The Phase II report on Iraq intelligence was finally released last week--the one that Pat Roberts put on hold back in 2004, so it wouldn't hurt Bush's re-election campaign--and the press (along with Jay Rockefeller) are finding, in the words of Kate Klonick, a "chasm between what was said by the President and Vice President, and what was actually known."
WaPo editor Fred Hiatt...not so much. To him, the report is evidence that Bush never lied. For example, he notes,
On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."Which, of course, isn't the whole sentence. What he's quoting is this1:
Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and the National Security Advisor regarding a possible Iraqi nuclear weapons program were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates, but did not convey the substantial disagreements that existed in the intelligence community. [emphasis added]Yes, it's your standard garden variety misdirection-by-selective-quotation at work. Hiatt again:
On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."The next conclusion in the report:
Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.Hiatt:
On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."The report:
Statements by the President, Vice President, Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction were generally substantiated by intelligence information, though many statements made regarding ongoing production prior to late 2002 reflected a higher level of certainty than the intelligence judgments themselves....The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information. [emphasis added]And so on. Shocking, isn't it: the guy who runs the WaPo editorial pages--home to some of the most egregious Iraq cheerleading over the last 5 years--writes a thoroughly dishonest editorial defending the Bush administration's dishonesty on Iraq.
But when, time and again, the "lack of candor" conveniently furthers political goals, how are we not to conclude that it is, well, pretty much the same thing as lying?And of course, that isn't 'lying'--that is, it doesn't meet the narrow definition of 'lying' advanced by the wingnuts (and Fred Hiatt).
Consider the way McClellan describes Bush in one particularly seminal case study. Recalling a conversation he overheard between Bush and a supporter in the 2000 race, when questions were being raised about Bush's possible cocaine use as a young man, McClellan quotes Bush as saying: "You know, the truth is I honestly don't remember whether I tried it or not. We had some pretty wild parties back in the day, and I just don't remember."
McClellan notes the absurdity of such a statement, then writes: "I know Bush, and I know he genuinely believes what he says. He isn't the kind of person to flat-out lie, particularly when speaking in private to a supporter or friend. So I think he meant what he said in that conversation about cocaine. It's the first time when I felt I was witnessing Bush convincing himself to believe something that probably was not true and that, deep down, he knew was not true. And his reason for doing so is fairly obvious: political convenience....
"In the years to come, as I worked closely with President Bush, I would come to believe that sometimes he convinces himself to believe what suits his needs at the moment....[emphasis added]
Over at Lawyers, Guns, and Money, d is mocking our old friend Treason-in-Defense-of-Slavery Yankee for a post in which he echoes and amplifies Bush's warning about the consequences of 'premature' withdrawal from Iraq (for example, "Turkey...would invade northern Iraq"--which would never happen as long as we stay). More...
I'm normally right there with d, especially where TIDOS Yankee is concerned, but this time I think he's being a little unfair. It's not hard to think of a case in which a military occupation was ended prematurely, with catastrophic consequences that persist to this day.
I'm sure that's the basis for TIDOS Yankee's concerns.
Anybody remember Digby's historic "fuck the south" essay after the 2004 election, when she put up the map showing that the slave states were still voting, essentially as a bloc, for Bush and the union states for Kerry? I can't find it online so maybe I'm misremembering it but send me a link and I'll put it up. Guess it was truer than we know. Not only are they still fighting the Civil War but they are right to do it since we're still occupying them. Bill Scher reports to us:
Today, RedState sent an email alert to readers to further push the point ... making a, shall we say, novel argument (emphasis added):
Clearly McCain was talking about a peace time standing presence ... Someone should ask the Democrats if they think we're still at war with the confederacy, the Germans, and the Japanese given all the standing American armies in the South, Germany, and Japan.
But hey, at least Germany and Japan are like Iraq in that they are other countries. I can't believe I am wasting 15 seconds of my life to type this, but having military bases in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina does not constitute a permanent occupation. Does RedState really believe that 140 years after the Civil War, American troops have a "peace time standing presence" in the American south? Conservatives are still flogging the notion that they hold an innate superiority on national security and foreign policy. The disaster of Iraq has already stripped the veneer off of that fallacy. Trying to claim that having military bases in Iraq for 100 years -- when our own intelligence community says "fear of Western domination" is what fuels the "jihadist movement" -- is just like having military bases in our own country, is probably not the best way to regain the public's trust on national security.
Nope, it's not an abyss, it's a canyon. An abyss implies that you can't see the bottom and with a canyon you can. An abyss is dark, whereas with a canyon you can see the details. And the details of the Iraq war, from the flawed and untruthful beginning to the no way out for the innocent and not so pretty end, have been revealed in frightening clarity for Americans to see. The rest of the world saw the current situation for what it really was. A McGuffin, designed to mislead the public until irrevocable damage had been done.
While the citizens of this country were distracted by the rah rah antics of the crew without a clue (or a conscience); their civil rights have been terminated; they were beguiled into spending money on homes they couldn't afford with the promises that the sun would always be shining and the value wold always go up; they were encouraged to buy goods to support the economy, unfortunately it just didn't happen to be ours; the education system was reduced to a shambles and most of their jobs were shipped to another country so that the corporations could continue to make obscene profits for those who already had more than they need.
The so-called ownership society isn't about you owning your own home, it's about you having to bear all responsibility for every action and reaction around the globe while your ability to do so is reduced incrementally. One paycheck at a time. Until you don't have one.
Health care is overly costly and preventative care is virtually nonexistent and they still want you to pay for insurance that looks for ways to deny you coverage when you need it because it is a corporation in the business of making money and not actually providing the health care that they supposedly sell.
Foreclosures are increasing and that was before the latest round of job layoffs. In another six months they will reach levels never seen, mainly due to the increase in population but nevertheless it will be damaging. Many more people will be hurt by the rise in gas prices and when you're unemployed, paying your Cobra premium out of your rapidly dwindling and poor interest paying savings or putting food on the table while you still have a roof over your head, becomes less important with every nickel rise in gas. So, you wait until medical problems become emergency room visits, which is what the President recommends.
As acres of McMansions become empty and food becomes scarce, due to either a rise in prices or the inability of truck drivers to drive to outlying areas, some hard choices will have to be made. As a nation. And the election isn't going to solve, or even mitigate, the ruinous path we have trod. None of their plans or rhetoric actually deal with, or will have any positive impact on, the majority of Americans.
Those people who have already been forced out of the system already know this. The decreasing graduation rate from high school and the increasing rate of incarceration are not good trends and have quite a bit to do with each other. Meanwhile outside of the US, the world is becoming more technical but we won't be graduating students capable of competing on the world stage. And we will have to compete on the world stage because almost everything we need, we have to get from somewhere else. Because we shipped the jobs there.
Is it any wonder that our troops don't have the equipment they need to do their jobs and be properly protected? We don't manufacture anything so after five years of steady confrontation, we still can't make appropriate body armor for our soldiers. And then when they get hurt and become damaged beyond usefulness, some people expect them to take care of themselves. How nice.
The candidates all talk a good game but each of them have drawbacks, all of which will prevent them from making the changes that are needed and wanted by the American people. Another round of tax cuts won't solve the problem and neither will mandating that people pay for something they can't afford. Our infrastructure is falling apart and taxes need to be directed toward the public good, not the corporate trough. Our roads, bridges, dams, hospitals and schools need the help first, not some shareholder who's gambling with his money and your kid's future.
BBB and Debsweb.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, in a column on how to withdraw from Iraq:
The case for terminating the war is based on its prohibitive and tangible costs, while the case for "staying the course" draws heavily on shadowy fears of the unknown and relies on worst-case scenarios.Of course this divide mirrors the divide between war supporters and opponents before the war: concrete, factually-based concerns about the consequences of invasion vs. breathless hysteria about the capabilities of Hussein; skepticism about the benefits of war vs. visions of an infinite supply of magical ponies. That's why we're the reality-based community.
One thing that's been proven by the recent kerfuffle manufactured by the wingnuts concerning The Right Reverend Wright is that the truth doesn't matter in terms of what's acceptable and what's controversial.
Here's an example of something that could be said that could be proven true beyond the shadow of a doubt:
When Republicans are elected, people die.
And by that I mean more people than would have to, or more people than if Democrats are elected -- either way. From foreign policy to automobile safety, global warming, the EPA, the FDA, gun control, and the tobacco industry, more lives are lost when Republicans are in charge. There just isn't any way around it. But you can't say something like that, for obvious reasons.
If enough people are unwilling to give the truth a high priority, or are even a little bit curious about what is true and what is false, then it doesn't do much good to point the truth out. I'm not sure which came first, the chicken or the egg here, but -- and this will not be a revelation to anyone here -- it's a tried-and-true tactic from the right wing to take advantage of people's apathy towards truth to distort it routinely; it's about the end, not the means, obviously.
My own line about holding politicians from either party equally accountable for their actions (especially where the impeachment of presidents is involved) is, "Nobody came home in a body bag because of Monica Lewinsky". And that's the truth. (If your reaction is "What about Bosnia?", you're not paying attention.)
But maybe I was wrong; yesterday Chris Matthews asserted this on MSNBC's "Morning Joe":
"4,000 people are dead now because of decisions made by politicians like the Clintons."I suspect he'll get away with saying this. Somehow, although you can't blame Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression, you can blame Hillary Clinton for Iraq. Is it me, or have we taken one more step on this long march towards establishing that the moon is made of green cheese, two plus two equals five, up is down, black is white, and the sun rises in the West?
...since George W. Bush chose to invade a country that had not attacked us, using phony links to al-Qaeda and fears of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Five years since Dick Cheney told us our soldiers would be greeted as liberators. Five years since Donald Rumsfeld told us the war would last "six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." Five years since the Bush administration threw our credibility and moral leadership in the toilet and took a giant crap on it.
And, by the way, more than six years since we sent troops into Afghanistan to root out the Taliban, an effort that took a back seat to Bush's war of choice in Iraq. Here's what the Dear Leader had to say about it last Thursday:
"I must say, I'm a little envious," Bush said. "If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed."
"It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks," Bush said.
Robert K. Massie on the Parliamentary election of 1900, held during the Boer War:
[Colonial Secretary Joseph] Chamberlain roamed the land, hammering on a single issue: the conduct of the war. His purpose was to convince the electorate that a Liberal victory would mean the political defeat of British arms in South Africa. His theme became, "A vote for the Liberals is a vote for the Boers!" This charge was shouted from platforms, proclaimed by billboards and placards. Posters depicted prominent Liberals kneeling in tribute to President Kruger, helping him to haul down the Union Jack, even urging him to shoot British soldiers. One Liberal M.P. attacked in this fashion had lost two sons in the war and was actually visiting their graves in South Africa when the election was held.In related news, it seems people sometimes start wars for reasons that are not entirely honest.
Shorter [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell: "I feel nothing over the death of merceneries."
When I wrote this, I thought I recalled having made my primary point more effectively but couldn't find the post. What I was looking for, it turns out, was this:
The March Atlantic has a heartbreaking study of a single block in Baghdad, and its disintegration over the last four years. Reading it, I thought about a point that is elementary, maybe obvious, but essential and largely overlooked: what we call 'improvement' is not improvement; at best, it's a deceleration of the decline.Or whenever some wingnut/GOP functionary trots out the obligatory 'the surge is working' talking point.
When people talk about the security situation 'improving', what they mean is soemthing like fewer attacks, fewer soldiers killed, fewer kidnapings, and so on. The war continues, but at a 'manageable' rate--that's 'improvement'. There's still damage, though, and the damage is still irreversible. People who get blown to hell don't come back to life when the situation 'improves'. As long as the conflict continues, things are getting worse, even if the rate of deterioration is slower.
The Atlantic piece is one illustration of the continuing damage to the fabric of Iraqi society....
Keep this point in mind every time there's a lull in the carnage and somebody calls it 'improvement'.
Michael Yon prefaced his extended pledge break with a lengthy version of the now-familiar screed about how the good news in Iraq just isn't being reported:
The situation in Iraq has drastically changed, but the inertia of bad news leaves many convinced that the mission has failed beyond recovery, that all Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, or are waiting for us to leave so they can crush their neighbors. This view allows our soldiers two possible roles: either "victim caught in the crossfire" or "referee between warring parties." Neither, rightly, is tolerable to the American or British public....Well, maybe, or maybe not. Or maybe not. Or maybe not.
Several upcoming dispatches will focus on how the situation in Southern Iraq has dramatically improved over past months. Ironically, the character of this improvement is distinguished by the lack of violence, as well as the increasing order and normality as Iraqi Security Forces step up to greater responsibility for security in the region. Though the local leadership picture in downtown Basra is fuzzier now that British forces have pulled further back to begin performing their long-planned overwatch phase, it is clear that this natural progression in turning Basra over to Iraqi control has not catapulted the city into chaos.
This is so disheartening:
The Op-Ed by seven active duty U.S. soldiers in Iraq questioning the war drew international attention just three weeks ago. Now two of the seven are dead.The editorial is now behind the Times Select wall, but I found a copy here.
Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance T. Gray died Monday in a vehicle accident in western Baghdad, two of seven U.S. troops killed in the incident which was reported just as Gen. David Petraeus was about to report to Congress on progress in the "surge." The names have just been released....
Mora, 28, hailed from Texas City, Texas, and was a native of Ecuador, who had just become a U.S. citizen. He was due to leave Iraq in November and leaves behind a wife and daughter. Gray, 26, had lived in Ismay, Montana, and is also survived by a wife and infant daughter.
Confused by all the pretty-colored charts? Cleek provides a clearer version of one of the key graphs. Seriously: Best Graphic of the Year.
Are congressional delegations to Iraq getting the straight story? But of course:
At one point, as Moran, Tauscher and Rep. Jon Porter (R-Nev.) were heading to lunch in the fortified Green Zone, an American urgently tried to get their attention, apparently to voice concerns about the war effort, the participants said. Security whisked the man away before he could make his point.And no, they're not just wasting their time:
At one point, the three were trying to discuss the state of Iraqi security forces with Iraq's national security adviser, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, but the large, flat-panel television set facing the official proved to be a distraction. Rubaie was watching children's cartoons.Comment would be superfluous.
When Moran asked him to turn it off, Rubaie protested with a laugh and said, "But this is my favorite television show," Moran recalled.
Porter confirmed the incident, although he tried to paint the scene in the best light, noting that at least they had electricity.
I saw former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer on Hardball yesterday, fronting for the new $15,000,000 pro-war ad campaign sponsored by the White House, er, I mean some group called Freedom's Watch. The group is targeting Republicans (and a few Democrats) who are wavering in their support for Bush's never-ending war in Iraq, and it doesn't hesitate to twist the truth to whip them back in line.
Guest host Mike Barnicle started the interview by showing one of the ads, which features an amputee veteran who says he re-enlisted after 9/11 because "they attacked us, and they will again; they won't stop in Iraq", with the obligatory shot of the burning twin towers in the background -- just in case anyone missed the verbal attempt to blame Iraq for 9/11. He tells us we're making good progress on the ground and that this is no time for politics. Yeah, right. Because there's nothing political whatsoever about these ads.
Barnicle challenged Fleischer, asking him how many of the 9/11 hijackers were from Iraq (the answer is none, in case you didn't already know). Fleischer came back with some crap about how this isn't about the 2002 debate anymore but about dealing with terrorists in Iraq now. See, pointing out the ads' false connection between Iraq and 9/11 means Barnicle is stuck in the stale 2001-2002 debate over Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. I guess Ari's hoping we've forgotten how he assured us back in 2003 that the administration had "evidence and information" of Saddam's WMDs.
“There is no question that we have evidence and information that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical particularly.”
Pardon my cynicism, but does anyone think this report on CIA failures is anything more than another Blame it on the Clenis ploy? (That's not an entirely rhetorical question; maybe people more knowledgeable than I am can vouch for it.) In any case, that's certainly how the wingnuttosphere is using it.
And of course, to the extent it doesn't blame Clinton, it's still all about outsourcing blame. If the administration and its toadies can pin it on the CIA's failures, maybe people will forget about the guy who ignored the memo.
There are two obvious points about this report. The first is that it was produced under an administration that has been fatally compromised by partisan mendacity. Every single thing that comes from them or anyone under their control is automatically suspect, for the very good reason that so much of it has been fabricated, distorted, or purged of embarrassing detail. The entire machinery of the executive branch has been harnessed to the purpose of making the Executive look good regardless of the facts. Maybe this is more of the same, and maybe it isn't...but anything that branch produces is presumptively dubious.
The other point is that intelligence failures before 9/11 pale next to the catastrophic blundering since. The news that "[t]he CIA never developed an overall strategy for confronting Al Qaeda" is hardly as important as the question: what is the strategy now? Diverting resources from fighting terrorism to a bloody quagmire of choice, spending hundreds of billions of dollars to open a de facto recruiting station for al Qaeda, allowing Afghanistan to fall back into the failed state nightmare we had one brief chance to save it from--what could be more appalling than the 'strategy' they did adopt?
The Fred Hiatt Post:
The decision of Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.) to deny rather than nourish a bipartisan agreement is, of course, irresponsible.Cheerleading a manifestly stupid military action with no discernible relationship to America's security interests and every prospect of killing a lot of American soldiers and many more Iraqis: responsible.
Tony Snow, in a USA Today column, waxes philosophical:
Politics sometimes manages to muddle the obvious.Well, yes, Tony. That's your job.
We never argued that he played a role 9/11; political opponents manufactured the claim to question the president's integrity.Manufactured? Maybe not.
The al-Qaeda of 2001 no longer exists. We've killed or captured two-thirds of its senior leadership.Right.
Al-Qaeda doesn't have the strength it had six years ago, but it remains committed to killing Americans.And Tony has to go back 6 years to find a time when Bush could plausibly claim al-Qaeda was stronger than they are today. That's encouraging, isn't it?
More than anything, al-Qaeda wants the United States to leave Iraq and hand victory to the terrorists.Oh do they?
Recent military action has inflicted serious damage on al-Qaeda in Iraq and has inspired a growing number of Iraqis to fight al-Qaeda. That vindicates the president's faith in liberty as a common inheritance of mankind.The obvious point here is that al-Qaeda isn't the only (or even the primary) opponent in Iraq. The equally obvious point is that inflicting damage in Iraq on an enemy that wasn't present at all there before we invaded doesn't exactly vindicate the president's faith in anything.
In a column the title of which shows extraordinary self-perception1, Jules Crittenden wonders: why so impatient?
Right now, all the talk in DC is whether there has been any progress in Iraq. No one can wait till September. They need to know now. Primarily, it appears, because they need to kill the war for their own domestic political reasons before it kills them.Or maybe because we think that after the situation has been deteriorating for four and a half years, over the entire course of which countless war apologists have been promising dramatic improvement in the next X months, it just doesn't make a lot of sense to wait another X months before we figure out that it's a catastrophic clusterfuck that isn't ever going to go the way people like Jules Crittenden think it will.
But how come, if this is the pressing issue of the day, we’ve seen no serious effort whatsoever among our leading news organizations to tell us or our political leaders what is actually happening?I'll let Captain Willard field this one:
....Where is the comprehensive look at the execution of George Bush’s counterinsurgency strategy, this thing that everyone keeps disparaging?
Kurtz: "Are my methods unsound?"Update: Rasmussen reports that 19% of the public considers the escalation a success (which means Crittenden, Bill Kristol, and TIDOS Yankee were all in the sampling). By any standard that would judge the escalation a 'success', 19% is an 'overwhelming majority'.
Willard: "I don't see any method, at all, sir."
