Harry Reid sits alone at his kitchen table at 4 a.m., writing important notes in crayon on the outside of envelopes. It has been four weeks since he began investigating this conspiracy and three weeks since he sealed his windows with aluminum foil to ward off the Illuminati.
He repeats that same idiotic mantra several times, then goes back to the reliable talking points about Bill Clinton talking about Iraqi WMDs. Why, even among the so-called “moderate” wings of the Republican movement, is such intellectual dishonesty cherished? Even in the pages of the supposedly liberal New York Times (all evidence to the contrary), why is such drivel allowed from the right? Clinton never went to war with Iraq, and its clear that the Bush administration felt so strongly about their case for war with Iraq that they leaked classified information to the press against a political opponent. Brooks knows this, but ignores it all, and proceeds to write a screed decrying the top Democrat in the country as a tinfoil hat wearing lunatic.
Brooks has no shame. None of them do.
BeJeebus!
Even Bill Buckley is rankled by the issue of WMD and security issues.
There goes that danged ol’ Librul media again.
I’d like to think that they hired him just to showcase the annoying duplicitous dweebness of the new young conservative crowd, but I fear that’s not the case.
Except it wasn’t just Bill Clinton. He’s mentioned because he was president and he also deployed American armed forces overseas. But it was 9/10s of the Democratic Party. And further complicating the logic of your rant is the fact that we went to war with the authorization of many Democrats. So the Democrats believed these things about Iraq under Bubba – who took no action- and then believed them under Bush – who proposed taking action. And Democrats and Republicans authorized him to take action. Thats what really happened. And you so dearly wish it didn’t. Don’t worry though, there are enough Marxist historians (they feel as you do) and media enablers to eventually rewrite history along your pretend lines.
Dugger
I think that, with Brooks, “intellectual dishonesty” might be pushing it a bit. “Intellectual dumbness” probably sums it up more accurately. This guy talking to the American people about politics reminds me of Marge Simpson as a piano teacher — “I’ve just gotta stay one lesson ahead of the kid.”
So the Democrats are gullible because they believed the President wouldn’t lie to them about something important like war.
It doesn’t really matter what Clinton said, though. Because after Clinton left office, Bush and company had a few years to look over the current intelligence themselves and see if Clinton had been right or wrong. They were supposed to be making a decision about war based on what they saw in the present, not what Clinton saw in the past.
Or is the new narrative that Bush went to war because Clinton told him to?
Pres Edwards (brandishing umbrella): We win! We win! Osama promises no more attacks.
Dugger
Yeah, but those Democrats were fooled, hoodwinked, tricked, and lied to by Bush and those evil war-mongers.
Which makes the Dems slogan in 2006 and beyond: “We’re not Incompetent so much as we are Gullible!”. Yeah, that’ll win the hearts and minds of Americans when it comes to National Security.
I was under the impression that Iraq was bombed on a virtually daily basis between the two gulf wars, and that the no-fly zone was constantly policed.
BD…
It doesn t really matter what Clinton said, though. Because after Clinton left office, Bush and company had a few years to look over the current intelligence themselves and see if Clinton had been right or wrong.
The current intelligence indicated that Iraq had WMD. How can you get more current and credible than the Director of the CIA standing in your office telling you that it was a slam dunk?
Actually, I would agree that those Democrats weren’t doing their jobs. So would many Democrats outside the Beltway.
Still, why is it dubious to have trusted Bush to do the right thing? Shouldn’t that be what one expects of their president?
There was a torrent of declarative statements made by Democrats about the dangers of WMD and Saddam Hussein AFTER GWB was elected in 2000. Were these people making such statements with full knowledge of the facts on the ground or were they relying on the eeeevil Rethuglicans to provide their talking points?
It appears that you have never been in a position of leadership. Or even had a boss like Shrub (I have, several times. Assholes, all of ‘em). Maybe not even been a manager trapped underneath someone like that.
When you have power, people tell you what you want to hear. If you shove people around and make it clear that you want them to tell you what you want to hear– including violently attacking them when they don’t– then all anyone will dare to tell you is what you want to hear.
Think for a moment about the biggest asshole boss you’ve ever had. Already knows what he wants to do. Needs some evidence, numbers, backup, some documentation and information he needs to “sell” his lie to others. Charges you with the task of going to find him some. It’s an impossible mission, because he is *wrong*. There is no convincing evidence. He is asking you to lie. You can’t do his task. If you fail, he will rip one of your balls off. If you tell him he’s wrong, he’ll rip BOTH of your balls off. And you can’t even must make shit up– he is being asked for hard factual evidence and it’s your job to go find him some.
What do you do?
Maybe you quit, which is the honourable thing to do. Maybe you can’t quit, or you just are too weaselly to do it. Maybe if you quit he will ass-rape the people who work for you, who have given you years of loyalty and you feel responsible for them– you can’t just abandon them to this guy.
So you go in with what you’ve got. He looks at you funny– he knows nobody is going to buy that load of crap. But you really want to keep your balls– both of them. You can’t tell him that’s the best you can get– he’ll send you away to go get more (minus one testicle), or just fire your sorry ass. So you tell him, “boss, it’s a slam dunk!!”
He looks at you funny again. So you say it again, “really, a slam dunk!!” (oh please please god why did you put me in this hellhole of a job…).
I dunno. A purely fictional account. From the very real experience of my own career. This is reality. Bosses are bosses and I’ve worked for more than a few Shrub’s in my day.
Am I to understand that you find Mr. Woodward’s reporting entirely reliable, scratch?
Interesting.
BD,
“Still, why is it dubious to have trusted Bush to do the right thing?”
Its not, but it is one thing to disagree and believe bad judgemnt was in play, another to believe that we got into the war all through the (evil) duplicitous manipulations of Rs (only). The real world isn’t like that. The Rs or neocons thought they were doing what was best for the country and they may yet turn out to be correct (I have my doubts, though). Why not leave it at policy disagreement instead of attributing bad intentions (and good intentions are not enough – good intentions don’t erase bad judgement).
Dugger
For all this talk about why we didn’t go to war in Iraq, I’m still waiting for the left to come forward with the reasons we did go to war, and at least a modicum of evidence to that effect.
Frank poses an interesting point. What are the good and/or potential good reasons and outcomes possible via the Iraq war. As a non-leftist middler on Iraq, here’s what I see:
Conversion of Iraq into a modern democratic and progressive state in the middle of a part of the world that is the living antithesis to all of those ideals. Might be the first giant step in ‘fixing’ the mideast (the neocon keystone ideal, I believe).
Terrorists and terrorist enablers are tied up in Iraq (and Afghan) and Americans are safer on their home ground. Our casulaties are dear, but this is war of attrition for Ts.
We rid the world of a horrible dictator and terrorist supporter, a man who if he did not have WMDs, would propbaly have used them WHEN he got them.
We demonstrate to the world, that America, a basic force for good, will take up arms for what it believes. This has an effect in places like Libya etc.
We help secure our overseas oil source is it all about OIL ? – no – but a little bit? – yes-)
We prevented further genocide against peole like the Kurds.
Dugger, Off the top of my Head
I’ll let you know, Frank. As soon as the Bush administration offers a story that’s even plausible.
What are you waiting for, Quaker? So far, all I’ve seen is one of two schools of thought from the left on this subject:
1) They (conservatives or Bush supporters) can’t say it was “A” because that’s not true; AND / OR
2) They (conservatives or Bush supporters) can’t say it was “B” because that’s not working.
So, you tell me. What was the nefarious plot? Why did the Bush administration invade Iraq?
I will tell you honestly: I have no idea why.
I can only tell you that the reasons offered publicly don’t really make sense to me. In some cases, the Bush administration carefully presented only those facts that supported their inevitable conclusions–even when contradictory facts were presented from reliable sources. In some cases, administration members worked to discredit those who questioned their case for war.
It seems to me that the objective to invade was set first, then arguments to support that objective were built from whatever data was available.
These beliefs leave me with a nagging question: If the arguments were constructed to fit the predetermined decision, then what drove that decision in the first place.
I wish I knew.
Let me add a little more, Frank and Dugger.
Frank’s challenge isn’t the first time I’ve considered the question of what I believe to be the “real” reason for the invasion.
The overwhelming majority of the justification we heard before the war dealt with the threat that Iraqi WMD could fall into the hands of terrorists. Let’s give team Bush the benefit of the doubt and say they believed–just like all those Dems who said similar things–that Saddam did have WMD and was willing to use them.
I can’t accept that as the primary reason for the invasion for several reasons. The Bush team didn’t portray the evidence in a calm, measured way, pros and cons, certainties and qualifications. No, they carefully presented the worst case and aggressively disputed those who raised questions.
This is not the behavior of people who are searching for an answer. This is the behavior of people who are defending a conclusion that has already been reached.
On days when I am most willing to credit the Bush administration with good intentions, I consider Dugger’s first proposition:
It would be monumentally ambitious for an American president to choose military force as a way to re-create an entire region in our own image. However, as Dugger, points out, that has been the neocon fantasy for a long time.
If that was the reason, don’t you think there would have been better planning for the aftermath? If the whole point was to create stable, democratic societies in the middle east, wouldn’t the Bush administration spent more time figuring out how to set up the replacement for the corrupt regime being knocked down?
We’ve learned from many different sources that the planning for the aftermath of Saddam’s fall was nearly nonexistent. Hell of a way to “convert” a region, ain’t it?
After that, I descend into real tinfoil hat territory, not because that’s my inclination, but because that’s all I have left.
“If that was the reason, don t you think there would have been better planning for the aftermath?’
I tend to agree with your logic here, but maybe they felt like they could improvise, given Iraq’s oil resources. Don’t know. I think Neocons miss the boat sometimes when they think the rest of the world wants or believes in our founding ideals. I do, and you may, but man-in-the-street Baghdad may not. He may not be steeped in anything other than Islamic orthodoxy and/or obey-the-dictator-before-he-kills-your-family-ism People like that aren’t just going to seamlessly pick up the baton of freedom and democratic government. Can’t be too arrogant about that idea, however, because I probably would have felt that way about post-war Japan or Germany. Some of those “neocons” back then were right.
Dugger
Well, what I mean here is, if nation-building was the reason, wouldn’t we see evidence that they spent some time thinking about how to do that?
Instead, we went through a couple of viceroys, kept the Iraqi army intact…no wait! disbanded it, and seemed to be making up the transition as we went.
It’s almost as if we were thinking of something else.
Heck. Bad tag. Help me, OW!
I probably would have felt that way about post-war Japan or Germany.
By “felt the same way,” I’m taking you to mean: Not all that interested in adopting American social values, yes?
Well, good point. The war against Germany and Japan was fought for very different reasons, of course. Nobody was claiming we were in it to convert them to democratic societies.
Yet it seems as though we were better prepared to do so then than we are now, in spite of the fact that “conversion” is so often cited as a reason for the current war.
Maybe I’m wrong. But I just don’t see any evidence that we were actually prepared to go set up a democracy after the dictatorship was destroyed.
I don’t think it’s correct to say that Iraqi’s are not picking up the baton.
While the terrorists are attacking military and “new – style” administrative officials, what is it they are not doing?
They are not just blowing up innocent civilians, except as collateral damage.
They are not blowing up mosques or othe religious symbols — in Iraq.
They are not blowing up the schoolhouses and other buildings being built with American – Iraqi cooperation
In other words, they are afraid of pissing off the locals, something that, in Viet Nam, for example, was no problem.
I think I know why, and if you think about it, you’ll know why, too: We’re winning.
Frank,
The Iraqis just seem a little slow in coming around and it sometimes appears that that ‘coming around’ happens only when we prod or provide an umbrella. H*ll, hope I’m wrong. Believe we need to stay the course, no matter I just don’t see the signs (yet?) that the fundamental nature of their society is changing. The bad guys are willing to die for their old, outdated, vicous way of life, whereas the good guys don’t seem to be flocking to freedom’s banner.
Dugger, Been Wrong Before
.
Into Google, Plug “Iraq security forces” +RAND and “Iran security forces” +globalsecurity.org
You’ll see the goal set by RAND a few years ago — about or at least 125,000 trained Iraqi forces..
Globalsecurity.org shows you that they’re nearly there.
Frank
Got it.
Dugger
[...] s out. 57% of Americans believe Bush deliberately misled in his case for the war in Iraq. According to David Brooks over half of the populatio [...]