:: The Boys Weekend Journal ::

Editorial: Hating Us For Our Freedom

Now as the dust settles in Iraq, and the occupation plans are being drawn up, the US finds itself with a perplexing problem. The task of rebuilding Iraq and installing a stable democratic government is not a small one. This is not a nation that is ready for democracy. The political environment has been decimated by decades of brutal one-party rule. The economy has been ravaged by 12 years of severe sanctions. The bureaucracy has just been purged by the US. To rebuild properly will require a significant deployment of manpower and material resources over a period of years. And it will require the US to provide strong leadership and guidance to the fledgling Iraqi government. If the US abandons Iraq and the nation collapses into chaos and civil war, the US will take the blame for this.

On the other hand, as a force that unilaterally occupied a sovereign nation without legal justification and at the protest of most of the international community, the US will be expected to quit the country as soon as possible. Already the US is regarded as a colonial occupier by many in the region. Various European nations are requesting that the US turn complete control of the situation over to the UN. The US presence in Iraq is considered illegitimate and the longer they remain, the more strongly the occupation will be condemned. And so Ari Fleischer will whine endlessly to reporters, "You see! We're damned if we do, we're damned if we don't. We can't stay and we can't leave."

The problem is, this situation was easily foreseeable. It did not arrive out of thin air. When the US decided it did not need it multilateral support for this action, it decided that legitimacy was not important to them. And in doing so put at risk the ability of the US to effectively rebuild Iraq. It was the administration that put itself in this position. But the White House will no doubt spin this situation into just one more demonstration of the rampant anti-Americanism that has taken over the rest of the world. One can only wonder whether this will be an act of clever manipulation or one of paranoid delusion...

:: Joe 3:18 PM [+] ::
...

Response to: Hating Us For Our Freedom

In partial response to and partial support of Joe's entry, the Bush administration knew full well what it was getting us into. And I suspect they think it is going very well, given all the scenarios envisioned pre-war. It's just the price to pay to make the 21st the "New American Century." And this won't stop at Baghdad. Now, it's on to Syria.

:: Barry 6:51 PM [+] ::
...

Article: There's No Business Like Show Business

This article, which oddly was on BBC last night, but was pulled by this morning, and has now reappeared on The Guardian discusses the selling of the Jessica Lynch story. The most interesting part is where they mention that the idea of embedded reporters came from discussions with the evilest man in Hollywood, Jerry Bruckheimer. I should have known it... I wonder if this story was too racy for the BBC.

:: Joe 2:45 PM [+] ::
...

Article: Bush administration pressed intelligence agencies for dirt to support the war

This article appeared on BBC's website yesterday and was featured on last night's BBC World News, contending that the Bush administration (Rumsfeld in particular) became irritated with the CIA because of disagreements over whether there were sufficient links between Saddam and al-Qaeda (the picture of Rumsfeld is very Hitler-esque). The BBC article cites the New York Times as breaking the story. You can find the New York Times article here.

:: Barry 9:27 AM [+] ::
...

Follow-up article: Democrats Question Whether Bush 'Hyped' Iraq Threat

Hmm. Do I sense that the fit is about to hit the shan for Bush's House of Cards?

:: Barry 2:05 PM [+] ::
...

Article: US Plans to Send 20,000 More Troops to Iraq; and at the same time, Congress Hacks Taxes with a Machete

Wake Up CNN, NYTimes, and the Rest of the Slacker American Media!

We find ourselves in a pitiful state of domestic affairs when we who search for truth must find it in the foreign media. Especially on Memorial Day weekend, when you would expect that troops going out to defend the pax americana might make for a good news story. Even the Pentagon's own website, where you might expect some patriotic back-slapping bon voyage to the 20,000 troops and their families. What a disgrace. George, you have anything to say about sending 20,000 more troops to clean up your mess during today's radio address?

Why, of course. not. G.W. is too busy touting his tax-cut and spend policy. Someone needs to tell him that the federal budget deficit is not just monopoly money, and learn to trust his advisors, like Alan Greenspan, who sees little to gain from the cuts, according to this article in the Washington Times. The tax cuts are well summarized in this Christian Science Monitor article. Bush seems to be putting all of his stock in Treasury Secretary John Snow, who praised the tax cuts (his comments may be found here).

:: Barry 2:36 PM [+] ::
...

Follow-up article: Rumsfeld's Intel

If you want to get to the bottom of the shaky intel, I'd suggest researching the DoD's Office of Special Plans, which the Sec Def whipped up when the CIA and DIA came up short on the Patriot-o-meter. A google search turns up tons of links, including a couple of left-leaning British papers. Noticeably absent are any major US papers, networks, news channels, or the BBC.. My favorite is Warblogging's "Faith-Based Intelligence" (the title alone wins points).

:: Joe 12:27 AM [+] ::
...

Follow-up article: There's No Business Like Show Business (But We Can't Talk About It)

On May 19, Joe posted a link to an article about Jessica Lynch. As a follow up, the Washington Post reports today in this article that Jessica Lynch's parents have been hushed, because there is an "ongoing investigation." I suspect that any investigation will continue well through the next election.

:: Barry 3:47 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: Weapons of Mass Distraction

The issues and controversy regarding Bush and Blair's claims that Iraq possessed WMD and was willing to use them are really heating up. So far there has been no evidence of WMD in Iraq (even from US inspectors). Rather, evidence is mounting in both the US and UK that this was none other than a ruse to justify an invasion. If the Democrats can't seize on this, then they are truly pathetic. See the latest breaking story about a leaked pentagon report regarding US Intelligence about Iraq on the BBC News. Also take note of some rather incriminating comments voiced by Paul Wolfowitz. The Guardian originally reported this story, along with Die Welt and Der Tagesspiegel. The Guardian has since removed the story...

:: Ryan 1:56 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: Weapons of Mass Destruction

The Guardian has not only removed the article, but it has printed a correction. See Instapundit.com's blog entry here, and this story.

All the same, I maintain that there is a lot more to be uncovered.

:: Barry 9:24 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: Weapons of Mass Distraction

Barry - by saying there is a lot more to be uncovered, are you referring to scandal or evidence of weapons of mass destruction? Whether or not inspectors do end up finding evidence of WMD in Iraq, it is quite clear that WMD was not a valid justification for the war in Iraq. In fact, it doesn't even seem to have been a true concern of the administration. While I hope this is not the case, current evidence seems to suggest it is. Of course the jury is still out...

:: Ryan 10:12 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: Weapons of Mass Confusion

I don't know whether there are or were weapons of mass destruction at the time Bush decided to invade Iraq. But that's beside the issue. The public should not determine whether the invasion of a sovereign nation, in direct contravention of our obligations under the United Nations Charter, can be justified only after the fact. Instead, we should examine the evidence Colin Powell presented to the United Nations and any intelligence reports that are made public. We are not afforded hindsight when making important decisions of foreign policy. On June 6, Rumsfeld said he was sure some evidence would be found. That is neither here nor there. We must remain focused to the more important question: Was there justification for the use of force at the time we invaded? And before we can answer this question, there is still much that must be revealed to the public.

An interesting update: Bloomberg reports excerpts from a September 2002 report by the Defense Intelligence Agency (oxymoron) that concluded there "is no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, or whether Iraq has -- or will -- establish its chemical warfare agent production facilities." The Bloomberg story may be found here. Apparently, Rumsfeld agrees the full report should be released, because these statements were taken out of context.

:: Barry 12:20 PM [+] ::
...

Commentary: Did Someone Say Quagmire?

There's another story today about a couple more US soldiers killed in Iraq. If this keeps up I may have to retract my predictions of a W second term. I always figured Iraq would eventually descend into chaos, given the general success of Western nations in building democracy in developing nations. But I was sort of expecting that the administration could pull the same sort of snow job with Iraq that they did with Afghanistan. But as long as there are reports of dead GI's in the news every night Bush is not going to get far pretending the nation building mission has been a smashing success. And if the war goes south, he isn't left with much to hang his hat on. Of course, I still tend to think he'll skate on the WMD issue..

:: Joe 10:44 AM [+] ::
...

Discussion: Weapons of Mass Compunction

The BBC, the Independent, and the Guardian have news stories (see BBC here, the Independent here, and the Guardian here) covering the report released by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons.

Also, former ambassador Wilson stated on Sunday's Meet the Press (see the transcript here) that he investigated the issue whether Iraq purchased uranium from Niger over a year ago and found it was unfounded--and told the Bush administration as much. The Christian Science Monitor published this commentary on the issue over a month ago, and CNN had this interview today. Check out Mr. Wilson's op-ed in the New York Times, entitled "What I Didn't Find in Africa"

:: Barry 4:13 PM [+] ::
...

Article: Paging Oliver North

In the past 24 hours both Condi Rice and George Bush have fully dumped responsibility for the uranium gaffe on the CIA. Now they just need to find some party loyalist within the CIA to fall on his sword for this and they'll have cleared that hurdle. This should not prove too difficult given that the CIA is still claiming that those trucks were bio-warfare labs despite findings by other British and US government officials that the trucks were most likely used to pump weather balloons. Bush is all lacquered up in his teflon coating.

And here's your regularly scheduled episode of "The Iranian People Want A Liberal Democracy".

Update: Ask and ye shall receive. George Tenet accepts blame for the uranium mess.

:: Joe 11:03 AM [+] ::
...

Article: Do These Guys Do Standup?

While US and British intelligence agencies are being raked across the coals for their bad information on Iraq's weapons stockpiles, in a bizarre twist of black commedy, the Israeli Knesset, according to this TIME article, is throwing a fit at the Mossad for not having come up with the same bogus intel. It seems the Mossad was never able to find any good evidence on the weapons, but the Knesset (and possibly the Mossad themselves) have quite effectively convinced themselves that they exist contrary to their own evidence. Now they're pissed that Mossad has never come up with data to back up their assumptions. I've often suspected that the Israeli government is living in some paranoid alternate dimension, but this takes the cake. Look, guys, your intel got it right. Be happy.

:: Joe 9:30 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: Bush Wisdom

From today's speech to the American Legion Convention in St. Louis, discussing national security and the situation in Iraq: "Our recent military operations have included almost 200 raids, netting more than 1,100 detainees."

Mr. President, are you sure that is net, and not gross?

:: Barry 4:26 PM [+] ::
...

Discussion: But there's more

You have got to be kidding me:
"America is a nation that understands its responsibilities and keeps its word. And we will honor our word to the people of Iraq and those in the Middle East who yearn for freedom."

It's sad that Americans are really that ignorant of recent history that President Bush can get away with that line. But most Iraqis still remember this one: "Sure, go ahead and revolt against Saddam. We support you 100%. Our troops will be right behind you..."

:: Barry 4:32 PM [+] ::
...

::The Other Costs of War::

This lengthy and well-written Sept 11th story in the New York Times doesn't say anything that hasn't been said before, but its prominence on this day and in that paper took me a bit by surprise. I think it is important to recall, while the human and financial costs of our adventure in Iraq occupy the headlines, that the diplomatic costs were equally severe, and may end up hurting us the most in the long run.

:: Joe 3:03 PM [+] ::
...

::Weapons of... Look! Over there! The Iraqis are free!::

In yet another example of the paucity of real evidence for Saddam Hussein posing a threat to the United States, the Wall Street Journal carried a report yesterday about the danger posed by Iraqs unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV's). Both George Bush and Colin Powell (before the UN) made the case that Iraq was capable of using these UAV's to launch biological and chemical attacks against other nations and perhaps even the US. These statements derived from an intelligence report from last October. Attached to this report was a dissent from the Airforce stating they believed it unlikely that Hussein had drones capable of carrying out such attacks. Of course, this dissent was kept secret, even though the Airforce was most capable of making the threat assessment in this area. Now we find that their drones were indeed primitive and incapable of carrying WMD payloads (if indeed Iraq had WMD's).

This is now one of several examples of poor to false evidence regarding an Iraqi threat. I simply can't comprehend why George Bush is not under the same pressure as Tony Blaire. Apparently the American people don't care that they were lied to. Perhaps they will mind paying $87 billion dollars.

:: Ryan 5:21 PM [+] ::
...

::Iraqi Opinion Poll::

Karl Zinsmeister (of the American Enterprise Institute) wrote an article on the opinion page of the Wall Street Journal yesterday that is worth reading. The article has been posted on the AEI website. He describes the first "scientific" opinion poll of the Iraqi people regarding their current situation and views toward the US. Contrary to many media depictions of Iraq, the poll suggests that Iraqis look favorablly on the American presence (at least in the short term), are secular, and are looking to model their government after either the US or Saudi Arabia (of the choices of countries given). My only concern in this poll is that they did not include Baghdad, which just happens to be the largest population center in Iraq. Why would Baghdad be left out of such a poll? In any event, they deserve credit for trying to get real evidence of Iraqi opinions instead of mere speculation by the press and politicians.

:: Ryan 5:46 PM [+] ::
...

::Meet Dick Cheney::

Here are some excerpts from Meet the Press, Sept. 14, in an interview between Tim Russert and Vice President Cheney. Enjoy...

Regarding the award of a major Iraq reconstruction contract to Haliburton:

MR. RUSSERT: Why is there no bidding?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: I have no idea. Go ask the Corps of Engineers. One of the things to keep in mind is that Halliburton is a unique kind of company.

Regarding the poll of Iraqis I mentioned on Sep 11:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: One of the questions it asked is: “If you could have any model for the kind of government you’d like to have”-and they were given five choices-”which would it be?” The U.S. wins hands down.
[The U.S. was preferred by 37% of respondents, Saudi Arabia by 28%.]
If you want to ask them do they want an Islamic government established, by 2:1 margins they say no, including the Shia population.
[Accurate here, although the Sunnis are split evenly]
If you ask how long they want Americans to stay, over 60 percent of the people polled said they want the U.S. to stay for at least another year.
[Over 60% of those with an opinion said they want the U.S. to stay]

Regarding weapons of mass distruction in Iraq:

VICE PRES. CHENEY: I guess the intriguing thing, Tim, on the whole thing, this question of whether or not the Iraqis were trying to acquire uranium in Africa. In the British report, this week, the Committee of the British Parliament, which just spent 90 days investigating all of this, revalidated their British claim that Saddam was, in fact, trying to acquire uranium in Africa. What was in the State of the Union speech and what was in the original British White papers.

Wow...

:: Ryan 8:24 PM [+] ::
...

::Captain Obvious To the Rescue!::

Today, it seems, George Bush has joined Cheney and Condi Rice in admitting that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. However, he says that we did come close to "the geographic base of the terrorists who've had us under assault now for many years." Nice to know that we at least hit the right hemisphere. Well done indeed.

:: Joe 11:55 PM [+] ::
...

::Fantastic website on Iraq intelligence::

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (the same folks who, I think, publish Foreign Policy mag) have put together one of the most comprehensive websites I have found on the WMD and other issues leading to the recent Iraq war. I have not yet had time to really sink my teeth into this website, but I can already tell that it is really meaty, so I thought I would give you all the same opportunity to feast.

:: Barry 2:07 PM [+] ::
...

::Welcome to Iraq::

Welcome to Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz. I hope you enjoy your stay. As you can see,your little operation has created quite the land of peace and prosperity. Hopefully your experiences there can give you a little better idea of what you have gotten us, and the Iraqi people, into.

:: Joe 9:23 AM [+] ::
...

::U.S. Says WMD Went from Iraq to Syria::

UPI has this report (thanks to the Drudge Report for bringing it to my attention).

When I was a kid, we played this game called "kill the guy with the ball" (there was a far less approving name for the game as well). Well, it looks like Syria's got the ball.

:: Barry 7:48 AM [+] ::
...

::Ball? What ball?::

Or in this case, kill the guy we say has the ball.

:: David 10:02 AM [+] ::
...

::To Everything, Spin, Spin, Spin::

Faced with growing criticism about Iraq, the administration has decided to do what they do best: news management. CSM has a roundup of coverage on this. It's not hard to see it if you're looking for it, and they know that, but they also know that the vast majority of people will never look...

:: Joe 12:36 PM [+] ::
...

::Stay the Course::

Fareed Zakaria, whose book The Future of Freedom has been mentioned previously on TBWJ, wrote this column criticizing the increasingly popular idea of Iraqification. I am quite in agreement with Zakaria. Nothing in Iraq is as easy as many in our government (on both sides of the aisle) seem to make it out to be. Look at the effort and resources we've put into eliminating crime and fixing our economy here in the US, and how far that's gotten us. Now we think we can throw a few billion dollars at Iraq and it will all magically be fixed? Iraq does not have the civil infrastructure to be a functioning independent state. Efforts to make it one before preparations are ready will negate any good that has come out of this invasion, and may very well leave them worse off than they were before we came. We went in there when everyone told us not to, now we have an obligation to the Iraqis to make sure things come out right.

:: Joe 2:15 PM [+] ::
...

::New Gallup Poll on Iraq::

According to this Washington Post article, only 1% of Iraqis believe the United States invaded Iraq to establish democracy (the number rises to 5% when asked if it was to help the Iraqi people) while 43% say it was primarily "to rob Iraq's oil."

Gallup reports that it surveyed 1,178 Baghdad residents. For more detailed information about their selection of the sample, look here. That's about all the information one can get without getting a $95 annual subscription. I recommend we get a subscription for BWJ and split the cost.

Thanks to Democracy Now! for the heads up on this story.

:: Barry 7:59 PM [+] ::
...

::Dissent::

I'm not sure which is more impressive, four former heads of Israeli security blasting Sharon's security policies, or Senator Fritz Hollings' verbal assault on the Iraq war. While I'm not fan of Hollings, whose record on copyright issues is awful (on /. they refer to him as the Senator from Disney), that's a hell of a speech. Wouldn't it be remarkable for something like that to be carried on broadcast news? From a quick google, I can find no website larger or more mainstream than tompaine.com (which is neither large nor mainstream) which carries this speech. So Americans may never hear or read a powerful and critically important message from one of their highest elected officials. While we may not get this information, I promise that our friends in Iraq will.

:: Joe 9:33 AM [+] ::
...

::New leaked report on link between Al Qaeda and Iraq::

My father today informed me that the Weekly Standard has recently posted an article to be featured in this week's issue entitled, "Case Closed," detailing a memo sent by Douglas J. Feith to the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding the connection between Al Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden and Iraq. Interesting.

The article proclaims, that the memo is "detailed, conclusive and corroborated by multiple sources."

:: Barry 10:01 PM [+] ::
...

::Update: Report Debunked by Department of Defense::

The Department of Defense released this statement calling the newly released information "inaccurate," based on raw reports that "drew no conclusions" and issued this sharp condemnation:

Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.

:: Barry 10:05 PM [+] ::
...

::Update: News Coverage on the Memo::

The New York Post ran this article on the 15th, which starts:
Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein gave terror lord Osama bin Laden's thugs financial and logistical support, offering al Qaeda money, training and haven for more than a decade, it was reported yesterday.
Yesterday, the New York Post ran this op-ed, "Bush Was Right."

The Fox News Network has this story, entitled "Intelligence Report Links Saddam, Osama." Yesterday, the Network ran this article recognizing that the Senate Intelligence Committee is seeking investigation over the leak, and reported of the Pentagon statement:

A Pentagon statement Saturday has said the memo did not include any new information about Al Qaeda's contacts with Iran. It said the memo provided details of intelligence reports Feith referred when testifying before the committee on July 10. It said the leak of classified material "is deplorable and may be illegal.

Notice they did not report that the memo stated the findings of the memo were "inaccurate." Today, there is no related news on the website (that I could find, anyway).

The GOP's website ("GOPUSA") has this story, which starts:
It's been terribly discouraging to hear the liberal pundits and Democratic politicos continue to spout the lie that there has never been a substantive link between Saddam Hussein and the al-Qaeda terror organization. What gobbledygook!

TownHall.com ran this article, which observed:
The unavoidable conclusion: Saddam Hussein’s regime had been guilty as charged - tied for over a decade to Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda network (among other terrorist groups) for the purpose of waging attacks on their mutual foe, the United States.

Antiwar.com has this story, entitled "Big Story: Neocons Leak Neocon Memo, Then Report On It."

The Hill has this story, entitled "The dubious link between Iraq and al Qaeda."
CNN has this story which proclaims, "Officials confirm probe of Pentagon memo leak"

The Washington Post on Sunday ran this article, entitled "CIA Finds No Evidence Hussein Sought to Arm Terrorists." Today, the Post ran this article headed, "CIA Seeks Probe of Iraq-al Qaeda Memo Leak." Senator Rockefeller, to whom the memo was purportedly addressed, had this op-ed calling for an objective evaluation of the evidence and Bush's claims for war.

And lastly, I again encourage anyone who is truly evaluating these claims about Iraq and the "War on Terror" to visit this website by the Carnegie Center Endowment for International Peace, where they have compiled the Administration's statements and the reports and analysis behind those statements.

:: Barry 10:22 PM [+] ::
...

::Slate Article on Feith Memo::

This article calls for more media attention to the Weekly Standard's "Scoop," and calls the DOD's statement "a bit of a red herring," as it sees it because the Case Closed article "works assiduously (until its final paragraph, at least) not to oversell the memo."

:: Barry 9:36 AM [+] ::
...

::Weekly Standard Responds to DOD Statement::

Read it for yourself. Ok, one teaser (the article purportedly quoting James Woosley):

"Anybody who says there is no working relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence going back to the early '90s--they can only say that if they're illiterate. This is a slam dunk."

:: Barry 9:37 AM [+] ::
...

::White House Statement on the Weekly Standard Memo::

Scott McClellan had this to say on Monday:

Q There's an article in the Weekly Standard outlining something like a 13-year relationship between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, based on intelligence reports, and how they were trying to coordinate or work together on terrorist activities. Your reaction to the article, and also, do you think that the administration sees this as more justification --

MR. McCLELLAN: I haven't had an opportunity to read the actual article. I've seen the reports. But the ties between, or the relationship between Saddam Hussein's regime and al Qaeda were well-documented. They were documented by Secretary Powell before the United Nations, back in February, I believe. And we have previously talked about those ties that are there.

Q More justification for the war, then?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?

Q Do you see that as more justification for the war?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we outlined -- the justification for the war was clear in all the Security Council resolutions that were passed. Resolution 1411 called for serious consequences if Saddam Hussein continued to defy the international community. He did, and the President acted to make the world a safer and better place by removing his regime.




:: Barry 9:49 AM [+] ::
...

::Rumsfeld on Memo::

This is from Sunday:

Q: Quoting a DoD memo which says that they are detailing contacts between al-Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussein?

Rumsfeld: Haven’t seen the article.

Q: Can you comment on your view of Iraq Saddam contacts with al-Qaeda?

Rumsfeld: Nothing to add. My understanding from Larry (Larry Di Rita, acting assistant Secretary of Defense for public affairs) is that the article is just the article that it may have a reference - be a reference to some testimony that DoD representatives had before Congressional Committees many, many weeks and months ago. And that some questions were asked and they require that their responses be submitted for the record and that those responses may have just gone in recently but there is nothing new there.

Q: Secretary on the council, while you say there’s no direct link?

Rumsfeld: I haven’t seen the article so I shouldn’t say there’s nothing new. I don’t know of anything.

:: Barry 10:24 AM [+] ::
...

::Newsweek examines some of Memo's claims::

Check out this article on MSNBC (and presumably, soon to be found in Newsweek) entitled, "Case Decidedly Not Closed."

:: Barry 7:24 PM [+] ::
...

::Progressive Analysis of Al Qaeda-Iraq links::

The Center for American Progress (an admittedly left-leaning group) ran this story on November 13.

:: Barry 7:40 PM [+] ::
...

::Reason Magazine on the Memo::

Sorry if y'all are bored with this issue, but I am intrigued as to how this is all playing out in the media (particularly after our conference. Here is Reason Magazine's take. It is probably the most unbiased reporting I have seen thus far.

:: Barry 7:47 PM [+] ::
...

::The Almighty Memo::

First off, Barry, I agree the Reason Mag article is quite good. Aside from that I have a couple of reactions to the story. First, is that these guys are awfully clever, and damned good at what they do. I think it would be safe to say that this leak is a direct response to the pressure that forced Bush and company to state publicly that there was no known connection between Iraq and 9/11. These admissions had caused the widespread public belief to the contrary to waiver, but now Feith has muddied the water again. This crap doesn't have to hold up to intense scrutiny, nor do I think it was ever intended to. It's just there to confuse an issue which, if clarified, could do them a lot of damage. They knew that the conservative press and grassroots offshoots would take it as gospel and would give it enough exposure to serve their purposes. Whether or not anyone else bought it was of no great importance. It was very slick, and I think it worked.

My other interest in the story is the coverage itself. It's interesting to see some stories like this that spread like wildfire across blogs and partisan news sources and then are slowly, almost reluctantly, handled by the mainstream press. You can almost see the paradigm shift before your eyes. I think it's a good one. It's the democratizing effect that we always hoped the internet could have on the media. If they don't cover it, we'll damned well cover it ourselves. And Barry will call them up and let 'em know about it. :)

:: Joe 11:04 PM [+] ::
...

::Very Critical Coverage of Memo::

Asia Times has this story (entitled, "The Truth Leaks Out") with intriguing analysis. Two paragraphs stand out:

This week's blockbuster leak of a secret memorandum from a senior Pentagon official to the US Senate Intelligence Committee has spurred speculation that neo- conservative hawks in the Bush administration are on the defensive and growing more desperate.
* * *

''This is made to dazzle the eyes of the not terribly educated,'' Greg Thielmann, a veteran of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) who retired in 2002, told Inter Press Service. ''It begs the question, 'Is this the best they can do?' If you're going to expose this stuff, you'd better have something more than this,'' he said, adding, ''My inclination is to interpret this as probably a very good example of cherry-picking and the selective use of intelligence that was so obvious in the lead-up to the war.''

:: Barry 7:46 AM [+] ::
...

::NYTimes weighs in on Memo::

See here. The article doesn't really add much but an anonymous Pentagon official who was quoted as follows:

"If you don't understand how intelligence works, you could look at this memo and say, `Aha, there was an operational connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda,' " a Pentagon official said Wednesday. "But intelligence is about sorting what is credible from what isn't, and I think the best judgment about Iraq and Al Qaeda is that the jury is still out."

The article also observes that the memo and the Weekly Standard have revitalized the claim about Atta in the Czech Republic that has already been widely discredited. But see this Slate article from yesterday the 19th that attempts to bolster the Atta in Czech claim.

:: Barry 7:54 AM [+] ::
...

::How Not To Stage an Occupation::

CSM has an interesting article where they discuss Iraq with former Soviet personnel involved with their invasion of Afghanistan. Some of it is obvious, other parts very insightful.

:: Joe 1:04 PM [+] ::
...

::Weekly Standard's Latest::

Here is the Weekly Standard reply to Newsweek's article responding to the Weekly Standard article on the Feith Memo.

Apparently, the Weekly Standard had not included a complete description of all the "data points" in the memo, for when the Newsweek reporters observed that "The Pentagon memo pointedly omits any reference to the interrogations of a host of other high-level al Qaeda and Iraqi detainees--including such notables as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, Abu Zubaida, and Hijazi himself," Stephen Hayes replied with "bullet-point 39," summarizing an interview with none other than Hijazi himself. Hayes continued, "either Isikoff and Hosenball have not seen the memo or they misreport its contents."

Hayes concludes:

It is, of course, possible that the information in the Feith memo is "cherry-picked" intelligence. It's also possible that some of the bullet points listed won't check out on further analysis. But Feith isn't alone in his conclusion that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had a relationship. CIA Director George Tenet said more than a year ago that his agency had "solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade," that the CIA had "credible information" about discussions between Iraq and al Qaeda on "safe haven and reciprocal nonaggression" and "solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some that have been in Baghdad," and "credible reporting" that "Iraq has provided training to al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."




:: Barry 4:54 PM [+] ::
...

::Fox News: War Support Slightly Up::

You're all going to love this. In this article, Fox News claims:

Short-Term Memo-ry?

Over the weekend, the Weekly Standard published a "top secret U.S. government" memo detailing more than a decade of intelligence indicating an operating relationship between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The Pentagon has since confirmed the memo's authenticity, but it has been almost entirely overlooked by major media.

USA Today has completely ignored it. The New York Times has yet to mention it on its news pages, though a column today mentions it. And The Washington Post got around to mentioning it on Sunday, dismissingly in the sixth paragraph of a much broader story.

Now let's look at a few of those statements a little closer:
The Pentagon has since confirmed the memo's authenticity, but it has been almost entirely overlooked by major media.

Here's what the DOD statement on Nov 15 said, in part:
News reports that the Defense Department recently confirmed new information with respect to contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq in a letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee are inaccurate.
* * *
The items listed in the classified annex were either raw reports or products of the CIA, the National Security Agency or, in one case, the Defense Intelligence Agency. The provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies and done with the permission of the intelligence community. The selection of the documents was made by DoD to respond to the committee’s question. The classified annex was not an analysis of the substantive issue of the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda, and it drew no conclusions.

Individuals who leak or purport to leak classified information are doing serious harm to national security; such activity is deplorable and may be illegal.

And what about the Washington Post? I found articles mentioning the memo here, here, here and here--and this op-ed here.



:: Barry 5:02 PM [+] ::
...

::Did you get that memo?::

Upon finally checking in to BWJ (yes, I've been delinquent lately), I was surprised to notice all this talk/news about Feith's memo. Interestingly, the Wall Street Journal (which I read almost daily) hasn't even mentioned this story to my knowledge. Indeed, a search of the site brought up nothing regarding this story. Apparently this story, as many of the commentators note, wasn't relevant or important enough to merit time or space in some of the major press. I noticed that Fox News failed to mention that the Wall Street Journal didn't carry this story as well. Looks like a Murdoch special to me.

Addendum: Should anyone wish to revisit the Bush administration's case for war more thoroughly, I recommend FP's informative and interactive Between the Lines analysis of Bush's 10-7-02 speech making the case for war. They are apparently updating it as more information/evidence becomes available.

:: Ryan 9:46 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: Did you get that memo?::

With all my efforts to chronicle the news (or paucity thereof in the mainstream press) regarding the memo, I have yet to offer much in the way of my take on the whole matter. It appears to me that this was deliberately released by the administration--or at least some segment of it--that was concerned a number of Bush supporters were losing faith in the Iraq effort. I am deeply concerned that this has estabished a trend of releasing highly sensitive information that benefits the administration and harms its opponents. And I am surprised that the immediate rebuke by the Department of Defense has not received attention from the mainstream media, and I am surprised that only a few journalists have risen to the task of addressing the substantive points raised in the Weekly Standard piece.

I would wager that few other media sources have actually obtained a copy of the memo (this seems to be the case with the Newsweek journalists who tried to address the points that were raised in the "Case Closed" story but had no knowledge of the remaining points of the memo). This story is essential to understand what the state of the evidence was at the time Bush asserted to the American public and the rest of the world that Saddam must be overthrown. And the public (particularly those whose eyes and ears are affixed to the Murdoch sources) must be accurately informed. The coverage by the websites that openly speak with the conservative voice have provided only half-truths (at best) regarding this memo and the surrounding circumstances and someone must deliver the rest. I doubt our pint-sized blog can serve this role--if only there were others with a louder voice who could take up this issue.

:: Barry 10:10 PM [+] ::
...

::Washington Post on Leaks::

The Post in this article (posted today) wonders why mainstream media has not carried the Memo story and concludes it must be one of three possibilities:
1) Mainstream reporters are sulking about having been beat.
2) The stories aren't all that great.
3) The establishment press reacts differently when conservatives break stories, assume it's part of the vast right-wing conspiracy and try to knock down the allegations.


:: Barry 8:45 AM [+] ::
...

::re: Washington Post on Leaks::

The column missed what I'd regard as the more obvious explanation:

4. Access. This administration has been famously aggressive and combative in limiting press access. Now they decide to leak, but only leak to a conservative news outlet who, as far as I can tell, has refused to share the actual memo with anyone. The major mainstream news sources have to be pissed. Particularly as the material seems to be of questionable value and appears to be a cynical political ploy rather than a disclosure of critical new material. I imagine they see the scenario as a) this administration has treated us like shit from day 1, b) they leaked this material to some pissant conservative advocacy magazine who won't share it, c) the memo appears to contain no new information and is only leaked to pump the old info back into the forefront of public attention (ie propaganda). Result: they bury the story and send a note to the White House saying next time you want us to propagandize for you, cut us in on the scoop, you wankers.

:: Joe 2:06 PM [+] ::
...

::More on the Memo::

Stephen Hayes, the author of the Weekly Standard article, has this commentary in the L.A. Times.

And in their effort to be fair and balanced, the L.A. Times posted this counterpoint commentary by Christopher Scheer, author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq.

And William Safire published this article in The Day (A Connecticut Newspaper, I think).

:: Barry 12:01 PM [+] ::
...

::The Long, Slow Slide::

News from Iraq gets uglier and uglier. I think we are at the brink of a point of no return, after which point it will be impossible to repair our relationship with the Iraqi people and we will be powerless to help their new government succeed. We'll be left with no option but to pack up and go home and hope for the best. Or we may have already stepped off that precipice and started the long slide down, it's hard to say... And if we have gone over the edge, if past history is a guide, it may take us years to realize it..

CSM has a great roundup of coverage on the newly infamous battle at Samarra. To cover some highlights:

A supposed US officer who fought in the battle wrote to an ex-military blogger:
"During the ambushes the tanks, brads and armored HUMVEES hosed down houses, buildings, and cars while using reflexive fire against the attackers. One of the precepts of "Iron Hammer" is to use an Iron Fist when dealing with the insurgents. As the division spokesman is telling the press, we are responding with overwhelming firepower and are taking the fight to the enemy. The response to these well coordinated ambushes was as a one would expect. The convoy continued to move, shooting at ANY target that appeared to be a threat. RPG fire from a house, the tank destroys the house with main gun fire and hoses the area down with 7.62 and 50cal MG fire. Rifle fire from an alley, the brads fire up the alley and fire up the surrounding buildings with 7.62mm and 25mm HE rounds. This was actually a rolling firefight through the entire town."

With typical understatement, the BBC wrote:
"The Americans were using enormously powerful weapons, including 50 mm cannons mounted on Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and 120 mm tank rounds from the Abrams. Used in a densely populated urban area, built with flimsy mud-bricks, it is almost inconceivable that people well out of sight of the gunners were not also injured in the battle. "

The US military take:
"We have been very aggressive in our convoy operations to ensure the maximum force protection is with each convoy, but it does send a clear message that if you attempt to attack one of our convoys, we're going to use our firepower to stop that attack."

Response of a Samarran emergency room worker:
"All the people in town today are asking for revenge. They want to kill the Americans like they killed our civilians. Give me a gun, and I will also fight."

Conclusion of our anonymous US combatant:
"Since we did not stick around to find out, I am very concerned in the coming days we will find we killed many civilians as well as Iraqi irregular fighters. I would feel great if all the people we killed were all enemy guerrillas, but I can't say that. We are probably turning many Iraqi against us and I am afraid instead of climbing out of the hole, we are digging ourselves in deeper."

:: Joe 1:17 PM [+] ::
...

::No Contracts For You!::

The Pentagon announces that businesses in countries that didn't support the war will be shut out of contracts in Iraq. I love the quote from Paul Wolfowitz in the article: "Limiting competition for prime contracts will encourage the expansion of international co-operation in Iraq." Um, yeah, Paul, that's exactly what it will do. I'm sure the EU and NATO will be real excited to sign on with you now...

:: Joe 11:57 PM [+] ::
...

::AP: Iraq to Stop Counting Civilian Dead::

Yahoo News has this story.

:: Barry 8:58 AM [+] ::
...

::What's the Difference?::

Here's a bit of an inverview transcript between our Commander In Chief and Diane Sawyer:

DIANE SAWYER: But stated as a hard fact, that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons still -

PRESIDENT BUSH: So what's the difference?


Wow! But wait, there's more...

DIANE SAWYER: What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction?

PRESIDENT BUSH: Saddam Hussein was a threat and the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.

DIANE SAWYER: And if he doesn't have weapons of mass destruction [inaudible] -

PRESIDENT BUSH: Diane, you can keep asking the question. I'm telling you - I made the right decision for America -

DIANE SAWYER: But-

PRESIDENT BUSH: - because Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction, invaded Kuwait. ... But the fact that he is not there is, means America's a more secure country.

Wow. Somebody ought to get this interview to those folks making the moveon.org ads. There's some good material there.

:: Joe 12:51 PM [+] ::
...

::The Inside Story::

I've recently become aware of George Washington University's National Security Archive. The archive actively pursues government information through the Freedom of Information Act, analyzes the data and makes archives of FOIA material available to the public. It's really great to be able to cut through the bullshit and see what the government actually knew and thought about some of these issues. Their Saddam Hussein report is particularly popular these days. There are some fascinating things in this report. You can see where the US government learns about Iraq's use of chemical weapons. You can see how the US largely ignores this issue in subsequent communications with the Iraqi government. You can see the administration skirting policy rules that barred the export of military equipment to Iraq. You can see the DIA favoring the sale of dual-use nuclear materials to Iraq. You can see the US's efforts to keep the UN's actions on the matter under control. It's an impressive bit of journalism. It certainly calls into question W's claim in the interview with Diane Sawyer that the invasion of Iraq was justified by Iraq's use of chemical weapons.

:: Joe 5:15 PM [+] ::
...

::A Last Gasp For WMD's?::

Although the public appears to have largely lost interest, and, as far as I can tell, has bought the "we fought to save the Iraqis" story, it seems some effort is being made to revive the WMD controversy. Recently both the Washington Post and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace have released large reports concluding that Iraq never presented any real security threat. Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be much of an audience for this material outside of MoveOn.org and the Howard Dean constituency. Again I can't help but come back to the Democratic party's complicity in this mess and conclude that they are thus constrained from treating this as the major league scandal that it is.

:: Joe 2:11 PM [+] ::
...

::Re: A Last Gasp for WMD's?::

I disagree that that the public has lost interest regarding whether the Bush administration misstated the intelligence on Iraq's threat to America--although they may have temporarily misplaced it. The topic is Bush's Achilles' heel and I would be altogether dumbstruck if his chief foe does not vigorously attack him on it.

As for the Carnegie Endowment's report (the full report may be downloaded here, or a summary here), I am very apprehensive about its conclusions, although I shall reserve judgment until I have had the opportunity to read the report carefully. I am curious how a non-governmental organization such as the CEIP can confidently assert that the "[i]ntelligence community overestimated the chemical and biological weapons in Iraq" without obtaining the confidential documents on which the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate was based. Even if the key findings are indeed supported by facts, the policy recommendations seem at first glance to reach far beyond weapons of mass destruction. For instance, the report lists as its first recommended change to U.S. Policy: "Revise the National Security Strategy to eliminate a U.S. policy of unilateral preventive war, i.e., preemptive war in absence of imminent threat."

I respect the Carnegie Endowment as the most reliable source available to me regarding foreign policy, and I frequently draw on Foreign Policy, its flagship publication, for its well-balanced coverage. I sincerely hope that its factual and policy conclusions withstand scrutiny. Should it fail in its bold claims, I would not know where to turn to find its replacement.

:: Barry 12:21 AM [+] ::
...

::WMDs::

The problem with the national dialogue is that it has been a bipolar, "Nothing at all was gained by U.S. military action in Iraq" vs. "Saddam is the most evil man since Hitler and had to be stopped." This simplistic debate is not an advantageous one for the antiwar side. Obviously, Saddam Hussein is not Santa Claus. In fact, I don't think that anyone would be going far out on a limb to say that he did some pretty despicable things during his long dictatorship. Unfortunately, thus far, the Bushies have been successful in turning the question into: "Is the fact that Saddam is gone a good thing?" It's difficult to take the "no" position on that question and look credible (although from an antiterrorism standpoint, I think the nos have it). Dean found that out when he got ripped into for saying during Sunday's debate that the U.S. is no better off with Saddam gone. While I agree with him, more hay can be made by fighting on the other side's weak points.

The proper questions should be:
1. Was there justification for the U.S. action, and, if so, what was it?
2. If the justification was that "Saddam was an imminent threat to the U.S.," how does that reconcile with the facts that it has become fairly clear that he did not have either WMDs or operational ties to Al Qaeda or similar anti-U.S. international terrorist organizations?
3. Were the misstatements made by the administration to obtain Congressional approval for its war and sway public opinion mistakes or a deliberate fraud? (The what did he/they know and when did he/they know it question) If dishonest, were any benefits which came out of the operation worth the fraud and duplicity?
4. If the justification is simply that "Saddam committed human rights violations against his people and we had a humanitarian duty to stop him," how is Iraq different from most of, say, Central and South America where we actively support dictators doing as bad or worse things? Do we now have a duty to "liberate" every non-democratic nation?
5. Even if the war was justified, was it worth it?--Are we safer now? Are there more are fewer terrorists in Iraq now? Was it worth the cost in lives? Monetarily?
If a concerted effort could be made to focus public attention on these issues rather than was Saddam bad, there is hope that Bush's dishonesty over WMDs could become an Achilles heel. Today, I don't see it.


:: David 12:07 PM [+] ::
...

::Iraq Invasion Planned Pre-9/11::

Is this news? I don't know. On one hand it seems to fall into the "well, duh" category. On the other, having a Bush cabinet member admit that the administration was dying to find an excuse to invade seems like a significant event. Will it change anything? I guess it's more ammo for proving that intel data was manipulated to accomplish what the president wanted..

:: Joe 11:02 PM [+] ::
...

::Egg On Face::

A guest professor at the US Army War College has released a report, receiving wide circulation, criticizing the Iraq war as unnecessary and a distraction from the mission against terrorism. The article does not provide any background on Jeffrey Record, the author. A bit of googling turns up references to him as a former advisor to the state department, a former member of the staffs of Senators Sam Nunn and Lloyd Bentsen, and as a professor of strategy and international security at the US Air Force's Air War College.

:: Joe 9:37 AM [+] ::
...

::Bush Intelligence and Policy Strategy: Close Your Eyes and Plug Your Nose::

I just finished reading Ron Suskind's book, The Price of Loyalty, and I found it to be a very worthwhile read (and Dave clued me in that today, Terry Gross interviewed Suskind and O'Neill on Fresh Air--the show is available online). Unfortunately, I think the media has seized on a few glib comments that O'Neill made (and regrets ever uttering) and all but ignores what I find the most disturbing yet unsurprising charge--the theme throughout the Bush administration that policy controls politics, not the other way around. O'Neill states that he had grown accustomed to a deliberative process in the other presidential administrations in which he served, and was shocked and dismayed to learn that the current White House took an entirely different tack. O'Neill claims that he, along with Colin Powell and Christie Todd Whitman, were stranded among a group of partisans who had no interest in advancing debate but rather sought only to advance political objectives. This modus operandi was applied in all areas of "policymaking," but the areas on which O'Neill provided the greatest detail are Iraq and Bush's monolithic budget strategy--cutting taxes.

An October 2003 New Yorker article that I stumbled across supports O'Neill's observations, at least with regard to Iraq. It describes a process known in the intelligence world as "stovepiping"--passing along sensitive intelligence or requests for action up the chain of command without first subjecting the information to rigorous scrutiny. The whole point of the intelligence structure was "to prevent raw intelligence from getting to people who would be misled," according to Greg Thielmann, formerly an expert with the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. Yet the current administration entirely abandoned the process, according to Thielmann and confirmed by one of his colleagues, John Bolton, currently the Under-Secretary of State for Arms Control. The article quotes Bolton as stating, "I found that there was lots of stuff that I wasn't getting and that the INR analysts weren't including .... I didn't want it filtered. I wanted to see everything--to be fully informed. If that puts someone's nose out of joint, sorry about that." The article continues with a great exposition regarding Iraq's purported attempts to purchase of Nigerian uranium, and other intelligence failures. It also reminds readers of a few sobering quotes from Vice President Cheney that are a far cry from the message they are currently selling. For instance:

August 7, 2002--What we know now from various sources is that he has continued to improve, if you can put it in those terms, the capabilities of his chemical and biological agents, and he continues to pursue a nuclear weapon. He sits on top of 10 percent of the world's oil reserves. He has enormous wealth being generated by that. And left to his own devices, it's the judgment of many of us that in the not to distant future he will acquire nuclear weapons. And a nuclear armed Saddam Hussein is not a pleasant prospect, I don't think, for anyone in the region or anyone in the world, for that matter. (Online NewsHour has a transcript and video at this link.)

September 14, 2002--We do know with absolute certainty that he is using his procurement system to acquire the equipment he needs in order to enrich uranium to build a nuclear weapons.... (The Department of State provides this press release.)

I highly recommend you all take the time to read this article. (Bill Moyers interviewed Thielmann on NOW with Bill Moyers back in June 2003 on the same topic, and the transcript also makes for interesting reading.)

MSNBC/Newsweek provides some additional ammo on the "stovepiping" of information, in this article from December 15, 2003, discussing a memo sent by a member of the Iraqi National Congress to a Congressional Committee. The memo apparently confirms that raw data was sent from the INC directly to Cheney's staff--without any opportunity for the intelligence community to review and analyze the data for its veracity. As the Newsweek article observes (and the New Yorker article concurs), much of the information provided by the INC was highly unreliable and has since been proven false.

:: Barry 8:35 PM [+] ::
...

::Comments on WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications::

I have finished reading through the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace report written by Joseph Cirincione, Jessica T. Mathews, and George Perkovich (available here) that been referenced a few times on this blog, and wish to share my thoughts. Mainly, I found the report to be a good synthesis on the statements made by the administration and the evidence (or lack thereof) that is in the public domain, but I am a little disappointed that the report seems to have reached farther than necessary in some of its conclusions. Specifically, the report does not emphasize that it is based on declassified and public information, and that any conclusions that are drawn without a full analysis of the classified material is quite obviously constrained. For instance, some of the "key findings" highlighted in the very beginning of the report are:

- Iraq's WMD programs represented a long-term threat that could not be ignored, They did not, however, pose an immediate threat to the United States, to the region, or to global security.
- With respect to nuclear and chemical weapons, the extent of the threat was largely knowable at the time.
- The uncertainties were much greater with regard to biological weapons.
- There was and is no solid evidence fo a cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda.


If read with the caveat, "given what is publicly available, it appear's that...," then these statements seem fair. But where does that get us? To the same place that the report arrives at--calling for a nonpartisan independent commissino to investigation the state of intelligence from 1991-present. I just don't see what is gained by the authors stating unequivocally:

Based on what has been discovered in Iraq, it is plain that the dimensions and urgency of the WMD threat were far less than protrayed. Logic and the evidence available to date suggest that the likelihood that Saddam Hussein would give whatever WMD he possessed to terrorists was also far less than the administration believed. And, the belief that deterrence coudl not be used against Iraq appears unfounded. Thus, the threat that woudl be removed by war--the benefit in a cost-benefit framework--was far less than it was asserted to be. (Page 58).

All the same, I think the authors do an excellent job raising questions and tearing down the foundation of the preemption doctrine. They also demonstrate that the administration did misrepresent some of the information that has been made public, so there is good reason to remain skeptical about what hasn't been shared.

The paper offers a quote from Former British foreign secretary Robin Cook, who resigned over the war (his resignation speech may be found here on the BBC's website) that I think is particularly fitting to our administration--on virtually every issue it has faced:

I think it would be fair to say that there was a selection of evidence to support a conclusion. I fear we got into a position in which the intelligence was not being used to inform and shape policy, but to shape policy that was already settled.

The paper argues that the spin did not stop when we began the military operation, but has continued ever since. One of my favorite sections discussed a statement by David Kay on October 2 that Iraq had a "clandestine network of laboratories" and "concealed equipment and materials from UN inspectors," such as a "vial of live C. botulinum Okra B. from which a biological agent can be produced." The report then observes:

Kay's testimony and subsequent administration statements highlighted the discovery of the vial, stored in an Iraqi scientist's kitchen refrigerator since 1993. This was the only suspicious biological material Kay had reported as of the end of December 2003. President Bush said the "live strain of deadly agent botulinum" was proof that Saddam Hussein was "a danger to the world." Several former U.S. bioweapons officials, UN inspectors, and biological experts told the Los Angeles Times that the sample was purchased from the United States in the 1980s and that no country, including Iraq, has been able to use botulinum B in a weapon. Iraq has used the more deadly botulinum A in its pre-1991 weapon program, mimicking other countries' programs, including those of the Soviet Union and the United States. (Page 35.)

I think the report does an excellent job hammering home that the administration resorted to shady rhetorical practice in selling the war, including conflating the threat from biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons as all in one threat--the ominous threat from WMD. President Bush and others made references to "mushroom clouds." And virtually everyone in the administration treated Iraq as though it were an extension of al Qaeda, when no good evidence has been brought to light to demonstrate any connection.

The authors make their strongest points when addressing the Security Strategy. Much of what this report has to say echoes some of the same issues addressed by Record in "Bounding the Global War on Terrorism," discussed below, but a few points are worth highlighting. The report addresses the administration's decision to combine its preemption strategy with worst-case scenario evidence and reasoning:

The President stated the approach on October 7, 2002: "Understanding the threats of our time, knowing the designs and deceptions of the Iraqi regime, we have every reason to assume the worst, and we have an urgent duty to prevent the worst from occurring." Other members of the administration made the case that because our intelligence was imperfect, we had to assume that whatever signs of WMD we did detect was a small percentage of what was actually there. These reasonable-sounding statements describe an approach that is neither safe nor wise.

Worst-case planning is a valid and vital methodology, if used with a constant awareness of its limitations and if care is taken never to confuse the results with the realistic case. Acting on worst-case assumptions is an entirely different matter. To do so is to take the assessment out of threat assessment and largely to negate the billions spent on gathering intelligence. To cite one among many reasons, it leaves one open to one of the most common tactics in the history of warfare: bluff by adversaries seeking to gain an advantage by inflating their own capabilities. (Page 54.)

And the report also suggests that we should more closely evaluate what residual role deterrence plays in a post- 9/11 world. The administration suspended decades of global security policy by fiat and without second thoughts, because it took for granted that 9/11 changed everything and made this doctrine antiquated. The paper quotes Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder. We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light, through the prism of our experience on September 11th." (Page 57, quoting testimony Rumsfeld made before the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 9, 2003, available here).

:: Barry 8:13 PM [+] ::
...

::Kay Throws In the Towel::

In the immortal words of Cartman: "Screw you guys. I'm going home." Chief US weapons inspector in Iraq, David Kay has resigned from his role as head of the Iraq Survey Group. Reuters quotes him saying of the WMD's, "I don't think they ever existed." He is to be replaced by former UN inspector Charles Duelfer, who is quoted as saying that his chances of finding anything are "close to nil." Ouch. That's got to hurt. As I was saying about stark differences between reality and the State of the Union address...

:: Joe 5:23 PM [+] ::
...