Did you catch President Bush's speech in Anchorage on Monday? He argued that Democrats are rewriting history by questioning today the administration's manipulation of intelligence on Iraq before the war. Reciting quotes taken from pre-war speeches and interviews Democratic politicians had given then, he attempts to demonstrate their supposed hypocrisy.
Not surprisingly, the White House's selective use of these quotes is as deceptive as its selective use of intelligence in 2002 and 2003.
The New Republic's Ryan Lizza (or, as I like to call him, "The Lizza") writes [subscription required]:
Pre-war Democratic quotes are now central to Bush's defense. The old White House strategy was for Republicans to use any statement ever uttered by a Democrat that expresses reservations about war with Saddam as a cudgel to hammer the party as hopelessly weak and uninterested in protecting America. The new strategy is to use any statement ever uttered by a Democrat that expresses concern about Saddam as a cudgel to hammer Democrats for hypocrisy. Now, Bush insists, most Democrats got the war right. "They spoke the truth then, and they're speaking politics now," he said yesterday.
The problem is that some of the quotes Bush now uses are highly misleading. "Another senior Democrat leader said, 'The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as Saddam Hussein is in power,'" Bush told his Alaskan crowd. The quote is from Senator Carl Levin during a CNN appearance on December 16, 2001. Here's the full context:
The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as he is in power. But that does not mean he is the next target.
And the commitment to do that, it seems to me, could be disruptive of our alliance that still has work to do in Afghanistan. And a lot will depend on what the facts are in various places as to what terrorist groups are doing, and as to whether or not we have facts as to whether or not the Iraqis have been involved in the terrorist attack of September 11, or whether or not Saddam is getting a weapon of mass destruction and is close to it. So facts will determine what our next targets are.
In other words, Levin's full quote shows exactly the opposite of what Bush was trying to say it showed. Levin was laying out the case against attacking Iraq, arguing presciently that there was unfinished work in Afghanistan, that war in Iraq could damage alliances, and specifically cautioning against targeting Iraq absent hard evidence of Saddam's WMDS or his role in September 11. It's ludicrous to argue, as Bush did Monday, that Carl Levin "reached the same conclusion" on Iraq as Bush. Levin didn't even vote for the war resolution.
How many of those who heard Bush's sound bites on the evening news will hear the rest of the quote? Then again, there may be a reason "[a]lmost six in 10 now say Bush is not honest, and a similar number say his administration does not have high ethical standards."
Posted by cradle at November 15, 2005 11:32 PMWhatever man. Bush is my hero.
Posted by: kan at November 16, 2005 01:10 AMi agree with Kan.
why do you hate america, david?
"On available evidence, the President himself has not grasped the essential criticism of moving against Iraq when he did: that a war in Iraq undercut the broader and longer term war against Islamic terrorism. Not in one speech, not in one interview or off-hand remark, not in one insider account of White House deliberation has there been the slightest indication that President Bush recognizes this concept sufficiently to offer a rebuttal to it."
-James Fallows
"Does the president think that the many generals, former top administration officials and senators from his own party who have joined over two-thirds of the country in questioning the president's handling of the war in Iraq are all unpatriotic too? The president does not have a monopoly on patriotism, and this is not a country where only those who agree with him support the troops and care about defending our country."
-John Kerry
What really suxors is VP Cheney's talk yesterday when he says: "Would the United States and other free nations be better off or worse off with Zarqawi, bin Laden and Zawahiri in control of Iraq?"
Now I know the pre-war intelligence was a little bad, bad how can anyone say this crap? Now that Saddam is gone, the Kurds wouldn't take any Al Quaeda crap, and neither would the Shias (and the Iranians would help them kick Al Quaeda ass if it took that). If the U.S. pulled out, the Sunni's would be too busy getting slaughtered to worry about Al Quaeda.
Saddam stayed in power because he 1) set up a nationwide Sunni-based network of organized security folks to wipe out opposition and 2) he got the economy working pretty well until the Iran-Iraq war.
Now that the Sunni-based security network has been blown apart, their is little hope for an unpopular dictator to come into power.
On the other hand, there is every expectation that an early U.S. pullout could lead to a Shia-based religious theocracy along the lines of what Iraq has, along with Kurdistan pulling out of Iraq. It would be a civil war, and the Sunni's would get genocided (new verb), but Al Quaeda would be on the sidelines. Sistani would probably be in control.
Perhaps Al Quaeda could hide out in Iraq until the Shia dictatorship sets up its internal security network, then whether Al Quaeda stays and camps in Iraq or not will depend on how the Shia's view the value of having them there versus having good US/Euro relations.
Meanwhile, Al Quaeda can keep doing some bombing and killing a few people, but they don't have a real military force. This isn't Vietnam, Al Quaeda doesn't have tanks and artillery, they have a little book that shows them how to make TATP and some RPGs and mortar rounds.
Posted by: Tom at November 22, 2005 02:23 PMWell, the Shias have been taking crap ("Attacks on Iraq Mosques, Hotel Kill 82"). And for some time, too. I don't think it's the case that our presence has prevented them from defeating Zarqawi et. al. They give as well as take, though (and use our rhetoric to defend it.) You might call it a low-grade civil war.
I won't predict the future, and wouldn't presume to try, but it seems to me that Iraq is well on it's way to becoming two or possibly three states: a secular Kurdish state in the north, a Shite theocracy in the south, and a Sunni state in the central/west. This will likely become a de jure reality; it's mostly de facto now. I recommend some of Peter Galbraith's writing on the subject: Iraq: Bush's Islamic Republic from this summer, and What Are We Holding Together? (November).
If there is a Sunni state, will it support the (US-created) Al Qaeda presence in Iraq? If so, what will we do? I don't know the answers to these questions.
You're right, Al Qaeda are not the Viet Cong. They do not have widespread popular support. Then again, neither do we.