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

September 5, 2006
By: Kevin Drum

DRAINING THE SWAMP....Fareed Zakaria almost gets it right here:

Washington has a long habit of painting its enemies 10 feet tall and crazy. During the cold war, many hawks argued that the Soviet Union could not be deterred because the Kremlin was evil and irrational. The great debate in the 1970s was between the CIA's wimpy estimate of Soviet military power and the neoconservatives' more nightmarish scenario. The reality turned out to be that even the CIA's lowest estimates of Soviet power were a gross exaggeration. During the 1990s, influential commentators and politicians most prominently the Cox Commission doubled the estimates of China's military spending, using largely bogus calculations. And then there was the case of Saddam Hussein's capabilities. Saddam, we were assured in 2003, had nuclear weapons and because he was a madman, he would use them.

It is not quite right to say that "Washington" has a habit of doing this. Zakaria should instead say that "hysterical Republican hawks" have a habit of doing this.

Accuracy is important in these matters. For the record, then: "Team B" was a creation of George H.W. Bush and included such members as Richard Pipes, Paul Wolfowitz, and Edward Teller. The Cox Commission was the brainchild of congressman Christopher Cox (RCalif.). And Saddam's nuclear bombs were the fantasy product of Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush, et. al.

This quibble aside, the column is very good. The fever swamp hysteria floating around right-wing circles has become increasingly desperate in recent weeks, and Zakaria does a good job of showing it up for the infantile yowling that it is. Democrats who want to be taken seriously on foreign policy could do worse than have it stapled to their foreheads.

Kevin Drum 1:53 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (90)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Worldwide threat of terror? No way. Nothing to see here. Move along, move along.....

Posted by: nikkolai on September 5, 2006 at 1:57 PM | PERMALINK

The Democrats thought that the Soviets were strongers than they were too. It was only Reagan's plan to outspend them that caused the system to collapse.

As for 'hysterical republican hawks', let's look at Iraq:

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

...

This is classic Democrat strategy: Retroactively blame all mistakes on republicans, even if they made the same mistake. Then, rather than focus on actually solving problems, bitch and moan. It's the strategy that swept Democrats to power in.... absolutely nothing.

Posted by: American Hawk on September 5, 2006 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Car mfgr's show us commercials of motorists stranded by extreme or emergency circumstances, using OnStar to contact an operator to get emergency help. You may have an emergency once over the 5 year lifespan of that car (or not), though you pay that fucking OnStar bill every month. On top of the fucking cell-phone bill, and triple-a membership.

Just like the marketing slime at car companies, these neocons are "selling" the idea of war. And folks with more money than sense are buying it. And the neocons are making assloads of money while hundreds of thousands of innocents die, and entire nations are bombed back to the stone age.

Good old fashioned capitalism.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 5, 2006 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Well, you know, fear is the mind killer.

Posted by: craigie on September 5, 2006 at 2:01 PM | PERMALINK

"...for the infantile yowling that it is."

something that manipulates fear in the general population to get them to go along with policies, invasions, etc. that result in thousands dead or maimed, billions of dollars wasted, to say nothing of the lost opportunity cost, should hardly be characterized as "infantile howling". It is deadly serious business more accurately characterized as murder, deceit, fraud, and crimes against humanity.
.

Posted by: pluege on September 5, 2006 at 2:06 PM | PERMALINK

nice quote A-hawk. i'm sure you won't mind if i provide the readers here with a link to the rest of the speech. they might be interested in reading the rest of it, which, contrary to your quote-mining, isn't as damning as you'd like it to be. (but you probably knew that)

this section represents Kerry's intent a bit better, IMO:
"In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize "yet." Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack."
-- John Kerry, Oct 9, 2002

Posted by: cleek on September 5, 2006 at 2:13 PM | PERMALINK

It is not quite right to say that "Washington" has a habit of doing this. Zakaria should instead say that "hysterical Republican hawks" have a habit of doing this.

Sometimes I think that your main intention in writing idiocies like that is to stimulate the discussion.

Reread the speeches by Democrats in support of invading Iraq. Recall the "missile gap" enunciated by candidate John Kerry. Remember why Johnson ordered the invasion of the Dominican Republic. Recall the Clinton/Allbright rhetoric in favor of sanctions on Iraq and the air attack on Yugoslavia. Now we have Democrats painting the Republicans as 10-foot tall villainous enemies.

Gross exaggeration of real (and sometimes imaginary) defects in enemies and opponents has a thoroughly bipartisan tradition; and a bipartisan present.

Posted by: republicrat on September 5, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

I generally like Fakaria, but this column is purile.

Iran can cause all sorts of trouble without being in the top 20 economies of the world. Why? because of nuclear weapons and asymmetric warfare. Look how difficult it is for us to defeat the Iraqi insurgents and al Qaeda. Now imagine a terrorist body with similar aims, but supported by nuclear weapons and Iran's oil money.

If a nuclear Iran decided to take over Kuwait or wipe out Israel or de-stabilize Iraq, it would be very difficult to stop them. I doubt that the free countries would muster the will to do so. Surely the UN would be useless.

Incidentally, it's not true that Washington (or pubbies) have consistently overvalued foreign threats. Some examples:

-- JFK was quite right about the threat of Castro. Castor has done a great deal of harm during his tenure.

-- We were too optimistic about Saddam in the late 1980's and early 90's. We didn't see that a war would soon be necessary to drive him out of Kuwait.

-- We were too optimistic about al Qaeda before 9/11. Obviously.

-- We were much too optimistic about Hitler and Imperial Japan in the 1930's.

-- Recently we were too optimistic about Lebanon. The neo-cons were particularly overly optimistic. We focused on the election but didn't see the threat of Hezbollah.

Posted by: ex-liberal on September 5, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Hawk nails Al!

Anyone brown is WORSE THAN HITLER!

HITLER HITLER HITLER!

Dems just want us all to die!

Posted by: Freedom Phukher on September 5, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

oops: Recall the "missile gap" enunciated by candidate John Kerry

candidate John Kennedy

Posted by: republicrat on September 5, 2006 at 2:18 PM | PERMALINK

Saddam, we were assured in 2003, had nuclear weapons and because he was a madman, he would use them.

It was Clinton appointee Tenet who assured us that Saddan would get them (not "had them") and Clinton who assured us that he would use them: "I guarantee it," he said.

Posted by: republicrat on September 5, 2006 at 2:20 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk: "... Then, rather than focus on actually solving problems, bitch and moan. ..."

Right. Far better that Democrats adopt a position of moral superiority and demonize gays and lesbians, discriminate against persons of color, and intervene in private matters of the Schiavo family.

As far as Iraq is concerned, it is the responsibility of the president and his administration to be truthful with both Congress and the American people about matters of national security.

Further, the vast majority of the American people and their elected officials -- myself included -- were inclined in 9/11's aftermath to give the administration the benefit of the doubt on such matters.

However, with his rhetoric about "Iraq [possessing] unmanned aerial vehicles" and "We can't wait for the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" (07 October 2006, Cincinnati, OH), this president was most emphatically not honest and forthright in his hysterical characterization of the nature of the threat posed by Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

And, given the clear preponderence of evidence that more than amply supports Kevin's contention, neither are you.

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on September 5, 2006 at 2:21 PM | PERMALINK

How could you leave out slime bag war profiteer richard perle

Posted by: cleve on September 5, 2006 at 2:29 PM | PERMALINK

American Hawk, when you get tired of repeating the lie that Reagan single-handedly toppled the USSR, you may want to look up "George Kennan" on Wikipedia.

Then again, knowing the facts may just depress you.

Posted by: Bobarino on September 5, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

If we are not all about to die from scary brown people, does the modern GOP even have anything to say to the electorate? I think not.

Posted by: craigie on September 5, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

If a nuclear Iran decided to take over Kuwait or wipe out Israel or de-stabilize Iraq, it would be very difficult to stop them. Posted by: ex-liberal on September 5, 2006 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

. . . unless one had over 1000 MIRV-equipped ICBM's. Then, I reckon, it would be a very simple matter to stop Iran. So. . . who has such an arsenal?

-- JFK was quite right about the threat of Castro. Castor has done a great deal of harm during his tenure.

Yeah, that bastard and his economic sanctions have completely bankrupted and kept the cuban people poor and destitute for almost two generations now! Damn that dangerous Castro and his knee-jerk craven sanctions!

-- We were too optimistic about Saddam in the late 1980's and early 90's. We didn't see that a war would soon be necessary to drive him out of Kuwait.

Yeah, especially when Bush's diplomat told Saddam that it would be okay to invade Kuwait.

-- We were too optimistic about al Qaeda before 9/11. Obviously.

Who's "we" white man?
My "black president" tried to kill bin Laden. Your "whore president" said "I don't know where he is, and I honestly am not all that concerned about him."

-- We were much too optimistic about Hitler and Imperial Japan in the 1930's.

Prescott Bush was anyway. He was counting on Hitler making him a fortune in Europe. Then those pesky "supporting the enemy" regulations got in the way of him simply using the "free market".

-- Recently we were too optimistic about Lebanon. The neo-cons were particularly overly optimistic. We focused on the election but didn't see the threat of Hezbollah.

What threat? Wouldn't have been a threat if Israel had the army it had in 1967. They've been so busy training their troops for occupation, they're incapable of sustaining an invasion anymore.
If you run war like a business, people who fight war like a war gain a tremendous advantage.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 5, 2006 at 2:31 PM | PERMALINK

, does the modern GOP even have anything to say to the electorate? I think not.

Tax cuts.

Teh gay.

Come on, people, help me here....

Posted by: Davis X. Machina on September 5, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat: "It was Clinton appointee Tenet who assured us that Saddan would get [weapons of mass destruction] (not "had them") and Clinton who assured us that he would use them: 'I guarantee it,' he said."

But Saddam didn't have them. Further, the intelligence that claimed otherwise came from extraordinarily questionable sources such as the alcoholic "Curveball", of whom the German inteeligence network warned us about, and Ahmed Chalabi, who later turned out to be an Iranian agent.

And President Clinton wasn't in office when the decision was made to invade Iraq. According to former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, he'd only been out of office a couple of days. This was all the current occupant's doing.

End of discussion.

,, and were

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on September 5, 2006 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK

just so's you know I don't always defend the President or Republicans generally, here is more about a truly serious mistake by McCain and Bush:

http://www.examiner.com/a-256840%7EEditorial__McCain_Feingold_was_a_mistake.html

It is illegal to hurt the incumbents' feelings.

Posted by: republicrat on September 5, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

"republican't" wants to let big money completely control the political process. Big surprise that.

But we're talking about your buddy Bush's desire to start another major war based on exaggerations and outright lies here. Go troll your offtopic bullshit somehwere else.

Posted by: brewmn on September 5, 2006 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Donald from Hawaii: But Saddam didn't have them.

I'd recommend that you reread Kevin's post. He claims that one party has the monopoly on exaggerations. The quote that he cites attributes exaggeration to Washington, but Kevin says it's really only right-wing Republicans. Those two examples from the quote that he cites support the idea that it is indeed Washington, not merely Republicans.

Posted by: republicrat on September 5, 2006 at 2:42 PM | PERMALINK

So the fuck what if Dems believed Saddam had WMD's too?

They didn't fucking invade the goddamned country.


W made that fucking decision asshole.

Posted by: angryspittle on September 5, 2006 at 2:43 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin wrote: Zakaria should instead say that "hysterical Republican hawks" have a habit of doing this.

No, Zakaria -- and you -- should tell the truth, which is that career war profiteers have a habit of doing this. In particular, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who were the key men behind the Ford administration's "Team B" that hyped the bogus "Soviet Super-WMD" scare.

Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power
by Thom Hartmann
December 7, 2004
CommonDreams.org

Excerpt:

[...] Richard Nixon, following in the steps of his mentor and former boss Dwight D. Eisenhower, believed it was possible to end the Cold War and eliminate fear from the national psyche. The nation need no longer be afraid of communism or the Soviet Union. Nixon worked out a truce with the Soviets, meeting their demands for safety as well as the US needs for security, and then announced to Americans that they need no longer be afraid.

[...]

But Nixon left amid scandal and Ford came in, and Ford's Secretary of Defense (Donald Rumsfeld) and Chief of Staff (Dick Cheney) believed it was intolerable that Americans might no longer be bound by fear. Without fear, how could Americans be manipulated?

Rumsfeld and Cheney began a concerted effort - first secretly and then openly - to undermine Nixon's treaty for peace and to rebuild the state of fear and, thus, reinstate the Cold War.

And these two men - 1974 Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Ford Chief of Staff Dick Cheney - did this by claiming that the Soviets had secret weapons of mass destruction that the president didn't know about, that the CIA didn't know about, that nobody but them knew about. And, they said, because of those weapons, the US must redirect billions of dollars away from domestic programs and instead give the money to defense contractors for whom these two men would one day work.

[...]

The CIA strongly disagreed, calling Rumsfeld's position a "complete fiction" and pointing out that the Soviet Union was disintegrating from within, could barely afford to feed their own people, and would collapse within a decade or two if simply left alone.

But Rumsfeld and Cheney wanted Americans to believe there was something nefarious going on, something we should be very afraid of. To this end, they convinced President Ford to appoint a commission including their old friend Paul Wolfowitz to prove that the Soviets were up to no good [...] Wolfowitz's group, known as "Team B," came to the conclusion that the Soviets had developed several terrifying new weapons of mass destruction, featuring a nuclear-armed submarine fleet that used a sonar system that didn't depend on sound and was, thus, undetectable with our current technology.

[...]

Although Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld's assertions of powerful new Soviet WMDs were unproven - they said the lack of proof proved that undetectable weapons existed - they nonetheless used their charges to push for dramatic escalations in military spending to selected defense contractors, a process that continued through the Reagan administration.

But, trillions of dollars and years later, it was proven that they had been wrong all along, and the CIA had been right. Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Wolfowitz lied to America in the 1970s about Soviet WMDs.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 5, 2006 at 2:45 PM | PERMALINK

The fever swamp hysteria floating around right-wing circles has become increasingly desperate in recent weeks, and Zakaria does a good job of showing it up for the infantile yowling that it is.

"Infantile yowling." Heh. Indeed.

Democrats who want to be taken seriously on foreign policy could do worse than have it stapled to their foreheads.

More to the point, it illustrates why there's really no reason at all to take the Republicans seriously on foreign policy. A fact to which the electorate is largely awakening.

Man, I just love the GOP's decades-long branding effort being torpedoed by the incompetence of the Bush/Cheney regime. Americans won't trust the Republicans on national security for a generation. And what's best is, the infantile yowling of the fever swamp -- desperate to be taken seriously -- will help ensure that the GOP will remain in the wilderness for years to come.

Posted by: Gregory on September 5, 2006 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

Overestimating the strength of the enemy is no vice. In fact it brings your the glory of victory in elections.

There is no virtue in not doing what it takes to win the elections.


Sadly the Demcrats think otherwise.

Posted by: gregor on September 5, 2006 at 2:49 PM | PERMALINK

Republicrat;

I agree with the content of that article.

I belive there SHOULD be 100% transparency in campaign funding. And I think that it should also be 100% completely unregulated with regard to amounts. (I also believe that there should be no limit at all on what % of over the air broadcast can be commercial-time).

With the current system, there is the illusion that we're protected from "big money" influence by caps. When that's just not true - dirty money finds it's way under the table, into the pants of men with power.

If the spending were completely unrestricted, this would do two things:
1. People would *know* that the system is rigged, and decide to tune-out the ads, or just unplug their goddamn TV's once and for all.
2. Folks who now have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to get their message out will now have to spend tens of billions. And the rest of us will be better off when that money is no longer in their hands, used for other evil purposes.

People believe that just because all us caged rats live in a cage, that we're safe. Those caged rats will still bugger, kill, and eat eachother. Particularly the unwary.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 5, 2006 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

Get off the slinging of insults and listen to momma: it's greed and infantilism which fuels the warriors. Hawks exist in both parties -- they're just more dangerous in the Republican party because that side sleeps with the biggest enemies: corporatism, religious fanatics, and the defense industry.

What we need is an America of sober grown-ups, not morally underdeveloped conservative think-tankers supported by greedy industrialists who play with wind-up-toy Republican political leaders. There will always be jihadists of one kind of another, the worst right now being the ones in the White House and their followers. An editorialist the other day in the Guardian wrote this:

"The pre-emptors are every bit as dangerous as the terrorists because they both react to and feed off each other's fantasies of total victory."

Amen.

Posted by: PW on September 5, 2006 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

He claims that one party has the monopoly on exaggerations.

no he doesn't. he didn't say anything like this at all.

Posted by: cleek on September 5, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

So, if the goal of a Terrorist is to manipulate people with fear - what does that make Cheney and Rumsfeld?

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 5, 2006 at 2:56 PM | PERMALINK

I notice that Kevin has been using the phrase "fever swamp" a lot lately. What's up with that?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 5, 2006 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

no he doesn't. he didn't say anything like this at all.

Now, now, cleek, if the Bush apologists didn't have straw man arguments, they wouldn't have anything at all. Oh, wait...

Posted by: Gregory on September 5, 2006 at 2:58 PM | PERMALINK

Although I agree with Mr. Drum in the current context, it is mostly Republicans who exagerate the potential dangers of supposed enemies, it should be pointed out Democrats have played the American people as blood thirsty mass murderers, also. JF Kennedy started the 'missile gap' fear mongering of the 1960 presidential campaign to paint Nixon as soft on defense. I would wager that if I were to read some of the early speeches of Rep. Murtha, they would paint whomever the supposed enemy of the time was as a monster which justified funding some huge defense spending boondogle. The Viet Nam War was largely a Democratic Administration and Congressional crime. The rhetoric those Democratic politicians used to justify killing millions of Vietnamese was not based on anything less hysterical than what Republicans are using now.

Politicians, regardless of their ideological affiliation, use the emotion of fear to their advantage because it works well, not because of any partisan membership. Demagoguery informs us more about the electorate than it does about the leadership.

Posted by: Hostile on September 5, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

just so's you know I don't always defend the President or Republicans generally, here is more about a truly serious mistake by McCain and Bush:Posted by: republicrat on September 5, 2006 at 2:38 PM | PERMALINK

. . . and I just *LOVE* how this was one of Bush's first bill-signings, and how he showed his Bold Leadership by saying: (paraphrased)

This bill is unconstitutional, but I'll sign it anyway, in hopes that the Supreme Court will throw it out.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020327.html

Way to show America that you're against those evil "Activist Judges", George.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 5, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

> Reagan's plan ...

Somewhat older than that. You should read
Containment and Change (1967)

Start here, for background:
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKoglesby.htm

Posted by: hank on September 5, 2006 at 3:01 PM | PERMALINK

The most amazing thing about GW Bush is the DESPERATION that he has to get a purpose in life. He has no idea what to do with the presidency. His solution: Become FDR.

Posted by: POed Lib on September 5, 2006 at 3:14 PM | PERMALINK

at one point, weren't the nimrod wingnut assholes that are in-charge of the US government and their little-dick, bed-wetter arm-chair rambo sycophants crowing about "draining the swamp" via their illegal, unnecessary invasion of Iraq? Better call roto-rooter dickheads, because your effluent is overflowing.
.

Posted by: justfred on September 5, 2006 at 3:18 PM | PERMALINK

Could that minor surgery Rummer had be a signal that he wants Uncle Sam to pay before he steps down shortly? Real managers don't get elective surgery during a good fight.

Posted by: Hedley Lamarr on September 5, 2006 at 3:32 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, mischaracterizing the subject of a sentence - and thus the culpability for disaster - is not "quibbling".

The major proponents of the Iraq War lied about the threat that Iraq posed, are lying about Iran right now. And yes, got the Soviet Union wrong too. Granted it was good to label the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" but it was a complete waste to design and build counter-weapons against weapons the Soviets didn't even have. Weapons that only existed in the neo-cons fevered imaginations.

I'd give Zakaria more of a break - but he was one of the proponents of this mess. And he's a repeat offender.

And yes, Kennedy lied about the missile gap - and Ike was right. And LBJ lied about the Gulf of Tonkin. But that was 40 years ago. Right now it's important to ID the idiots who advocate our present foreign policy - and that's the neo-cons and the enabling "liberal hawks".

So, the subject of the sentence is important. And Zakaria's continued weasel wording remains telling. He's smart - but he's a fool. Let's not forget that.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on September 5, 2006 at 3:42 PM | PERMALINK

But for the radical crowd that currently rules the GOP, hysteria and fear are a programmatic way of governance. This is not just cynical manipulation but the conservative worldview translated into politics. For the radicals there is never peace, only endless threats and struggles for survival.

Hysteria, fear, and insecurity necessitate the Cheney administrations monarchical unitary executive. It is required to protect the people from the dangers of a threatening world. But this administration is just the return of Nixonism.

The corruption, contempt for the rule of law, the enemies lists, the vicious political attacks and the consolidation of power and crude plutocracy are characteristics of the Republican Party that contrast markedly with the sunny outlook of the founding fathers. Modern Republicanism is, in fact, an unvarnished critique of our liberal Enlightenment traditions.

Posted by: bellumregio on September 5, 2006 at 3:46 PM | PERMALINK

hysterical Republican hawks????

and what does that make Kenneth Pollack? A hysterical Republican hawk? I don't think he was a Republican. The Clinton's are still for this war in Iraq too and Clinton pushed for war in Iraq, pre-emptive war and WMD too.

Posted by: cheryl on September 5, 2006 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Do a Google on "Committee for the Present Danger (CPD)" and "The Power of Nightmares" and do some reading and listening. Better yet, if you have broadband, do a Google on "Daily Kos Power of Nightmares" and download and watch all three episodes from the BBC television series.

You will never buy the neocon's cock and bull story about how dangerous al-Qaeda is ever again - GUARANTEED!

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 5, 2006 at 4:01 PM | PERMALINK

"The fever swamp hysteria floating around right-wing circles has become increasingly desperate in recent weeks..."

Well, Washington IS a swamp, you know...luckily, some rainfall in the past week might break the fever of some folks as the heat passes.

This one's for Craigie -
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

Posted by: ajw93 on September 5, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

You *almost* get it here, Kevin.

Washington as a whole did have exaggerated estimates for the USSR, China, and Iraq. It was certain ideologues who took those estimates and argued they were evidence of underestimation. Based on that, they argued the evidence called for action.

Most folks, Democrat or Republican, did believe Saddam had an arsenal of chemical or biological weapons before 2003. (You're right that not everyone agreed about nuclear, and I think even most invasion advocates were only arguing that Saddam was pursuing those weapons, not that he already had them. I might be wrong though.)

The mis-informed consensus played a role in media coverage and legislative action during the run-up to the war. Most opponents of the action didn't claim Saddam was weapons-free, they just claimed the evidence didn't compel action, when the opportunity cost of action was ignoring larger, more immediate threats.

That subtlety (sp?) gets lost in the post-war discussion of who screwed up, both on Foxnews and the Washington Monthly's comment section.

Posted by: Alex Parker on September 5, 2006 at 4:04 PM | PERMALINK

The Republicans'infantile yowling is all part of their plan for Endless War.

Posted by: CT on September 5, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat: He claims that one party has the monopoly on exaggerations.
...
cleek: no he doesn't. he didn't say anything like this at all.

Kevin Drum: It is not quite right to say that "Washington" has a habit of doing this. Zakaria should instead say that "hysterical Republican hawks" have a habit of doing this.

Posted by: republicrat on September 5, 2006 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

Zakaria should instead say that "hysterical Republican hawks" have a habit of doing this.

Not only did he not quite get it right, he missed a very obvious thread of history. Shouldn't it be pointed out that Team B consisted of some of the exact same individuals that got us into Iraq by exaggerating Iraq's weapons??

This should be pointed out over and over. Some of the Bush people have been shooting off their mouths for decades and getting it wrong.

When Reagan was running for President, these same guys were telling me that the Soviet (Eastern) Bloc far outstripped the NATO (the West), not only in termrs of superior nuclear weapons, but in the number of nuclear weapons; not only in terms of superior conventional weapons (e.g., tanks), but in numbers of tanks (100 times more!).

You really have to shake your head that anybody listens to them.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on September 5, 2006 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

That subtlety (sp?) gets lost in the post-war discussion of who screwed up

you know what really gets lost? the fact that they had absolutely zero physical evidence that Saddam had anything like the amount of WMD or WMD capability that all those clowns were claiming.

the inspectors were there, and weren't finding anything. all CheneyCo had to do was tell the inspectors where to look, and that would've sealed the deal for many of the pro-evidence crowd. the fact that they couldn't show any physical evidence meant that i, for one, never believed that Saddam had any WMDs at all.

Posted by: cleek on September 5, 2006 at 4:11 PM | PERMALINK

republicrat, explain to us all how what you quoted means anything at all like what you say it means. go ahead, see if you can explain how "X has a habit, Y" means anything like "X has a monopoly on Y".

Posted by: cleek on September 5, 2006 at 4:14 PM | PERMALINK

mhr: we're talking about the gross exaggeration of Soviet power in the years following WWII, you know, the gross errors of people like Wolfowitz.

Posted by: little ole jim from red country on September 5, 2006 at 4:19 PM | PERMALINK

kill that strawman, mhr. kill it good!

Posted by: cleek on September 5, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force

"Use of force" does not equate to a full scale invasion and massive nationbuilding excercise.


Posted by: Stephen on September 5, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

Read a similar analysis that chronicles Dick Cheney's involvement with Team B and how he has carried those principles forward into what is now called the "neocon" agenda...here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Posted by: Daniel DiRito on September 5, 2006 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

mhr: The USSR keeled over in 1991 thanks largely to the policies of Ronald Reagan.

That's 100% pure bullshit -- it's a load of grotesquely ignorant and/or deliberately dishonest crap, no matter how many times dumbass brownshirt Reagan-idolators like you say it.

The truth is that of all US presidents from FDR on, Ronald Reagan probably had the least to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union.

For that matter, Frank Zappa had more to do with bringing down the Soviet Union than Ronald Reagan did.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 5, 2006 at 4:30 PM | PERMALINK

Mr. Cheney, Mr. Rumsfeld, have you EVER been right?

Thanks much,
The Public

Posted by: ckelly on September 5, 2006 at 4:32 PM | PERMALINK

Modern Democrats are more concerned with the civil rights of terror arrestees. . . . If the idea of atom bombs in the hands of tyrants in North Korea and Iran isn't considered dangerous by the left then they are more laid back than I thought they were. mhr

What the heck are you talking about? Identify the alleged "modern Democrats" and just which Democrats don't consider atom bombs in the hands of the N.Koreans or Iranians dangerous. I think you are listening too closely to the Rove talking points.

All Americans who care about freedom are concerned with procedural due process for all detained. You should be too. There is a reason, but that reason has to do with the rule of law and the desire to make sure the people we have are actually "terrorists." Caring about the Constitution is not a Democratic position. It is an American position.

The question is not whether a abomb in the hands of any unstable state is dangerous, it is. The question is what do you do about it. Right now there are at least three states with abombs that scare the living crap out of me. North Korea, Pakistan and India. The India and Pakistan have had several shooting outbreaks in the last 2 decades. That they have bombs is really, really scary. North Korea has a bomb, but it is scary mostly because it seems willing to sell the bomb to the highest bidder. Scary.

So far I have not seen Bush threaten to attack any of the three. The administration is using deplomacy to neutralize the threat.

Iran seems interested in obtaining a bomb. Well that is scary too, but we don't have the military to pull off an invasion and a preemptive bombing would most likely piss the Iranians off.

Posted by: Ron Byers on September 5, 2006 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

It's true that "hysterical Republican hawks" are the worst offenders, and all Zacharia's examples are Republican. However, this monograph [warning: PDF file] from the Army War College Strategic Studies Institute notes that except for Ford (who wasn't around long) every president from Truman through Reagan invoked the Munich analogy against Communist countries, while GHW Bush invoked it against Saddam, and Clinton invoked it against Milosevic. It also explains why Hitler was a threat unlike any since; shows that the "appeasement" of the 1930s was an all but inevitable product of that time and its circumstances; and contends that "invocations of the Munich analogy have more often than not been misleading." Quite interesting, although long (49 pages, plus footnotes.)

Posted by: penalcolony on September 5, 2006 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

This one's for Craigie -
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.

I thought orgasms were the "little death". Oh no, can't process orgasms and GOP at same time! Arggh! Brain melting...

Posted by: craigie on September 5, 2006 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

MHR touches one sad truth: how much the Democratic party forgets Harry Truman. You know that hack politician who was dumped into the White House when FDR died - without ever being briefed on the bomb.

But remember what he did:
1) Recognized and reacted to the Soviet threat based on facts, not hysteria. Established containment - the strategy that ended up winning the cold War.
2) Gave his backing to the Marshall Plan - which set up the world for years of peace and prosperity. (And let Marshall put his name on it.)
3) Proposed univeral health insurance in the US - which the Republicans shot down.
4) Fired a general, MacArthus for publicly bucking his authority and advocating nuking another country.

Truman showed populists and liberals that you show you're tough, not by swaggering around in uniform, but actually making tough calls. By making the hard choices, and taking the heat.

I'd take that legacy over JFK any day.

Posted by: Samuel Knight on September 5, 2006 at 5:02 PM | PERMALINK

In 1976 Emmanuel Todd published his prophetic book predicting the break up of the Russian empire called The final fall: An essay on the decomposition of the Soviet sphere.

From his review of Russian statistics on alcoholism, infant mortality, crime and commerce he concluded the Soviet Union was decaying from within. At the same time hawks like Dick Cheney and the neocons were sounding the alarm about the dire threat of the Soviet Union. Todd even dismissed the Warsaw Pact as a relevant military force and regarded the oppression of the New Class as a sign of decline and not of strength. By the time Reagan got the the White House decomposition was already well under way. The build up of military arms and the drop in oil prices in the 1980s only hastened the end.

Sadly, he now makes the same predictions for the United States.

But I love mhr all the same. He could save time if he just typed POWER=AMERICA=REPUBLICANS=ME over and over again.

Posted by: bellumregio on September 5, 2006 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Byers wrote to mhr: What the heck are you talking about?

mhr isn't "talking about" anything. mhr is robotically reciting scripted talking points. He neither knows nor cares whether anything he says is true. He thinks what the right-wing extremist propaganda machine tells him to think, and he says what the right-wing extremist propaganda machine tells him to say. He's a good little obedient neo-brownshirt mental slave.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 5, 2006 at 5:22 PM | PERMALINK

bellumregio: The build up of military arms and the drop in oil prices in the 1980s only hastened the end.

And, very importantly, the Soviet war in Afghanistan, which was a direct result of CIA interventions in Afghanistan ordered by Jimmy Carter.

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention [...] We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would [...] The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire."

-- Zbigniew Brzezinski, January 1998

The whole "Reagan single-handedly defeated the Soviet Union" myth is a bunch of horse shit, manufactured by the right-wing extremist propaganda machine.

But weak-minded, ignorant, gullible neo-brownshirt dupes like mhr must have their superheroes to worship, the facts be damned.

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 5, 2006 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

I wish that Fareed Zakaria had not buried one oft-overlooked fact at the end of his article: more than 40 percent of Iranians live below the poverty line. Does anyone else ever think that the dismal living conditions in Iran (and in many other countries) create conditions in which an ill-informed public supports and encourages policies that are not in its interest? According to the Borgen Project, $19 billion would eliminate starvation and malnutrition not just in Iran, but globally (as opposed to the $420 billion U.S. defense budget in 2006). If Iranians had a decent standard of living they would be more likely to see that Ahmadinejad's policies are contrary to their interests and actively oppose them.

Posted by: Maureen206 on September 5, 2006 at 5:56 PM | PERMALINK

Maureen206 wrote: Does anyone else ever think that the dismal living conditions in Iran (and in many other countries) create conditions in which an ill-informed public supports and encourages policies that are not in its interest? [...] If Iranians had a decent standard of living they would be more likely to see that Ahmadinejad's policies are contrary to their interests and actively oppose them.

By Iranian standards, most Americans have a "decent standard of living."

And yet in the USA as well, "an ill-informed public supports and encourages policies that are not in its interest" and a significant portion of the US electorate fails "to see that [Bush's] policies are contrary to their interests and actively oppose them."

What's up with that?

Posted by: SecularAnimist on September 5, 2006 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

It is not quite right to say that "Washington" has a habit of doing this. Zakaria should instead say that "hysterical Republican hawks" have a habit of doing this.

well, if Democrats have the same habit, then it is quite right to say that "Washington" has a habit of doing this, but Kevin says that is not quite right. If others in Washington do not share the habit, as Kevin asserts, then the "hysterical Republican hawks" have a monopoly on it.

Posted by: republicrat on September 5, 2006 at 6:15 PM | PERMALINK

Doesn't AH get tired of being a douche? Must be hard work, runnin' around, douchin' it up.

Posted by: The Tim on September 5, 2006 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

kill that strawman, mhr. kill it good!
Posted by: cleek on September 5, 2006 at 4:22 PM | PERMALINK

Although I think everyone would probably be much better off if instead, mhr (and his ilk) would just go to Burning Man and drop some acid. The world would be a better place.

Posted by: Osama_Been_Forgotten on September 5, 2006 at 6:48 PM | PERMALINK

republican, the Republicans have consistently overestimated the threats. Republicans have consistently argued that more money needed to be spent on munitions. For all that you and the rest of the Bush Defender Syndrome afflicted have tried to spin Clinton's involvement the sad fact remains that it took a Republican to hype these things into an unprovoked war of aggression.

Posted by: heavy on September 5, 2006 at 7:19 PM | PERMALINK

The cold war was PLANNED to end, 1994 at Potsdam. The Russians jumped the gun and quit early. Regan had absolutely nothing to do with it. Russia did not surrender but simply allowed the reunification of the worlds number one menace, Germany.

The confusion felt by Americans at this time comes from the same psychology that said we won the cold war. They see wars as a children's game like cops and robbers except real bullets are used. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

All wars are ideological challenges, a threat of one ideology to destroy all others. That's what the Muslims are saying. Their ideology will be the only one on earth when they are finished with this war that has been going on ever since Muhammad had his divine vision.

America is in no frame of mind to win the war on terror. We must change our own ideology first. Are we ready to do that? http://www.hoax-buster.ord will give you a look at yourself.

Posted by: BG on September 5, 2006 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK

As I occasionally say, once the Republican Party went the direction of "Freedom Fries," I knew that I should never take it or its adherents seriously on foreign policy ever again.

Too mean, too petty, too stupid.

Posted by: Kimmitt on September 5, 2006 at 7:32 PM | PERMALINK

Ronald Reagan couldn't control his own bowel movements, let alone the Soviet Union. By the time the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, he was sitting in shit-filled diapers, drooling on himself.

Posted by: A Cynic's Cynic on September 5, 2006 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

We are used to political ideologies that are always in some necessary way pragmatic, that are mostly economic or mostly political so when Americans encounter a political ideology that is theocratic or has any large religious element it seems hardly explicable. Our history voided religious ideology with The Glorious Revolution and enshrined that victory in the US Constitution.

And with so much populistic palaver about freedom of religion an ideology like Islam that is expressly theocratic seems in many ways to have blindsided the US and most of the West.

Posted by: cld on September 5, 2006 at 8:04 PM | PERMALINK

This Republican administration has grossly exaggerated threats (internal and external)- certainly something that democrats have done occassionally as well. I think that the difference is three-fold: 1)intent (malicious, profiteering, electioneering; 2) execution- relentless beating of the drums of war with no respect for the rule of law or reasoned debate; and, 3)the absolute abdication of the US Congress in carrying out its Constitutional obligations of oversight.

The short answer, as usual, is that this administration's only goal is to hold the Congress through the mid-terms. They will lie, cheat and steal to do it.

Posted by: Out on Bond on September 5, 2006 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

gee, if the clown ronnie ray-gun caused the collapse of the USSR, I guess that means Al Gore really did invent the internets.

WOW, being a wingnut in wingnut world is great - you can make up any fucking thing you feel like inspite of reality.
.

Posted by: weeeeeeeeeeee on September 5, 2006 at 8:35 PM | PERMALINK

mhr, Samuel Knight,

You should be happy to know that Harry S Truman has been treated very well by history and much better than JFK. Harry had to make a great many incredibly difficult decisions with absolutely no preparation from FDR and got all of the big ones correct. He is rated in the top 10 and has been as high as 6th.

JFK was often rated very high but that was due to a combination of martyrdom and just bad polling. Arthur Schlesinger Jr ran a poll of historians that he inherited from his father and continued. However Jr was deeply partisan and besides working for JFK wrote an unbelievably biased biography of JFK that was influencial for a period. Both his writings and his poll have been discredited.

The WSJ took up the task by asking the Heritage Foundation to form a panel of 'experts' on Presidential Hiitory and politics who would then select a list of the top historians, political scientists, constitutional lawyers, representing a cross-section of political beliefs. This panel puts together to poll, sends out the questionaires and then tabulates the results.

In one of the Schlesinger polls JFK was as high as 4. That's absurd. Since that time a lot more has been discovered about JFKs Presidency (the family still controls many Presidential papers) and it's not all positive. In the WSJ/heritage polls I think JFK was 18th and it seems likely he'll continue to fall especially as Academic Historians emotionally invested in JFK start to die off. To his credit Art is as aggressive as ever in his support and he's well into his 90's.

I don't think JFK gets an honest assessment until those who were alive during his Presidency are out of the pool. He won't stay in the top 25. Truman gets better with age.

Posted by: rdw on September 5, 2006 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINK

ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Did you see how I put the "Heritage Foundation" next to "panel of experts?" As if the hacks at the Heritage Foundation were somehow disinterested source rather than a training ground for right-wing wackos. Sometimes I do so amuse myself.

Posted by: rdw on September 5, 2006 at 9:32 PM | PERMALINK

Has Pakistan surrendered?

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Press_secretary_to_president_of_Pakistan_0905.html

Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan, press secretary to the president of Pakistan, tells ABC News that -- if found -- Osama bin Laden won't be arrested, as long as he promises to behave like a "peaceful citizen."

Posted by: cld on September 5, 2006 at 9:38 PM | PERMALINK

calesitas textiles http://ingegrafica.com.ar

Posted by: ingegrafica on September 5, 2006 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

He is rated in the top 10 and has been as high as 6th.

So is he on History's all-time Dream Team of Superfriend Prezidentz?

Where do you get your "history" from? The NFL Official Encyclopedia?

What a buffoon.

Posted by: brooksfoe on September 5, 2006 at 10:06 PM | PERMALINK

The Committee for the Present Danger predated Team B and saw its second incarnation in the 1980s. In fact, Ronald Reagan was admitted as a CPD member in 1979 (scroll down) and other right-wing luminaries who were members of CPD include such familiar names as Richard Mellon-Scaife and Richard Perle. These right-wing, paranoid fascists played a large role in the massive military build-up that institutionalized gross overspending on weapons systems that are useless and dont work anyway, like SDI. You can thank much of the same crew for overexaggerating the threat to American society posed by 19 men armed with utility knives that has cost us $350 billion and counting

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on September 5, 2006 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

情色电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 激情写真 阴部图片 乳房图片 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱图片 美女脱衣视频 裸体女人 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴毛图片 美女图库 美女口交图片 性爱视频 偷拍图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福电影 人体摄影 裸女图片 乱伦图片 强暴电影 轮奸视频 迷奸图片 乳房写真 性爱小说 美眉写真 激情贴图 两性性生活 作爱电影 性交图片 做爱图片 美女人体 美女裸照 全裸女 黄色小说 成人小说 强暴图片 轮奸美女 泳装图片 激情电影 联通铃声下载联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片下载 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人图片 人体写真 女性手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道阴毛 美女图库 肛交口交图片 性爱贴图 情趣内衣图片 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 性福联盟 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 妓女做爱 汤加丽写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书 手机图片 手机铃音 图铃下载 手机游戏 韩国电影 两性知识 最新电影 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 性爱图片 十八电影网 美腿图片 强奸小电影 美女祼体图片 美女写真 性感美女图片 做爱图片 美少女图片 日本av电影 明星裸照 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 两性生活 性教育片 激情电影 免费黄色电影 成人性爱电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费小电影 免费电影在线观看 免费影片 最新大片 免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影

Posted by: 联通铃声下载 on September 5, 2006 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK
Truman ...and got all of the big ones correctPosted by: rdw on September 5, 2006 at 9:17 PM |
I sure you agree with the seizure of the Steel industry and probably the Korean War which became hugely unpopular. I'm also sure you would agree with his very progressive agenda that he called The Fair Deal

The range and breadth of Truman's "Fair Deal" proposals stretched from increased welfare, slum clearance, increasing Social Security benefits, unemployment relief, and a national healthcare plan.

That's an agenda that any Republican can get behind. Yeah, right.

Posted by: Mike on September 5, 2006 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Oooga Booga!

There. R U Terrorized yet?

Posted by: Joey on September 5, 2006 at 11:32 PM | PERMALINK

Reagan did not win the Cold War. It was over by 1965. We put a wall around Cuba, they put a wall around Berlin, and both sides removed the leadership that almost started a war in the early 60's. Reagan was a pussycat militarily. He took no significant action and was obviously unnerved by causalities. Witness his lame pull out from Lebanon, and his inability to free American hostages. And his comic invasion of Lilliput aka Grenada. But, Reagan did one good thing, because he believed in redemption, because his foreign policy abhorred aggression, he put the USSR on the spot. Though we still acted like nuclear war could come at any time, the Russians realized, the game was long past over, they wearied of their imperial burden, and knew that the US would not attack them while they reorganized. Ridiculous claims by Reagan hagiographers, it was Reagan's humanity not foolish defense expenditures that allowed for the USSR's collapse.

Posted by: Tom on September 6, 2006 at 7:46 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin, Hysterics should not call other people hysterical.

Your almost endorsement of Zakaria's obtuse piece advertises your own cognitive disabilities.
Poor Zakaria confuses The USSR's economic weakness with their strategic weaponry. The fact that an ICBM can cause a big, very big boom is not to be related to people in Moscow waiting in line for toilet paper. The economic instability is the part that was in particular misunderstood, much less so the long reach of the Soviet nuclear arm.

As you agree with that piece of flagrant stupidity I conclude that you and Zakaria, for want of a better phrase, think alike.

Much more could be added but I've already wasted too much time and you may use the example cited as one indicator of what might charitably be called denseness.

Posted by: Johnt on September 6, 2006 at 9:28 AM | PERMALINK


rdw: You should be happy to know that Harry S Truman has been treated very well by history and much better than JFK.

Bush Tops List As U.S. Voters Name Worst President In 61 Years

- Quinnipiac University National Poll 6/1/06

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 6, 2006 at 9:42 AM | PERMALINK

"Saddam, we were assured in 2003, had nuclear weapons and because he was a madman, he would use them."

While of course the White House massively exaggerated the nuclear threat posed by Saddam, I don't think they ever said he had nukes.

Posted by: Ginger Yellow on September 6, 2006 at 10:55 AM | PERMALINK


"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Cheney 8/26/2002


"We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." -- Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC 3/16/2003

no doubt...

in fact...

cheney implied that...for sure...


Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 6, 2006 at 11:52 AM | PERMALINK


"I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11." - Cheney 10/05/04


(remember that mohammed atta was the leader of the 9-11 attack....)


.


Dick Cheney, on CNBC's Capitol Report 6/17/04:


BORGER: Well, let's get to Mohammad Atta for a minute, because you mentioned him as well. You have said in the past that it was, quote, "pretty well confirmed."

CHENEY: No, I never said that.

BORGER: OK.

CHENEY: Never said that.

BORGER: I think that is...

CHENEY: Absolutely not. What I said was the Czech intelligence service reported after 9/11 that Atta had been in Prague on April 9th of 2001, where he allegedly met with an Iraqi intelligence official. We have never been able to confirm that nor have we been able to knock it down.

From the White House web site, Cheney's appearance on Meet the Press, December 9, 2001:

RUSSERT: Do you still believe there is no evidence that Iraq was involved in September 11?

CHENEY: Well, what we now have that's developed since you and I last talked, Tim, of course, was that report that's been....

pretty well confirmed,

that he did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.

Posted by: thisspaceavailable on September 6, 2006 at 3:05 PM | PERMALINK

Zakaria has it right. Washington does has a habit of doing this. It's a matter of degree. Maybe Republicans make there enemies look like "enemy "10 feet talland crazy". With Democracts it's only : "9 feet talland crazy". Remember Kennedy and the missile gap?

Posted by: ivan on September 7, 2006 at 8:02 AM | PERMALINK

Both party's are into fear mongering, and fact free debate.

http://broadsunlituplands.wordpress.com/

Posted by: Tom on September 7, 2006 at 11:54 AM | 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