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

May 29, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

THE CIA AND THE WAR....Jonathan Schwarz has been reading The Italian Letter by Peter Eiser and Knut Royce and finds himself amazed. "I really can't understand why this hasn't gotten some attention," he says via email. In particular, he's amazed at this passage about Alan Foley, the head of the CIA's Weapons Intelligence Non-Proliferation and Arms Control Center (WINPAC), which led the CIA's analysis of Iraqi WMD:

One day in December 2002, Foley called his senior production managers to his office. He had a clear message for the men and women who controlled the output of the center's analysts: "If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so." The directive was not quite an order to cook the books, but it was a strong suggestion that cherry-picking and slanting not only would be tolerated, but might even be rewarded.

Click the link for more. Apparently this passage has been verified by a couple of other sources, and Jonathan has the cites. Foley, unsurprisingly, has declined to be interviewed about this. Maybe someone in Congress should take an interest in asking him a little more forcefully?

Kevin Drum 1:30 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (48)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Yes, it looks suspicious, but someone could say he just meant for them to find actual intelligence as best they could, that would support doing that (as one would instruct an attorney etc. for a lawsuit.)
?
PS, whatever happened to some of those obscure points made by Colin Powell at the UN, like the transcripts of the Iraqis talking about "nerve agents" etc?

Posted by: Neil B. on May 29, 2007 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINK

December 2002 .. that would have been a little while after the rushed NIE of October 2002 had already been cooked up and passed around.

So in addition to asking Foley about this directive to his staff, maybe Congress can ask him why he and his team were so late to the party.

Posted by: Model 62 on May 29, 2007 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINK

I'm trying to figure out why this is "news".

Posted by: Mark-NC on May 29, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

It relies on private insurance companies, presumably because everyone is convinced nothing can be passed if we piss off insurance companies. There's some kind of play-or-pay tax on businesses: either provide insurance for your employees or else pay into a central fund.

All such plans are by definition a fraud.

Period.

(Reasons:

1) Insurance industry will oppose it anyway
2) Small business will oppose it.
3) There is no connedtion between employment status - on the one hand - and health care on the other.
)

Posted by: Thinker on May 29, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

this just in :

No WMD Found In Iraq!
Bush and Cheney expected to resign by end of month!

Posted by: cleek on May 29, 2007 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

I also find the idea that intelligence has production managers a little hinky...

Posted by: Gregory on May 29, 2007 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Neil B.'s point was the first thing that struck me as well about that passage. Without more context the story doesn't support the cook-the-books theory any more than the find-out-all-you-can theory. Does the larger context lean one way or the other, or is this a case where what you see is what you're inclined to see?

Posted by: editer on May 29, 2007 at 2:04 PM | PERMALINK

I bet that pesky Valerie Plame mighta been a hindrance to those plans.

Just sayin'...

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on May 29, 2007 at 2:10 PM | PERMALINK

Neil, edit, you are both being insincerely generous.

"If the President wants to go to war..."

"..it's up to us to give him a reason."

More than sufficient to surmise the intention.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on May 29, 2007 at 2:15 PM | PERMALINK

I just don't see this as being anything but more of the same. Lie, cheat, steal, they've done it all.

Posted by: Jim Martin on May 29, 2007 at 2:17 PM | PERMALINK

I can't really see any way of reading this as a legitimate directive to intelligence analysts. It's one thing to hire a lawyer to cherry-pick evidence so as to give you the strongest possible case -- in an adversarial legal system, that's a lawyer's job. An intelligence analyst's job is to come up with a balanced, objective assessment of all the evidence he can lay his hands on. Different business.

Posted by: SqueakyRat on May 29, 2007 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Some people have even suggested that Saddam Hussein didn't attack us on 9/11, which would call into question our prosecution of the War on Terror.

Posted by: qwerty on May 29, 2007 at 2:33 PM | PERMALINK
"The directive was not quite an order to cook the books, but it was a strong suggestion that cherry-picking and slanting not only would be tolerated, but might even be rewarded."

Big deal.

Posted by: Michael Kinsley on May 29, 2007 at 2:34 PM | PERMALINK

This supposed scenario wouldn't explain why in 1998 both Bill and Hillary Clinton said the Saddam had WMDs.

Posted by: ex-liberal on May 29, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

Ah, Kevin.

In the immortal words of Samantha Faye Slaughter:

"Anbar province has fallen to us, and the insurgents can no longer find safe haven there. Baghdad is rapidly coming under control. Skirmishes are loud but limited, exactly what you'd expect success to look like. The Sunni have been stripped away from the insurgency and are ready to deal. Benchmarks will likely not be met, but what's important is that all players have a seat at the table. Violence will continue past September, but it will be small and criminalized, nothing near a Civil War situation. 2008 promises to see a major lunge toward stability."

Posted by: egbert on May 29, 2007 at 2:44 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: This supposed scenario wouldn't explain why in 1998 both Bill and Hillary Clinton said the Saddam had WMDs.

Asked and answered, "ex-liberal." Rip that one up.

Posted by: Gregory on May 29, 2007 at 2:53 PM | PERMALINK

...or, shorter "ex-liberal": I got nuthin'...

Posted by: Gregory on May 29, 2007 at 2:55 PM | PERMALINK

Samantha Faye Slaughter

Again I ask, who the hell is this? A google search of her name indicates she only exists in egbert's fever-swamp of what resembles a brain closely enough that he keeps breathing...

That yellow streak down your back shows through your summer whites, coward.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on May 29, 2007 at 2:57 PM | PERMALINK

editer on May 29, 2007 at 2:04 PM:

Does the larger context lean one way or the other, or is this a case where what you see is what you're inclined to see?

You might consider reading the post that Kev linked to for the 'larger context.'

Sheesh.

Posted by: grape_crush on May 29, 2007 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Big deal.

More like big fuck-up.

Clicking the link in Kevin's post:

...within a few months [after the September 11 attacks], for many [at the CIA] the morale once again began to drop through the floor as they began getting pressure to come up with Saddam Hussein's fingerprints on 9/11 and Al Qaeda...
...At one point in January 2003, the person's boss called a meeting and gave them their marching orders. "And he said, 'You know what—if Bush wants to go to war, it's your job to give him a reason to do so'... He said it at the weekly office meeting. And I just remember saying, 'This is something that the American public, if they ever knew, would be outraged'...He said it to about fifty people.
What makes this news is the ongoing stonewalling from the Bush WH over congressional oversight into the administration's misuse of pre-war intel. Check the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform for these items and the corresponding letters:
Friday, May 04, 2007 -- Committee Seeks Niger Documents and Testimony and Instructs State Department Not to Impede Probe -- Chairman Waxman sent a letter to Secretary of State Rice (1) informing the Secretary that the legislative affairs officials in the Department should not hinder the Committee’s inquiry into why Secretary Rice and President Bush cited forged evidence to build a case for war against Iraq; (2) advising the Secretary that the Committee will depose a nuclear weapons analyst at the State Department; and (3) requesting relevant documents. Letters were also sent to the CIA, the White House, and the Department of Defense requesting relevant documents.
Friday, May 18, 2007 -- White House Responds to Chairman Waxman's May 4th Letter Regarding Pre-War Intelligence -- White House Counsel Fred Fielding responds to Chairman Waxman's May 4, 2007 letter regarding pre-war intelligence and claims that Iraq attempted to obtain nuclear material.
Fielding basically told Waxman to fuck off to which the congressman replied:
Wednesday, May 23, 2007 -- Chairman Waxman Responds to White House Counsel Fred Fielding's May 18 Letter -- In a letter to White House Counsel Fred Fielding, Chairman Waxman explains that, as the principal oversight body of the House of Representatives, it is the Committee’s constitutional obligation to investigate the role played by the White House and National Security Council in the false and misleading intelligence that precipitated the war in Iraq.
In the meantime, Repub shitweasels --Bond, Hatch, and Burr-- attack Valerie and Joe with a new version of the same old shit:
This stunt by Bond, Hatch, and Burr is the latest installment of the right wing’s ongoing character assassination of Joe and Valerie Wilson. This time, Senators Kit Bond, Orrin Hatch and Richard Burr--a minority of the minority of the SSCI—ineptly carry the administration’s slop jar and, in the process of trying to dirty up the Wilsons, dump the shit jar on themselves....
...This time they hope their renewed attack on the Wilsons will divert public attention from the devastating substance of the SSCI report. For once most of the sane media did not take the bait or chase this particular shiny object.
Carrying the "administration’s slop jar" aptly describes the rhetoric of Bush's rubber stamps and the conservatard tools who post here. I speculate the media didn't take the bait due to the pending Wilson lawsuit. Bond, Hatch, and Burr, however, are too dumb (or besotted) to keep their lies to themselves. Heh.

Former CIA analyst Larry Johnson reminds us why this matters:

It is important that we not forget the lies of George Bush and Dick Cheney.  Americans are dying in Iraq in a war of choice based on lies. 
Based on lies. Also worth repeating is ITMFA.

Posted by: Apollo 13 on May 29, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

I will perform a public service and correct Mr. Egbert. I believe he means to quote Samantha Power.

Here is an example of her fine reasoning:


How to Stop Genocide in Iraq
Samantha Power
Los Angeles Times
March 5, 2007

Those who support remaining in Iraq increasingly can be heard invoking the specter of genocide as grounds for staying. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) warned that, if U.S. troops leave, "You'll see a bloodletting in Baghdad that makes Srebrenica look like a Sunday school picnic."
Some defenders of President Bush's approach, having backed the Iraq war from the start, have now settled on genocide warnings after each of their original justifications for being in Iraq — weapons of mass destruction, terrorism prevention, energy diversification, regional stabilization and democracy promotion — has crumbled one by one.

Do you want genocide in Iraq? Of course not. Therefore, you liberals must support the Commander in Chief. Otherwise, you're all a party to freewheeling slaughter.

Posted by: Norman Rogers on May 29, 2007 at 3:40 PM | PERMALINK

wishIwuz2:

I don't want to give GWB or Foley much credit, my point was narrowly defined: What Foley said doesn't clearly look like an instruction to slant intelligence as far as recharacterizing "maybes" into "surelys." Of course there is "selective attention" implied in there, which is bad enough - but that is a different process than distorting those points which do end up being used. I agree that what he said is not the way responsible administrators talk.

Posted by: Neil B. on May 29, 2007 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

Norman Rogers on May 29, 2007 at 3:40 PM:

..Otherwise, you're all a party to freewheeling slaughter.

Oh Normie, you are so easy, to the point that I think it's intentional. From Power's LA Times Op-Ed piece you cited:

Although critics of withdrawal do a masterful job of painting a grim picture of the apocalypse that awaits, they offer no account of how U.S. forces in Iraq will do more than preserve a status quo that is already deteriorating into wholesale ethnic cleansing. Although more than 115,000 U.S. troops have been in Iraq for the last four years, about 3.8 million Iraqis have fled their homes and at least 50,000 Iraqis are fleeing each month. It would be nice to think the surge of troops to Baghdad would help to staunch the flow. But with only one-third of the new troops on duty at any given time in a city of 6 million people, they will have no more success deterring the militias intent on carving out homogeneous Shiite or Sunni neighborhoods than U.S. forces have had to date..
...we must announce our intention to depart and use the intervening months to prioritize civilian protection by pursuing a bold set of measures combining political pressure, humanitarian relocation and judicial deterrence.

Holding the Iraqi people (or the troops, or our kids) hostage to Dubya's ego doesn't quite work the way it used to, Normie.

Posted by: grape_crush on May 29, 2007 at 3:55 PM | PERMALINK

Neil B. on May 29, 2007 at 3:45 PM:

What Foley said doesn't clearly look like an instruction to slant intelligence as far as recharacterizing "maybes" into "surelys."

Hmm. You would think that the phrase, "If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so" would indicate that their job was not to find intelligence that refuted the case for going to war...

...By defining a thing, you can also define what it is not.

Posted by: grape_crush on May 29, 2007 at 4:08 PM | PERMALINK

This stuff all happened 4 1/2 years ago. Which means the consequences for getting intelligence right or wrong came through about 4 years ago.

From what I've heard, those who said, eg, that the infamous tubes could only be nuclear got promotions & laurels. dissenters got the boot, even after it turned out they were right.

This just fills in a missing step in a story we already had plenty of. There's no way to look at the whole thing and not see it as rotten from start to now (no end is in sight)

Posted by: Downpuppy on May 29, 2007 at 4:13 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, do we have to put up with egbert posting his ah, irrelevancies? He doesn't even read the post before the shit comes plopping out of him.

At least ex-lib thinks he contributing something (and the fact that he gets it sort of correct 2 percent of the time, which makes him a solid citizen compared to rest of the trolls. But eggy isn't even right (in the head) twice a day.

Posted by: Kenji on May 29, 2007 at 4:20 PM | PERMALINK

So why is it our nobody is getting killed where are troops aren't. If these people wanted to do mass killing just go where are troops are not.Just saying.

Posted by: john john on May 29, 2007 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

grape_crush: Good point. A proper job is to collect all the data, pro and con. So it was a slant, and not appropriate. It's just that selection gives different results than distortion of particular facts, but the boundry isn't that sharp anyway due to how some data triangulates others. BTW, there is clear evidence anyway that true distortion occured, with maybes indeed turned into probablys etc.

Note in any case, I said/queried, "someone could say...." which is standard code that deniability exists on the face of it, not that I really sympathize. A statement like Foley's indeed does not come from an honest broker and servant of the US and the Peoplen (which is what he is supposed to be; after all such officers take oaths to defend and support the US Constitution, not the President etc.)

Posted by: Neil B. on May 29, 2007 at 4:41 PM | PERMALINK

argg%$#^%%$ nix the (Our).

Posted by: john john on May 29, 2007 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

PS, I saw Al Gore yesterday evening on Charlie Rose, talking about his new book The Assault on Reason. Wow, did he sound good, well-presented, and intelligent (in contrast….) . If enough people write to ask, maybe he’ll run again… just a suggestion. In particular, he said intel experts told him directly that those infamous aluminum tubes were not candidates for likely nuclear program, based on specific technical facts - but we heard they were anyway, what does that tell us? I think that is more damning than the suggestions by Foley etc.

BTW I read over an interview with GWB in Red Herring #73 (! heh) in 1999. He sounded rather articulate and even quasi-reasonable, compared to now. I have heard from credible quarters noting the same contrasts; maybe W had a sort of mini-Cerebro-VA or etc, that messed him up just enough to make for/enhance those syntax errors and lapses in judgment (still not excusing strategic choices like picking the Machiavellian pseudo-genius Karl Rove for advisor and his basic outlook.) Any scoop from anyone?

Posted by: Neil B. on May 29, 2007 at 4:46 PM | PERMALINK

I continue to be astonished at the complacency of the American people and their lack of outrage over a president lying us into a war that should never have been fought and that their grandchildren will be paying for.

I also continue to be disgusted and outraged at the cowardice of the Democratic Party in failing to hold this criminal accountable for his lies and missteps.

We need a viable third party in this country, if we are to survive as a democratic republic.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on May 29, 2007 at 4:47 PM | PERMALINK
...Do you want genocide in Iraq...Norman Rogers at 3:40 PM
Bush has labelled 200,000+ dead in Dafur a genocide, yet he's killed 500,000+ in Iraq and it's cool with you. You and your itty biddy buddy Bush are heroes of the Reich!

Come on, ex-lax, repeating the same old discredited talking point? Whatever they pay you, it's too much.

Posted by: Mike on May 29, 2007 at 4:48 PM | PERMALINK

"If the president wants to go to war, our job is to find the intelligence to allow him to do so."

This statement by a CIA employee seems to equate patriotism with helping the president achieve his goals. The statement is much closer to treason than patriotism.

Posted by: Brojo on May 29, 2007 at 5:30 PM | PERMALINK

Come on, ex-lax, repeating the same old discredited talking point?

Now, Mike, if "ex-liberal" couldn't repeat the same old discredited talking point, he/she/it coudln't post here at all!

Oh, wait...

Posted by: Gregory on May 29, 2007 at 5:34 PM | PERMALINK

NeilB,

I'm with you on the deniability of the statement's intent. Just clear enough to get the message thru; just vague enough to offer cover.

Whether by design (likely) or by accident (always a possibility in Bush's Washington), it has been a trademark process characteristic throughout this Admin.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on May 29, 2007 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

Sad, innit?

Josh Marshall had a piece ready for 60 Minutes in late 2003 that got bumped by the now notorious Dan Rather bit with the forged ANG memos. Had it aired, it may not have had the negative impact on the Bush campaign that was felt by the Kerry campaign's "liberal" guilt by association. But it might have been enough of a difference so that GOP couldn't steal Ohio.

Then again that three Rethug candidates can state that they do not accept the science of evolution and not be publicly ridiculed as idiots, better coverage of the "Italian job" may not have made any difference.

We are truly a ridiculous people.

Posted by: JeffII on May 29, 2007 at 6:11 PM | PERMALINK

I am watching the news and a reporter says Bush was right when he said last Thursday that our troop deaths in Iraq would increase, observing there are 114 now in May.
Is Bush some kind of genius now predicting this?

This crowd doesn't want to govern the nation--they do not know how. That has been proven.
He wants to be the war president. And more than willing to deceive the public to be one.
Outgoing State Department terror coordinator, Henry Crumpton once said: "Certainly we haven't made any progress. In fact, we've lost ground"--citing Iraq as a factor and the war fueling resentment against the U.S.
Probably why he was "outgoing."

Posted by: consider wisely on May 29, 2007 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

That yellow streak down your back shows through your summer whites, coward. Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.)

Down his back or down his inseam?

Posted by: JeffII on May 29, 2007 at 6:19 PM | PERMALINK

Egbert starts each post with the dismissive "Ah, Kevin."
I would venture a guess that he has interpersonal problems in real life.
Disclaimers turn people off.

Posted by: consider wisely on May 29, 2007 at 6:30 PM | PERMALINK

Squeakyrat: "I can't really see any way of reading this as a legitimate directive to intelligence analysts. It's one thing to hire a lawyer to cherry-pick evidence so as to give you the strongest possible case -- in an adversarial legal system, that's a lawyer's job."

Even as instructions to a lawyer this is out of line. Frivolous lawsuits are improper even in an adversarial system.

It's our job to see if the case can be made? OK.

It's our job to make the case, regardless of what the evidence is? Not so much.

Posted by: Emma Anne on May 29, 2007 at 6:50 PM | PERMALINK

OT, but while there are real problems with Japan's "culture of shame," sometimes ya just wish . . .

Embattled farm minister kills himself at residence

Farm minister Toshikatsu Matsuoka, embroiled in a political funds scandal, committed suicide Monday at his residence in Tokyo's Akasaka district.

Matsuoka, 62, a former agriculture ministry official elected to the Lower House from Kumamoto Prefecture, had been under severe pressure by opposition lawmakers to resign over the irregular accounting practices of his political fund management body.

He was slated to attend a Diet session later in the day that was to look into bid-rigging allegations involving the farm ministry and related donations to bodies he was involved with.

His death could deal a further blow to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who had strongly defended him, and Abe's government in the runup to the House of Councilors election in July. (You're doing a heck of job Matsuoka-kun!)

Matsuoka was found unconscious in his residence at around 12:18 p.m. and was rushed to Keio University Hospital, Chief Cabinet Secretary Yasuhisa Shiozaki told a hastily arranged news conference.

He was pronounced dead at 2 p.m., Shiozaki said.
Several suicide notes were found on his desk, police said.

Matsuoka had hanged himself with a rope in his 11th-floor unit in the House of Representatives official residential quarters, according to his secretary and a security police officer who found him, police sources said. (continues)

The Japan Times: Tuesday, May 29, 2007
(C) All rights reserved


Posted by: JeffII on May 29, 2007 at 6:56 PM | PERMALINK

Good reporting, Jeff.
We have a culture of shame and guilt as well, and it tends to affect those with mental health issues.

Posted by: consider wisely on May 29, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Just to reinforce.

The CIA is not in the job of advocacy. Their r�le is defined by Congress and their home page is here, descriptors of job included. Their primary work is intelligence gathering, interpretation and colation, passing the information and deductions, as accurate as possible, to the President, and then some limited action abilities.

No where does it say that the CIA is a political arm of the presidents policies. Seems like they should give honest advice. Like the military, right?

Christ! What a sorry mess!

Even if they were into advocacy, supression of honest evidence, exculpatory or otherwise, would be dereliction. (Oh! There's that word again.)

Foley definitely misadvised his staff.

And all the pressures, whether on the Pentagon or intelligence, to fabricate a case lead back to...? Bush and Cheney. Period.

Not going to happen, but impeach is the need.

All the blood on their hands.

Posted by: notthere on May 29, 2007 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

OT, but while there are real problems with Japan's "culture of shame," sometimes ya just wish . . .

That's fine, but personally I'm digging China's new-found way of dealing with public corruption.

Posted by: Disputo on May 29, 2007 at 7:40 PM | PERMALINK

We have a culture of shame and guilt as well, and it tends to affect those with mental health issues.

I dunno, consider wisely; our friendly neighborhood Bush apologists (I'm looking at you, "ex-liberal", Marler, et al) seem to be immune to shame and guilt.

Posted by: Gregory on May 30, 2007 at 7:55 AM | PERMALINK

Shame and guilt - Different cultures have different methods of dealing with disgrace - As noted above in regards to Japan. However, in DC, the top level merely calls for that supurb masonry firm of De Nile and Sons, to build a higher stonewall.

Posted by: thethirdPaul on May 30, 2007 at 9:32 AM | PERMALINK

Even if we (Iraqis) had Nuclear weapons, who gave you and the Jews the occupiers the of Palestine ....etc the right to have them and others not to have them?

Why none of your Engineers has questioned how are we (Iraqis) going to deliver these weapons to you? Surely in the future if we have them, we will be able to engineer the rockets to bomb your countries. But who said you would not join the Human race, by then?

As far as the on going genocide in Iraq and for those of you who are faithful human beings the solution is not that difficult and it is as follows, no matter how you look at it the people who ruled Iraq before the invasion are far fairer than the current traitors and the Iranian dogs under your protection in the walled "Green Zone". There are around 140 thousand left of those faithful Iraqis; 40 thousands in prisons and 100 thousands sitting at home. You first orders the Iranians and pro Iranians troops "officials" to leave Iraq, even if momentary. Block the borders particularly with Iran by your current troops. Arm the faithful Iraqis with their weapons, these are Russian made, we do not want your weapons and you will have no presence in Iraq after the liberation even your "embassy and the British and Iranians will be closed". Those faithful Iraqis will take over, any criminal who committed crimes from the factions which are now controlling Iraq surrender to our original army and police. They will be tried later with any other criminal. Your forces including all of the mercenaries will leave.Marshal law will be declared by these nationalist forces and the political leadership arranges for elections in two years or so. You pay for war damage. There is an umbrella group by Mr Alkalise and most Iraqis appreciate it.

Do not dream we will allow your companies to steal our oil. Do not dream of Iraq will be divided. Do not dream Iraq will be other than Islamic and Arabic country.

Posted by: jaafar on May 30, 2007 at 3:24 PM | PERMALINK

Even if we (Iraqis) had Nuclear weapons, who gave you and the Jews the occupiers the of Palestine ....etc the right to have them and others not to have them?

A legitimate question

Why none of your Engineers has questioned how are we (Iraqis) going to deliver these weapons to you?

Actually, intelligent people were asking these questions in the run up to the invasion. However, like most of the world, most of the people in the U.S. aren't all that thoughtful.

Surely in the future if we have them, we will be able to engineer the rockets to bomb your countries.

A threat of someday attacking the U.S. with an ICBM is pretty pointless. Sure, you might be able to sneak one in, but then you can be assured, the morality of it notwithstanding, that our second strike would turn Iraq into a glassy parking lot. That's not meant as a belligerent threat but a statement of fact, pretty much regardless of who was president.

Restraint on the part of the U.S. is what has kept us from using our nuclear arsenal to date (though the use of it has certainly be advocated a number of times over the last 50 years or so). And the doctrine of MAD is what today keeps even lesser "powers" like Pakistan and India from attacking one another, just as it kept the U.S. and the Soviet Union from attacking one another all through the Cold War.

But who said you would not join the Human race, by then?

We're already part of the human race. Just as scum like bin Ladin, much of the Saudi Royal family, the members of Hamas and Hezabollah are all members of the human race. Being human (or Muslim) does not mean that one is by default thoughtful and/or non-violent.

Do not dream we will allow your companies to steal our oil. Do not dream of Iraq will be divided. Do not dream Iraq will be other than Islamic and Arabic country. Posted by: jaafar

There is no such thing as Iraq. It's a country made up by the British. If you Sunnis and Shia want to beat the shit out of each other (it's not Vietnam all over again, but rather Northern Ireland), have at it. The Kurds can pretty much take care of themselves.

Thanks for posting. But you need to save this kind of vitriol for the idiots at web sites like Little Green Footballs. Stay around for a while, and you'll see that except for the right wing nut jobs that troll here, 99.9% of the posters on PA want the U.S. not only out of Iraq but the ME in general.

Posted by: JeffII on May 30, 2007 at 5:49 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