Meanwhile, In Fantasyland…
…otherwise known as Democratville, Senator Carl Levin has leaked a document that is being hyped as some kind of smoking gun (Downing Street Memo, anyone? Whatever happened to that, anyway?):
A top member of Al Qaeda in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained Al Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to newly declassified portions of a Defense Intelligence Agency document.
Well, yes, we relied on false intelligence, and were overaggresive in making our case. Is this news to anyone at this point? Even the Times seems a bit underwhelmed by their ’scoop’:
Mr. Levin said the new evidence of early doubts about Mr. Libi’s statements dramatized what he called the Bush administration’s misuse of prewar intelligence to try to justify the war in Iraq. That is an issue that Mr. Levin and other Senate Democrats have been seeking to emphasize, in part by calling attention to the fact that the Republican-led Senate intelligence committee has yet to deliver a promised report, first sought more than two years ago, on the use of prewar intelligence.
An administration official declined to comment on the D.I.A. report on Mr. Libi. But Senate Republicans, put on the defensive when Democrats forced a closed session of the Senate this week to discuss the issue, have been arguing that Republicans were not alone in making prewar assertions about Iraq, illicit weapons and terrorism that have since been discredited.
Obviously, the Administration’s over-reliance on questionable intelligence in the leadup to Iraq was not its finest moment.
Yet, equally clearly, these statements were not manufactured – an Al Qaeda operative in U.S. custody was making claims of being trained in Iraq. Post-9/11, I’m inclined to take such claims seriously, and I’m sure that was the thinking of the Administration, as well. That it happened to bolster their case for going to war was, undoubtedly, a strong incentive to ignore questions about the credibility of the captive.
Let us stipulate, then, that this Administration, and the previous one, made many mistakes regarding Iraq. Let us also stipulate that this Administration was too eager to believe intelligence that bolstered their case.
Now, my question is: can we focus on winning the damn war now? Even if the intelligence was admittedly wrong, we, and the Iraqis, are fighting for a better and more democratic Iraq, and indeed, a more democratic Middle East. That is the story that needs the most focus right now…there will be plenty of time to dissect mistakes, and they should not be whitewashed. Let’s just keep the eye on the ball, that’s all I ask…
Great headline!
Dems Lie, NYT Repeats It
UPDATE: Decision ‘08 has the headline du jour: “Meanwhile, In Fantasyland … “
Don, many thanks!…
“Let us also stipulate that this Administration was too eager to believe intelligence that bolstered their case.”
I might rephrase that to reflect more of what you were saying in the previous paragraph: “Let us also stipulate that after 9/11, this Administration took a “worst-case” approach to analyzing intelligence.” I’m not in much of a mood to stipulate anything that Carl Levin would agree with.
You know, I don’t hear anyone including Sen. “I think Iraq has weapons of mass destruction” Levin making a credible argument that if Sadaam had been left in place and the UN left to exercise its “oversight” he would not have spent the last three years pursuing a nuclear weapon. Really, from Sadaam’s point of view, given the activities of Iran, he would have had no choice. How fine a distinction do we want to make here between intent/capability and actual possession?
Perhaps the question to pose is “Where would we be now if we had not interpreted the intelligence the way we did?”
I’ve been sitting here staring out the window trying to invent a narrative that would justify what Levin is doing to undermine Iraq policy (i.e. if we hadn’t gone in, the UN could have effectively contained Sadaam and curtailed Iranian nuclear amibitions–no, that doesn’t work–Sadaam could have been toppled from within by his own people who would then immediately establish a constitutional democracy that makes ours look like Castro’s Cuba and become our staunch allies–no, that’s unlikely, too–Sadaam might have pulled a Libya and got rid of his weapons voluntarily–no, Quaddafi wouldn’t have done that if we hadn’t gone into Iraq–I just can’t make this work). On the other hand, horrific narratives of what might have happened had we treated our intelligence in a “best case” manner are frighteningly easy to fashion and put the heroic sacrifice of our 2000 military casualties in a very different and sobering context.
What say you, Senator Levin?
Well-said, AE…
I think y’all are missing something here. Intelligence is intrinsically opaque and conjectural. Analysts look at intercepts, satellite photos, and informants and draw inferences. If you are going to invade a country based on intelligence information, you damn better make sure that both the intelligence and the analyses are correct.
The Libi case is only the latest instance where Bush took unclear and possibly useless information and hyped it as a “credible” threat. Rice warned about the near-certainty that aluminum tubes are used for nuclear devices after her staff identified many other uses for these tubes. The sixteen words. Chalabi. Curveball.
Bush took the unprecedented step of using American armed forces in a pre-emptive conflict. Aside from playing a peace-keeper role in existing conflicts, the Army has never been used to start a war when none existed. So regardless of what Democrats may have said regarding the likelihood of WMD in Iraq — and, of course, much of their statements was based on Bush administration statements we now know to be wrong — the accountability for the Iraq war lies solely with Bush.
Thanks Mark–I wound up turning that comment into a larger post so I appreciate your raising the issue. And Peter, my conclusion is that that’s an accountabilty that the administration can and should accept.
Well, peter, you’re really not going to get much of an argument from me that we did not vet the intelligence properly, or that Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the decision to go to war. However, the Clinton administration and Democrats can’t be let off the hook quite so easily (they were under the same obligations as Bush, surely, before they voted to authorize use of force, and Clinton didn’t do much to bolster our intelligence capabilities in Iraq, bolstering that perhaps might have made a difference). However, keep in mind that the one claim of this Times story, even if completely accepted as false, was not by a long shot the only justification for the war – and neither were the sixteen words, Curveball, Chalabi, et all…
When you remove the WMD justification, then I don’t know that you can make a convincing case that the other rationale is sufficient. Violated UN ruings? Isreal has been doing it for years. Belligerant and aggressive dictator? Well, ditto for North Korea, Cuba, etc. Is the war justified by imposing democracy on Iraq? This is probably the strongest argument — yet had this been the principle argument used to justify the war, it never would have received the support of either the American people or the Congress.
Two related thoughts: Had the Democrats in Congress not voted for the war, there would be howling on the right (“obstructionist Democrats”). The tradition is for Congress to follow the President’s lead in declaring war — there has to be a very high bar for voting against a Presidential call for a declaration of war. The Democrats almost unanimously followed in this tradition and supported the administration, and now some are shifting the blame to them. From this perspective, it’s a lose-lose situation for the Dems.
Secondly, I am old enough to remember when China (then called Red China) developed its first atomic bomb. There was consierable debate at the time concerning whether we should have a pre-emptive strike against China. You had many of the same ingredients as Iraq: China had an aggressive foreign policy, a totalitarian state, and was an avowed enemy of the US. While our relations which China have never been problem-free, LBJ’s decision not to attack China has ultimately led to a situation where the Chinese nukes were never used, and we have a much less confrontational relationship with China. Sometimes the best course of action is to do nothing –
Good points on China…but come now, Israel violates UN rulings because the UN is almost viciously anti-Israel. In any event, I think the reason we didn’t take on China is the same reason we don’t take on North Korea – we are deterred by their nuclear weapons. A solid argument, then, I would think, for taking out Saddam before our options were closed by such a development, no? And even if the stockpiles were not there, there is abundant evidence that Saddam never gave up his dreams of a WMD stockpile, nor can we doubt that he, unlike China or Russia or Israel, intended to use them…his own actions, never repudiated, gave away the game…
If I remember correctly, there was a window with China where they had nuclear capabilities but not the ability to deliver them — I don’t think retaliation was the reason we didn’t attack. Rather, it was the reluctance to start a war pre-emptively.
Also, I think there is a clear distinction between Iraq and North Korea. First, say what you will about Hussein, but he was a rational man who was crazy like a fox. He knew any attack would result in the obliteration of Iraq. Kim Jong Il is a certifiable nut job, and who knows what he would do. Also, nukes are all that Kim Jong Il has — it’s his only card — and Iraq has oil revenue.
If Hussein was close to developing nuclear weapons, then perhaps you could make a case for a pre-emptive attack. However, if possessing nuclear weapons is something that Saddam wanted but was years away from — and, as we found out, his nuclear program was moribund, if it existed at all — then I don’t think you can make a case to go to war for something which was so speculative and so far into the future.
Mark: “can we focus on winning the damn war now?”
Not if that might benefit the only enemies recognized by the Democratic leadership: Republicans. Really the war seems to be completely irrelevant to most of the minority leadership, except as a way to score partisan points domestically.
Peter: “the unprecedented step of using American armed forces in a pre-emptive conflict… the Army has never been used to start a war when none existed.”
Complete and utter nonsense. (…unless you mean, trivially, in that the Navy or Air Force usually strikes the first blow…)
It wasn’t until Wilson that any U.S. President would have even dreamed that only being attacked could justify fighting a war — and Wilson took us into a war that only peripherally affected us. Look up the Spanish-American War, any of a dozen invasions of sovereign native american nations (and yes, they really were sovereign nations), the Mexican-American War — all wars of territorial conquest. Then check out the invasion of Canada in 1812. Or any of dozens and dozens of smaller military actions over the years.
Heck, our very first foreign war was a “preemptive” strike against Tripoli (modern-day Libya) because it was a safe haven for the terrorists of the day (i.e. pirates) — a war we barely remember, except in the lyrics of the Marine Corps Hymn. Though Bush gained some appearance of strength and his opponents gained an opportunity to express shock and dismay, the notion that there was something unprecedented or novel about the justification of this war is simply bunk, however politically convenient.
Well, OK, I was thinking of modern American history — we were a very different country during the Spanish American war. Are you suggesting that wars of territorial conquest are worth fighting? I thought that when we fought the first gulf war, it was to rectify the situation when Hussein started a war of territorial conquest on his own…
As for the Democratic leadership seeing Republicans as the only enemy: this is a cheap shot which is patently untrue. Democrats are no less committed to defeating Al Qaeda than Republicans. Democrats are no less concerned about Iran or North Korea.
The Beat Goes on: More Democratic Amnesia
Well, first former head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Bob Graham, now his buddy, Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), who on 19th September 2002 said:
As for the Democratic leadership seeing Republicans as the only enemy: this is a cheap shot which is patently untrue. Democrats are no less committed to defeating Al Qaeda than Republicans. Democrats are no less concerned about Iran or North Korea.” Quote
And the proof of that statement is ?;
The proof of that statement is the nearly unanimous vote to declare war on Afghanistan (only one no vote in Congress) and the overwhelming support for all funding bills aimed at fighting terrorism or strengthening the infrastructure against terrorism, combined with the public statements of virtually all (or maybe all) leading Democratic figures. More importantly, this is an odious accusations which is given above with no evidence to support it. Why don’t you challenge that statement instead of accepting as an a priori truth that Democrats are only concerned with partisan politics and couldn’t care less about Al Qaeda or terrorism?
I can’t resist jumping in and saying that I think it’s a given that politicians of both parties are trying to do what is in the best interest of America – they just differ (often by wide margins) on what IS in the best interest of America. I don’t think we’ll get far impugning the motives of Democrats on terrorism – we should be concerned rather with correct tactics…just my two cents.
[...] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your ownsite. [...]