / vanity production. And he "changed his tune" on Iraq's WMD some time before that. (Slate, 2002-09-25)
Anyhow, suppose you're right about him; how does that help matters? "Two men stood up in February 2002 to speak about Iraq. One was a straight-arrow four-star general, his country's representative before the world. The other was a corrupt renegade sleazebag. And the sleazebag told the truth." Not good.
The Left . . . The Left . . . The Left . . .
Why should this be a left / right thing? I haven't seen either side demand / denounce an increase in the minimum wage, or a universal health care system, or privatised Social Security accounts. Sure, it's enmeshed in party politics in a particular way in the USA; it's up to you whether you focus on the politics or the policy.
I can't say this better than Jim Henley: "We know in retrospect, and this pisses me off no end, that the statements of one of the worst dictatorships in the world on this issue were more nearly the truth than the statements of our own government officials." That's a sentiment that left and right alike should be able to join in, and act on.
As for the controversy in Britain over intel, it turns out that one of the key figures in that which has been used to flagelate Blair with believed Saddam had WMD that posed an immediate threat.
You may note:
That is, the professionals got it wrong, the politicians politicized the process, the errors got worse not better: just as I've been saying. If that's your point too, great, welcome aboard!
You know, reading Porphy on this thread, I notice he simply hasn't come to terms with the implications of the fact we didn't find WMD, or any WMD programs. Our "intel" was all wrong, which anyone should see is a major problem. He doesn't even appear to acknowledge the fact, he's so busy attacking everyone who has.
Some blogger commented that not finding the WMD was like fighting the American Civil War and discovering afterwards there was no such thing as slavery.
Andrew -
I'l disagree with you in one area, then agree in another.
The problem with the WMD discussion is that it has become a proxy for debating the war. "If there had only been WMD..." allows those opposed to the war to stake out a tolerable position re national security while still opposing the war.
Because had Bush stepped up at the SOTU and said "Dude! We were had!! There were no WMD!!" The next speech would have been Nancy Pelosi calling for impeachment.
From my POV, the WMD were a fairly minor factor in deciding to suport the war (see this). And I think there were justifications, given Saddam's behavior, to assume the worst.
But I also would like to have a clear picture of WTH happened - both what happend to the WMD and what happened to our intel about them, and why we were supposedly so certain they were there.
A.L.,
I'd like to know the answer to that question, too, but I'm not expecting it any time soon. It's a serious intel question, and intel is a sufficiently weighty topic that it ought to be as depoliticized as possible. For instance, I expect that Bill Clinton left George W. Bush the best intel he had, and if Bush was succeeded by a Democrat, I'd expect him to hand over his best stuff to that guy.
Problem is, I can't think of a person on the Democratic side that could demand answers and not have it look like a partisan attack--especially after the Senate Intelligence Committee memo that laid out in plain English a plan to do exactly that on a timetable that sought to maximize the partisan advantage. I'm sure a Republican could ask for answers, and equally sure that whatever the White House pushed back would be behind closed doors. This assumes, of course, that the White House actually knows the real story on some of the faulty intel--they might not, and that idea's a bit sobering.
Armed Liberal:
Because had Bush stepped up at the SOTU and said "Dude! We were had!! There were no WMD!!" The next speech would have been Nancy Pelosi calling for impeachment.
And then what? A big fat nothing.
The Republicans have both houses. J. Random Voter already knows the WMD weren't there, and concluded he can live with that. Bush isn't doing anything for himself except making himself look small.
One might suspect, the denial policy is less Rove than Cheney.
Sam, it's hugely sobering. If after all those years the CIA and so many other Western Intelligence services could really know that little about the WMD programs in Iraq... what does that say about their knowledge of equally worrisome threats in Iran and other countries?
What it says is that we absolutely CANNOT rely on our intelligence services to give us adequate warning of these threats as they develop. The implication of which is that the only workable defense that can keep us safe from unpleasant (as in, hundreds of thousands dead) surprises is a policy that is much MORE agressive and pre-emptive, not less so.
I suspect that these implications explain much of the impetus behind the contant and transparently false "Bush lied!" refrain we're hearing from Democrats and others. If it's anything other than deception, they'd have to either believe that the weapons existed and were successfully hidden, that Saddam himself was deceived (A.L.'s 'telling superiors what they want to hear' thesis), or that we really didn't know.
The first 2 responses leave no opening to attack PResident Bush, and the latter response is catastrophic to their worldview. Hence the "Bush Lied!" mem.
"This assumes, of course, that the White House actually knows the real story on some of the faulty intel--they might not, and that idea's a bit sobering."
Though on the other hand, 'fessing up might be costly for the administration, not because of anything Pelosi or Daschle might say or do, but because of the internal repercussions. Along the way to Cheney's recantation / resignation, quite a bit of blood might be split, and that might roil the base and startle the swingers.
Since this thread started, David Kay, who was so confident of finding WMD when he started his job, basically gave up. "'I don't think they existed,' Mr Kay said, referring to Saddam's alleged stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons."
I don't see why the Administration shouldn't take a political hit for this, whether their mistakes were deliberate or not. (Impeachment is out of the question.) But the Administration continues with Plan B (not unique to Bush of course, Clinton lied about Monica in large part to stall his confession to a more politically propitious moment). This very week, VP Cheney insists we will find WMD (also Santa Claus?) and Iraq/Al Qaeda ties. Frankly, a lot of people listen to Cheney, and he is lying. Pres. Bush didn't stoop to the specific untruth, but instead resorted to the bizarre locution "WMD-related program activities", which has been getting some of the ridicule it so richly deserves. What does that mean? Saddam had WMD desires, and on all the current evidence, that's about it.
I'm also curious why you have such confidence that Bush didn't lie? Is it so transparent that his policy was driven by faulty intelligence, or that instead his intelligence, especially the products of Doug Feith's Office of Special Plans, were driven by the desire to invade Iraq for reasons excluding WMD?