Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

March 17, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

THOSE IRAQI DOCUMENTS....Marc Lynch is delighted that the Bush administration is finally releasing captured Iraqi documents, but then goes on to provide an obvious warning:

Their value depends entirely on their comprehensiveness, and that they are vetted on a nonpartisan and scholarly basis. If all the released documents support the administration's case for war (like the infamous Feith memo of cherry-picked intelligence about Iraqi ties to al-Qaeda leaked to Steve Hayes), then the release becomes worse than useless.

One hates to be cynical so early in the morning, but seriously: what are the odds that these documents are going to be "vetted on a nonpartisan and scholarly basis"? Every single piece of intelligence ever made public by the Bush administration every single piece has been cherry picked for maximum partisan effectiveness. Surely no one seriously believes it's going to be any different this time?

Along those lines, Marc provides both some sound advice and an almost certainly well-founded expectation that no one will listen to him:

The only prediction I'm confident making: a lot of people are going to dive into these things, and find what they're looking for. Here's a line in a transcript which proves, proves, that Saddam ordered 9/11! Here's a document which proves, proves, that Saddam and Zarqawi never had anything to do with each other! Here's one that proves, proves, that Saddam had nukes! Here's one that proves, proves, that Saddam didn't have nukes! I'd advise people on both sides of the issue not to get too excited over individual documents... cherry-picking seeming smoking guns to prove your pet issue might be irresistably tempting, but isn't likely to be edifying in the longer term. I don't expect anyone to take the advice, but there it is.

Neither do I.

Kevin Drum 1:31 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (57)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Although I share your deep distrust of anything released by the Administration, as I understand it a large percentage of these documents have never even been translated from Arabic; that is in fact one ostensible reason for their release, namely to use the wider Arabic-fluent community to translate them.

Have I been misinformed?

Posted by: S Ra on March 17, 2006 at 1:50 PM | PERMALINK

Every single piece of intelligence ever made public by the Bush administration every single piece has been cherry picked for maximum partisan effectiveness.

Can anyone identify a "single piece of intelligence ever made public by" FDR during WWII that also was not supportive of that war effort?

Posted by: Don P. on March 17, 2006 at 1:52 PM | PERMALINK

Can anyone identify a "single piece of intelligence ever made public by" FDR during WWII that also was not supportive of that war effort?

Nice attempt to conflate "supportive of the war effort" with "cherry-picked for maximum partisan effectiveness." The correct analogy would have been to say "can anyone identify a 'single piece of intelligence ever made public by' FDR during WWII that also was not supportive of partisan Democratic Party gain?" And the answer to that, of course, would have been yes, since FDR didn't use WWII as a club to beat Republicans with. He believed in governing for the sake of everyone, not just his party, and knew that to win the struggle he would have to unite all Americans, both Republicans and Democrats.

Posted by: Stefan on March 17, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

One hates to be cynical so early in the morning

I can't think of a better way to start the day!

Posted by: Martin on March 17, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, that was fast. Delusion is like a perpetual-motioned, quantum super-computer. It's always on and it's got the apologistics ready before the questions are even asked.

Posted by: The Tim on March 17, 2006 at 2:02 PM | PERMALINK


and remember.....these "documents" wouldnt have even been needed...

if....

bush poll numbers were higher...

rove is just giving the base something to latch on to...

they dont need much...

because they so desperately want to believe they weren't scammed..

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 17, 2006 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum is saying "Pay no attention to the Iraqi documents!"

That is going to be the mantra of the Democrats, folks. They won't care if the documents show Al Queda was cooperating with Saddam, they won't care if the documents prove Saddam planned to deceive the UN inspectors. Won't matter to them if the documents reveal Saddam had an active WMD program.

Wouldn't want anything to distract from Bushitler's low approval ratings, right Kevin?

Can't have anything distract us from Plame/Rove indictments, right Kevin?

"Pay no attention to the documents! Look over there at Bushitler's low approval ratings!"

Posted by: MountainDan on March 17, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

Look! Look! Here's one that shows Saddam was the mastermind behind the Pearl Harbor attack, AND the sinking of the Maine!

Posted by: Red on March 17, 2006 at 2:05 PM | PERMALINK

1:31PM is early in the morning?? don't i wish.

Posted by: EM on March 17, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

Hey MountainDew, stop drinking the KoolAid already. I think you've had enough.

Posted by: Red on March 17, 2006 at 2:07 PM | PERMALINK

I think you will now see arising from the Wurlitzer is another round of partially verified 'truths' from the documents being twisted into labryinthtine justifications for the war.

Posted by: stumpy on March 17, 2006 at 2:11 PM | PERMALINK

1:31PM is early in the morning??

Kevin's in CA. 3 hours behind the east coast.

Posted by: cleek on March 17, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

It's just a question - I was going to weigh the partisan impact IF anyone actually found one.

EM:

It's still "morning" in California, I believe.

Posted by: Don P. on March 17, 2006 at 2:14 PM | PERMALINK

Won't matter to them if the documents reveal Saddam had an active WMD program.

we've had complete control of the country for 3 years. if there was any program, we would've found it by now.

Posted by: cleek on March 17, 2006 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

(ok . not complete control. but we've had free access to the entire country, and have presumably tortured many former scientists and officials (likely to death) in search of these fabled WMDs. (and as every good wingnut will tell you, torture works). we ain't found 'em. they weren't there. Bush lied.)

Posted by: cleek on March 17, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

All the documents should be handled as true, even if they contradict other documents.

There is no chance that the Iraqi intel sources are lying just to get money, or simply mistaken.

There is no chance that the Iraqi intel officers would feed bullshit to their superiors, or Saddam, to curry favor or avoid punishment.

There is no chance that by releasing these documents to the oh-so-intelligence blogosphere that you might endanger intel sources (ie, spies) still be handled by the US or our allies.

Think about it: our pre-war sources on Iraq were spot-on 100% correct. Therefore, logic and reason demand that we trust all the info and intel from Iraqi sources.

Posted by: NSA Mole on March 17, 2006 at 2:23 PM | PERMALINK

cleek:

How long did it take to find all of Japan's hidden chemical weapons after WWII?

Posted by: Don P. on March 17, 2006 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Let's not forget too, that the documents might be forged. Niger documents were.

Dumping these documents now sounds more like they're trying to convince themselves than anyone else. No thinking person trusts these guys anymore.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on March 17, 2006 at 2:26 PM | PERMALINK

Serious people can and will take a serious look at the documents.

However, I don't expect much from the Moonbats in here. "If there were WMDs we would have found them! Case closed already!"

Posted by: BigRiver on March 17, 2006 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

OK, that's it. "Don P" is definitely Charlie. Same syntax, same writing style, same usage, same lame attempt to justify every Bush mistake by a false analogy to World War II. Now allhe has to do is start appending an emoticon and it's official.

Posted by: Stefan on March 17, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

Hey BigRubber, if there were WMDs, you can bet they're long gone by now, and in the hands of who knows who. Just the kind of nightmare scenario the invasion of Iraq was supposed to prevent.

Posted by: Renfrew on March 17, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

Laying the groundwork on this a bit early, aren't we?

Remember, just because a document is "cherry picked" doesn't invalidate the document in and of itself.

A photo of someone robbing a bank might be "cherry picked" out of many other camera photos, but that doesn't make it fake.

So far, I haven't seen any "smoking guns" in what's been released, but there are a lot more to come. I think what such documents might reveal about Saddam's views on inspections, weapons programs, the potential for invasion, and other issues might be just as important as "smoking guns" on WMD or terror connections.

I'll be interested in seeing this report when it comes out, too.

Stefan:

And the answer to that, of course, would have been yes, since FDR didn't use WWII as a club to beat Republicans with. He believed in governing for the sake of everyone, not just his party, and knew that to win the struggle he would have to unite all Americans, both Republicans and Democrats.

Well, except the Japanese-Americans, of course.

Posted by: tbrosz on March 17, 2006 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

Flanders: Well, except the Japanese-Americans, of course.

Which was odd, considering that according to Flanders we didn't attack Japan after Pearl Harbor....

Posted by: Stefan on March 17, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

Hey BigRubber, if there were WMDs, you can bet they're long gone by now, and in the hands of who knows who. Just the kind of nightmare scenario the invasion of Iraq was supposed to prevent.

Very good point, Renfrew, and one the wingnuts don't like to contemplate for too long or their heads will explode. Because if, as they claim, Saddam did indeed have nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and if, as is plainly evident, we don't now have custody of those weapons, then where are they? In whose hands? Where'd they go?

Posted by: Stefan on March 17, 2006 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

DonP,

we found those trailers in Iraq - they weren't what Bush said. we looked in all those buildings Powell showed us in those satellite photos - they weren't what Bush said. we visited all the reactors, labs and factories that were supposed to be making WMD - there weren't any WMD there. we talked to all the scientists, people who have nothing to hide now - there's nothing. there weren't tens of thousands of artillery shells. there weren't sinister drone aircraft capable of reaching distant places. it was a all a wingnut fantasy.

if Saddam's program is capable of being hidden from the entire US military, the entire Iraqi population (presumably there's some good money to be had for any such info), the UN inspectors, the militaries of the rest of the coalitions, the US intelligence agencies, for four years, then it's not much of a program.

Posted by: cleek on March 17, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

Stefan:

Yes, Charlie has now assimilated Don P. This may be a new low for him - taking the name of an actual poster (though one who seems to have disappeared) - except I think he did it once before.

You're right, he's clearly identifiable through his syntax and style of argument. All that's left is some kind of tortured abortion analogy.

Posted by: Alek Hidell on March 17, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

I eagerly await Jason's rebuttal to Paul Krugman and Robin Wells's arguments in The New York Review of Books on behalf of single-payer healthcare.

Here's the link:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/18802

Go to town!


Posted by: Lucy on March 17, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK


stfan: FDR didn't use WWII as a club to beat Republicans with.


but republicans DID claim fdr was a communist in the campaigns WHILE the war raged on....

so while the gop didnt support the president in the war..

no word on whether they supported the troops..

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on March 17, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of the real Don P., where's our man Pale Rider lately?

Posted by: Alek Hidell on March 17, 2006 at 2:47 PM | PERMALINK

I'm sorry, wrong thread.

Posted by: Lucy on March 17, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

"If there were WMDs we would have found them! Case closed already!"

Actually, that is the position of David Kay, the ringer who was sent in by the administration to find them.

Or more precisely, his position is they will never be found because there weren't any created since the last batch was destroyed.

He called those who expected weapons to be found "delusional," which is a perfectly apt description of Cheney/Karl/Don P. et al.

Posted by: Windhorse on March 17, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Can anyone identify a "single piece of intelligence ever made public by" FDR during WWII that also was not supportive of that war effort?

That tears it...Charlie has now adopted Don P.'s handle, as some have observed.

You're right, he's clearly identifiable through his syntax and style of argument. All that's left is some kind of tortured abortion analogy.

Don't forget his joking about dead kids, Alek.

Posted by: Gregory on March 17, 2006 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

I think what such documents might reveal about Saddam's views on inspections, weapons programs, the potential for invasion, and other issues might be just as important as "smoking guns" on WMD or terror connections.

Which only goes to show how desperate tbrosz is to justify Bush's excellent advuenture in Iraq (strange, really, because tbrosz isn't being asked to pay for it at all).

Iraq was not a security threat to its neighbors, much less the US, prior to the invasion, period, full stop. Certainly much less of a threat than, say, Iran and North Korea, whose actual nuclear programs just continue on their merry way under Bush's watch. And now, of course, Bush's failure in Iraq poses a real security threat to the US as well, as terrorists get invaluable experience.

Bush's failure in Iraq could mean Americans don't take Republicans seriously on national security for a generation. tbrosz' delusions only support that concept.

Posted by: Gregory on March 17, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

I guess another thing to take into account is whether or not the documents make any sense. The Freepers are going nuts about some doc that one of them translated which purports to show that Iraqi intelligence learned from an Afghani official that Iraqi intelligence was dealing with the Afghans. Its interesting that Iraqi intelligence had to learn of their own dealings with the Afghans from the Afghans. The document then goes on to say that the Afghan claimed the Americans knew all about this. Right now I'm sick and have a slight fever, and to be honest, I think it makes more sense if you have a fever when you read it.

Sooner or later a document will be released indicating that the Iraqis learned they were dealing with the Afghans from the Afghans, who in turn learned it from the Americans, who in turn learned it from the Iraqis. Everything will tie together very neatly.

Posted by: cactus on March 17, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

It didn't long for the newest wave of Bush bunker dwellers here to prove Lynch right. As for me, I'll wait for the paperback version and repeat what Lynch said, as it's just so:

I'd advise people on both sides of the issue not to get too excited over individual documents... cherry-picking seeming smoking guns to prove your pet issue might be irresistably tempting, but isn't likely to be edifying in the longer term.

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on March 17, 2006 at 3:50 PM | PERMALINK

Sooner or later a document will be released indicating that the Iraqis learned they were dealing with the Afghans from the Afghans, who in turn learned it from the Americans, who in turn learned it from the Iraqis.

Somehow Maxwell Smart was involved, I just know it.

Posted by: Dustbin Of History on March 17, 2006 at 3:52 PM | PERMALINK

The documents aren't being examined very carefully by some bloggers.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/3/17/134552/862

Maha at DailyKos:
The story thus far: This week the Office of the Director of National Intelligence began to release documents it says were captured in postwar Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maha provides an example.
This document consists of a page of what looks like Arabic script (I don't know Arabic from Parsi from whatever). This is followed by a seven-page document from the Federation of American Scientists about the Iraqi Intelligence Service, with information gleaned from various unclassified sources. This same document is still on the FAS web site, here, and was last updated in 1997, it says. Not exactly super-secret, in other words, and not from Iraq. What it contains is information floating around in the West as of 1997.

Now prepare yourself to be shocked.
Here [Investor's Business Daily] is an article that quotes this same FAS document as if it were something captured in Iraq after the invasion.

As I predicted, rightie bloggers are gleefully linking to the IBD article as "proof" that we liberals were wrong about Saddam Hussein. These bloggers include Glenn Reynolds, Lorie Byrd, and Cold Fury (upon which I commented and received a nice round of insults for my trouble), among others.

Go read it. It's very interesting.

I think Kevin has the right attitude here.


Posted by: cowalker on March 17, 2006 at 3:56 PM | PERMALINK

Alek Hidell,

Do not depair - The Palest of Riders lurks - His mighty Appaloosa is resting from a strained Fetlock.
However, March Madness has caught Pale's attention at the moment. Sorta an office pool in the High Sierras so to speak - He must stay and Duke it out.

Posted by: stupid git on March 17, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

"I guess another thing to take into account is whether or not the documents make any sense. The Freepers are going nuts about some doc that one of them translated which purports to show that Iraqi intelligence learned from an Afghani official that Iraqi intelligence was dealing with the Afghans. Its interesting that Iraqi intelligence had to learn of their own dealings with the Afghans from the Afghans. The document then goes on to say that the Afghan claimed the Americans knew all about this. Right now I'm sick and have a slight fever, and to be honest, I think it makes more sense if you have a fever when you read it."

Bingo. Look at the part where the Afghan "consul" says he got this information: when he was in IRAN. Does that mean the consul, who we know said this based upon a possibly dubious source known only by a number, was told this by the Iranians? Does anyone else see the masssive, naked vested interest Iran had in putting the 9/11 attacks and other al-Qaeda operations on Saddam Hussein as well? They've been sworn enemies since the eighties.

The other interesting document was the IIS/Mukhabarat memo on possible al-Qaeda "infiltration" into Iraq. Including sending out top priority instructions to be on the lookout for
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. That blows one helluva hole in the collaboration/safe haven claims the Bush Administration made regarding Zarqawi and Saddam's Iraq.

Posted by: Anonymous Passerby on March 17, 2006 at 4:44 PM | PERMALINK

serious I say... serious

you sound like Hugh Hewitt or somethin

Posted by: christAlmighty on March 17, 2006 at 4:53 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory:

That tears it...Charlie has now adopted Don P.'s handle, as some have observed.

That tears it...Gregory has now adopted ad hominem attacks as his sole retort to plain facts, as all can see. What an idiot you remain!

Posted by: Don P. on March 17, 2006 at 4:55 PM | PERMALINK

I see that Chuckles is continuing is campaign to attempt to convince Kevin to adopt registration as a requirement for commenting.

While I disapprove of his tactics, I must say that I support his goals!

Posted by: cmdicely on March 17, 2006 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

Anonymous Passerby.... my delirium apparently made me forget a crucial part of the chain. Let me try again...

Sooner or later a document will be released indicating that the Iraqis learned they were dealing with the Afghans from the Afghans, who in turn learned it from the Iranians, who in turn learned it from the Americans, who in turn learned it from the Iraqis. Everything will tie together very neatly.

Yup... sounds much better. Thanks for your help in nailing down the loose ends. I'm going back to sleep, but maybe when I'm better I can figure out where Maxwell Smart fits into this and post my theories at Free Republic.

Posted by: cactus on March 17, 2006 at 5:04 PM | PERMALINK

Gregory has now adopted ad hominem attacks as his sole retort to plain facts, as all can see. What an idiot you remain!

hooray for irony!

Posted by: cleek on March 17, 2006 at 5:32 PM | PERMALINK

And the quantum delusion computer marches on.

Up next, a Troll proclaims "Because we had to hit them first!" 15 minutes before the the first missle is launched at Tehran.

The quantum delusion computer: sucking the real out of reality before it occurs!

Posted by: The Tim on March 17, 2006 at 5:42 PM | PERMALINK

Oh. My. Gosh. Worst. Drum. Line. Ever.

"Every single piece of intelligence ever made public by the Bush administration every single piece has been cherry picked for maximum partisan effectiveness."

Any proof of that, Kevster?
Oh, you don't? Then why did you write that?
Oh, you think it's okay to lie when you're advancing some partisan purpose? And that would be?
Oh, to discredit these documents before they've even been analyzed. And why would you want to do that?
Oh, because it would hurt your party's chances for big gains in the next election. But I thought you weren't a partisan? Aren't you the one who is always complaining about right wing partisans like Limbaugh and Hewitt?
Oh, this is different. And why is that?

Ridiculous.

As the very first poster commented, most of these things haven't even been translated, and yet somehow, as if by magic, the Admin has cherry-picked them. For partisan purposes.

I'm not sure if Kevin is psychic or psychotic, but I'm leaning towards the latter.

Just a little bit of proof would be helpful here, not just the rantings of a (seeming) formerly-intelligent, now off the deep end partisan hack.

Perhaps what the Bushies should have done would be to maintain the classified nature of the documents, and have some 'official' illegally pass them along to the NY Times. Then maybe Kevin would pay attention.

Posted by: sunbeltjerry on March 17, 2006 at 6:06 PM | PERMALINK

Every day is a new day and tomorrow is another day. So there is always the distinct possibility, nay, the likely likelyhood that the Bush administration has completely changed its character and developed a new competence overnight.
If Saddam did not have WMD and wasn't seeking pattycakes from Niger and the Iraquis weren't waiting and a'hopin, a'hopin' and a'waitin' for us with candy and flowers we wouldn't have invaded. Ergo, we go to Iraq!
So I'm confident those documents will prove the Shroud of Turin is hidden in a soup tureen.
Anyway, I'm not scared of Iraq anymore. I'm suddenly terrified of the terrorists from Iran.

Posted by: Mooser on March 17, 2006 at 7:30 PM | PERMALINK

"I think what such documents might reveal about Saddam's views on inspections, weapons programs, the potential for invasion, and other issues might be just as important as 'smoking guns' on WMD or terror connections."

Which only goes to show how desperate tbrosz is to justify Bush's excellent advuenture in Iraq (strange, really, because tbrosz isn't being asked to pay for it at all).

Not sure what you're driving at. We are facing a similar situation today with an Iranian leader, and if we don't want to make the same mistakes, diplomatic or military, learning more about the thinking process Saddam and other Iraqi leaders went through prior to the war would be very useful.

Not sure what you mean by "not paying for it."

Posted by: tbrosz on March 17, 2006 at 7:37 PM | PERMALINK

You're worried about the Pajamas Media cherry-picking their sources? For heaven's sake, we're going through the material precisely because we don't trust you to do the job. You ought to be worried, alright.

The Dallas Morning News (Mary Mapes husband works there as a reporter) refused to question their source on the infamously phony Dan Rather documents even though I hammered them for months about using Bill Burkett as a sole source long before Rather broke the story.

Not only that, but Wayne Slater, the reporter who was pushing Burkett as an unimpeachable source, is the co-author of the tinfoil-hat conspiracybook,Bushs Brain, that engaged in the wildest theories about Bush being a simpleton controlled by the brilliant yet evil Karl Rove. It was made into a movie but I wouldnt recommend renting it unless you feel like spewing up your last meal.

Posted by: Stingray on March 17, 2006 at 7:51 PM | PERMALINK

sunbeltjerry:

Perhaps what the Bushies should have done would be to maintain the classified nature of the documents, and have some 'official' illegally pass them along to the NY Times. Then maybe Kevin would pay attention.

Even that only works when the information is damaging to the President.

Posted by: Don P. on March 17, 2006 at 7:55 PM | PERMALINK

Not sure what you mean by "not paying for it."

Simple, tbrosz. You aren't serving in Iraq, your children aren't serving in Iraq, and the President you so stalwartly defend insists on paying for his excellent adventure in Iraq with a tax cut (not to mention continung to play budgetary tricks with his so-called "emergency appropriations).

So your constant cheerleading is less than impressive. You're like a loudmouth in a bar who watches games on TV but never buys tickets, never buys merchandise and doesn't even drink the brand of beer that endorses the team.

We are facing a similar situation today

No, we're facing a worse situation, facing two hostile nations with ongoing, actual nuclear programs, thanks to Bush's fecklessness.

with an Iranian leader, and if we don't want to make the same mistakes, diplomatic or military,

Unfortunately, with the Bush Republicans in charge, making the same mistakes is nigh-inevitable.

Glad to see you admit the war is a mistake and was led to with mistakes, though.

learning more about the thinking process Saddam and other Iraqi leaders went through prior to the war would be very useful.

Hate to break it to you, brosz, but Iran =/= Iraq. For example, Iraq appears to have an actual nuclear program, while Saddam only wished for one.

Perhaps there is some intelligence to be gleaned from the documents, but nothing short of the most blatant smoking gun -- the likelihood of which I find hard to imagine -- would constitute a post hoc justification for this mess.

But what's the diff to you, tbrosz? You get your wargasm for free. Goes to show why you can't trust Republicans with national security.

Posted by: Gregory on March 17, 2006 at 9:26 PM | PERMALINK

So the N. Koreans have nukes. When did they develop them? Why when good ole Bill was Pres., Dullbright was Sec. State and Jimmie was convinced in his heart the the NK's only wanted to produce power. Feckless? Bill is about as feckless as they come. You think Iran now wants to have discussions about Iraq becasue they feel they have a strong hand to play? They are playing for time and they know the time is running out. They've spent years before Bush became Pres. working on a nuke program, out of sight. In 6 months, with this new insane Pres. of theirs, they now see their country going before the Security Council.
Kevin says we should withhold judgement on these Iraqi papers because they aren't vetted and that if Bush is releasing them, they must have withheld ones that make him look bad.
Yet many here seem to think the Downing Street memos are perfectly valid, without holding them to the same standard as the Iraqi papers. They haven't been vetted. They are from an anonymous source. Very incocnsistant.

Posted by: Meatss on March 18, 2006 at 2:40 AM | PERMALINK

It's not cynicism when you're basing your skepticism on an unbroken record of lies. The administration has never been honest, not for one second and not about anything. There is no reason to believe a word George Bush says or anybody working for him. Assume the lie and you're a step closer to the truth.

Posted by: secularhuman on March 18, 2006 at 2:45 AM | PERMALINK

Sunbeltjerry: Since my assertion regarding Bush's inveterate dishonesty is along the same lines as Kevin's assertion that US intelligence has cherrypicked everything it has used to rationalize war, perhaps you could regale us with a single example of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld war rationale that turned out right. Then give us a single example of Bush administration policy that isn't based on evasions or outright whoppers or delusional opinion stated as fact.
It's easier to prove a positive than a negative, so have at it.

Posted by: secularhuman on March 18, 2006 at 3:00 AM | PERMALINK

Well for one secular there were that liitle thing called 17 UN resolution violations and the continued hostilities twoard British and Amercian spy planes in the no fly zones that was cited by Bush as cause for war, that was correct. Secondly, he stated that this would be a very long arduous task and a different kind of war, he's right again.

I love how the liberals are already preparing their defense for what may appear in the Saddam documents. Falling back on the old tired refrain, they're lying. They don't even know what's in the docs but their certainly a little rattled by it. I'll tell you this, if there are smoking guns in those docs, kiss '06 and '08 good bye.

Posted by: Jay on March 18, 2006 at 10:26 AM | PERMALINK

nice, try, jay.

The article 17 violations were a fine rationale for forcing Saddam to allow weapons inspectors in, not to justify invasion. The inspectors of course, were steadily revealing the obvious, that Saddam had no WMD, had no nuclear weapons program abnd were thus steadily dismantling the rationale for war. As that became clear, Bush abandoned any UN backing for the war whatsoever -- pretty much mooting the Article 17 rationale in the process --and preemptively started dropping bombs. Article 17 was never more than a pretext.
Declaring ``Mission Accomplished'' two months into the war pretty much tells you that not even Bush believed what he was saying when he talked about a long and arduous war in Iraq, don't you think? In fact, you might go back to those comments by Bush. I'm sure you will find that he was referring more generally to the war on terror and not specifically to Iraq.

Now, take a shot at any Bush Administration domestic policy.


Posted by: secularhuman on March 19, 2006 at 1:22 AM | PERMALINK

We must never forget, there *were* weapons of mass destruction in Iraq: Hughes helicopters equipped with spray nozzles and loaded with lethal "agricultural chemicals."

They were supplied to Iraq by Donald Rumsfld during the elder Bush's Administration and were used, as intended, against Iranian troops, in Iraq's war-of-proxy for the US against the Ayatollah. They were also used to brutal effect against Iraqi Kurds -- which should surely qualify both saddam and Rumsfeld for war-criminal charges.

Posted by: David Lloyd-Jones on March 20, 2006 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly