Dan wrote:
I did this out of order because I think this exchange fits perfectly well
with my hypothesis: GWB "knew" Hussein was behind the attack; just as he
"knew" that Hussein's WMD program was well advanced. I am not defending
his judgement; I think that his judgement in this case was horrible. If
he were pushing Clark to find evidence of links between Hussein and the
attacks of AQ before 9-11, then I think that there would be an arguement
for a pre-set plan to find enough evidence to stage a war against
Hussein. But, if it only happened after 9-11, and Bush's other rhetoric
indicated a massive change in attitude, then I think that it is
reasonable to accept
his statement that 9-11 changed everything. For him, it certainly seemed
to.
First, you're basing your "massive change in attitude" on statements made
about nation building in the heat of a political campaign and as we all
know, the sincerity of campaign utterances is by definition, suspect.
Second, if you dig deeper into the Clarke statements as well as
allegations made by Paul O'Niel, you _will_ find a greater interest in
Iraq than in Al Quaeda/Bin Laden prior to 911.
Third, immediately after 911 you not only have Bush telling Clarke to find
an Iraq connection you have Rumsfeld asking aids to come up with plans to
strike Iraq _despite_ being told that the terrorists were probably Al
Qaeda and not Iraqi.
Fourth, you have the PNAC stuff - the stated intention by several high
level members of the administration along with his brother t to project US
power across the globe. For instance, in a letter to Clinton in January
of '78 signed by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Bolton they wrote “The only
acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will
be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the
near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as
diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term it means removing Sadam
Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of
American foreign policy."
And finally you have the build up to invasion during which intelligence
was manipulated in a manner that promoted the justification for invasion.
So you have four data points that suggest that the invasion of Iraq was a
priority and one series of general campaign statements that suggest
otherwise.
It depends on what you mean by experts. The head of the CIA vetted
Bush's conclusions. Specialists and people closer to the working end of
intelligence (e.g. Curveball's handlers) had quite a few caveats that
Bush ignored/removed.
Did you read this link that I posted the other day?
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=248339
"...newly declassified information from the Defense Intelligence Agency
(DIA) from February 2002 shows that, at the same time the Administration
was making its case for attacking Iraq, the DIA did not trust or believe
the source of the Administration’s repeated assertions that Iraq had
provided al-Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training.
Additional newly declassified information from the DIA also undermines the
Administration’s broader claim that there were strong links between Saddam
Hussein and al-Qaeda."
"The CIA also had reservations about the source. The CIA’s unclassified
statement at the time was that the reporting was “credible,” a statement
the Administration used repeatedly. However, what was selectively omitted
was the CIA’s view at the time that the source was not in a position to
know whether any training had taken place."
"That DIA finding is stunningly different from repeated Administration
claims of a close relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda,” Levin said.
“Just imagine the impact if that DIA conclusion had been disclosed at the
time. It surely could have made a difference in the congressional vote
authorizing the war.”
One of the reasons I'm thinking that he was "correcting for the inherent
bias towards not making concluisons" is the fact that inteligence has
been> slow on pulling the trigger when they had information that, in
retrospect, pointed to what was happening.
Let me give three examples: the fall of the Berlin wall, the nuclear test
of India, the nuclear test of Pakistan. The CIA gave the president a
heads up on none of these. In every one of these cases, our intelligence
community had significant indications before the event, but didn't give
them enough weight.
Concurrent with the Iraq war, the intelligence community totally missed
Libia's advanced nuclear program. They were only a year or so away from
an A-bomb when the came in out of the cold.
So, Bush is conviced that the "experts" are too timid to make
conclusions. There is at least a bit of justification for this. I have
a friend who was with the CA just before that time and he said that the
lack of a heads-up
was more a matter of being timid than not having the signs. But, he did
a horrible job of responding to the perceived timid nature of the
intellegence apparatus. In his position, I'd ask various people to
assign weights to the various possibilities....making it safe to make an
honest
mistake....not deciding what the answer is beforehand.
In fact, he had his mind made up, and wasn't going to let the facts get in
the way.
I think it would take an unbelievable conspiracy theorist to believe that
GWB planned to fail from the beginning. I think he did the best _he_
could in Iraq. I accept Gautam's description of his administration as
severely
dysfunctional. The other explanation is that GWB is an evil genius.
Even if one thinks he is evil; I cannot imagine thinking he's a genius.
:-)
The problem with your analysis here is that you don't consider the
possibility that someone other than W is running the show. Ridiculous?
In fact, there is historical precedent. When Lincoln took office several
veteran politicians believed that they were going to control the president
and thereby, the country. The only thing that thwarted them was Lincoln's
strength and political savvy. They severely underestimated him.
There's no misunderestimating this president.
Given this, I see Bush as a truely tragic figure. He has the hubris of
the classically tragic figure. There is the tragic irony of his actions
having exactly the opposite effect of his intentions. He has destroyed
himself,
and harmed that which he holds most dear.
He had the responsibility to vet
the information before he uses it to incite a war. It might not be a
lie
on a technicality, but it was information that he knew was probably
wrong. Under the circumstances it was equivalent to lying, IMO and it
certianly had greater consequences than Clinton's lie or even Nixon's.
He did vet it; in a very poor manner. He did not meet his responsibility
as commander-in-chief. I don't argue with that at all. He should have
trusted his gut less and experts more; that's a fact. He should have
accepted that his vision can be wrong.
But, none of that is part of his makeup.
One of the reasons I see this distinction as worth arguing for is that I
see parallels with him on the left. The war was fought to steal Iraq's
oil. All that the US, and all the West, needs is for the oil to be sold
at market prices. I found it ironic that the Arabs believe that Bush
conspires to hold oil prices down, while many here are sure he conspires
to keep them up.
Look at Brin's arguments here. He claims that two generations of Bush's
are traitors at a level that makes Benedict Arnold look like Nathan Hale.
Both Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. were tools of Saudi Arabia, and governed the
US's foreign policy according to the orders they were given...the
American people be damned. Considering they come from old money New
England, it is hard to believe that they were doing it for money. With
that kinda money, one's legacy becomes more important than making
another few million. And, if you need money, you can always get a Texas
sweetheart deal....like a
piece of the Texas Rangers in exchange for helping to get a new ballpark
paid by the state.
I think that, if we are going to have anything close to a dialog in the
US on foreign policy, we need to accept as a general rule that people we
are
differing with are actually arguing for what they think is best for the
US and/or the world in general. I see the problem with neocons as being
unrealistic concerning the uncertainties in the world. I see those who
claim that US isolationism is the answer to every world problem as even
more misguided. But, I really think that both groups argue for what they
think is best.
I guess I see it as sad when both sides are arguing that the other side
is not only wrong, but has strong moral failures that are at the root of
their positions: We are for the people of the US; they are against them.
Here's the way I see it. The PNAC white paper is the charter for the
administration's foreign policy. Their goal was to project U.S. power
across the globe, especially where our vital interests lie. The Middle
East in particular. Bush may or may not have been party to this early on,
but other high ranking members of his administration clearly were.
Lets remember that prior to becoming governor of Texas, Bush was a
miserable failure at just about everything he tried his hand at. He is not
an intelligent man, but he is a likable one. An electable one with the
right people behind him. And a manipulatable one with the right people
pulling the strings.
I don't know what the strong moral failures of the Democrats might be (gay
marriage? blow jobs?), but the overwhelming moral failures of this
administration, including a predilection for torture of its enemies, the
abrogation of basic rights and the terrorizing of their own constituency
in order to promote a war are moral failures above and beyond anything
that the Democrats have suggested or accomplished.
What the administration doesn't understand is that the strength of this
country is (was?) not in its powerful military, but in its meme. As we
are coming to understand in Iraq, as we learned in Viet Nam, as indeed we
demonstrated in our own revolution, ideas can be more powerful than the
engines of war.
--
Doug
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
