Rethinking the Iraq Critics

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I'm not usually in the habit of beating a dead horse, but regarding Mr. Barone's insistence that the Bush administration did not politicize the intelligence about Iraq in order to move our country to war, I ran across an interesting example of this politicization process in the book “The One Percent doctrine,” by Ron Suskind. That Feith himself (whose recent book Barone uses as his primary source) was involved make this particularly interesting reading. Suskind recount’s the administration’s ad nauseam efforts to bludgeon the CIA into writing a report verifying a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. Some excerpts (from pgs. 189-191):
“Relentless pressure is a strategy. Usually quite successful. It was employed both on the ‘war on terror’ against al Qaeda, and by the White House against the CIA . . . .
“On January 10 [2003] Jimi Miscik, the head of the DI [Directorate of Intelligence] walked down the hall on the seventh floor shaking with rage [and walked into] Tenet’s suite. She could barely get out the words. Stephen Hadley, Condi’s second, had called . . . . They wanted her down at Libby’s office . . . by 5 p.m. At issue was the last in an endless series of draft reports about the connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. How many drafts? Miscik couldn’t remember. The pressure from the White House—and various intelligence divisions under the Vice President and Sec. of Defense—had started the week after 9/11.
“Cheney’s office claimed to have sources. And Rumsfeld’s too. They kept throwing them at Miscik and CIA. The same information, five different ways. They’d omit that a key piece had been discounted . . . . ‘Sorry our mistake.’ Then it would reappear, again, in a memo the next week. The CIA held firm: the meeting in Prague between Atta and the Iraqi agent [among other things] didn’t occur.
“Miscik was no fool. She understood what was going on. It wasn’t about what was true or verifiable. It was about a defensible position, or at least one that would hold up until the troops were marching through Bagdad, welcomed as liberators.
“A few days before, when she had sent the final draft over to Libbey and Hadley, she had told them emphatically, ‘This is it.’ There would be no more drafts, no more meetings where her analysts sat across from Hadley, or Feith, or the guys from Feith’s office, while [they] tried to slip something by them. The report was not what they wanted. She knew that. [But] No evidence meant no evidence.
“‘I’m not going back there, again, George,’ Miscik said. ‘If I have to go back to hear their crap and rewrite that [expletive] report . . . I’m resigning right now.’
“She fought back tears of rage.
“Tenet picked up the phone to call Hadley.
“‘She’s not coming over,’ he shouted into the phone. ‘We are not rewriting this [expletive] report one more time. It’s [expletive] over. Do you hear me! And don’t you ever [expletive] treat my people this way again. Ever!”
No politicizing? [Expletive] rubbish.

Thomas W. Muther, Jr. of KS 8:44PM August 02, 2008

Not meant to be critical, purely a matter of curiosity: how did you change your mind over time to support the Iraq invasion if you initially did not support it? You say that it had to do with your animosity for liberalism.
Are you recommending that approach as a basis for supporting a policy ( of any sort) - you don't like the people who oppose the policy?
As time goes by evidence continues to mount that those who were skeptical about going to war were correct. But as time passed, your thinking moved in the opposite direction.
Just curious.

russ ludeke of MN 1:50PM June 02, 2008

Romeo Bravo of CA is an example of liberal "Surface-Thinking." He wonders why Roosevelt did not get criticized for going to war against Germany (and Italy) blissfully without knowing that THEY DECLARED WAR ON US!
This level of the lack of historical knowlege is astounding. It is the same when liberals blame Muslim animosity against the West on the Crusades without the knowledge that Islamic expansionism was only stopped in Europe by Charles Martel, just south of Paris a couple hundred years before.

Gary of NJ 10:26PM May 25, 2008

Obama adviser who met with Hamas resigns
May 11, 2008 .suntimes.com
Rob Malley, a Middle East policy adviser to likely Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama, resigned after news surfaced that he had been meeting with Hamas -- something Obama pledged he himself would never do.
Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt said Saturday Malley called the Obama campaign on Friday to sever ties with the candidate after learning the Times of London was publishing a story about his contacts with the terrorist group.
Malley is an analyst at the Washington, D.C.-based International Crisis Group, specializing in the Israeli-Arab conflict. He told NBC News that his job "is to meet with all sorts of savory and unsavory people and report on what they say. I've never denied whom I meet with; that's what I do."
LaBolt said, "Sen. Obama strongly opposes talking to Hamas, a terrorist group committed to Israel's destruction. As president, he will work to isolate Hamas and target its resources, and rejects any dialogue until Hamas recognizes Israel, renounces terrorism, and abides by previous agreements."
LaBolt, downplaying Malley's role, said, "Rob Malley has, like hundreds of other experts, provided informal advice to the campaign in the past. He has no formal role in the campaign and he will not play any role in the future."
The issue of whether to have dealings with Hamas is a particularly sensitive matter for Obama, who needs to persuade skeptical Jewish voters that he is a strong supporter of Israel. Last week, presumptive GOP nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) highlighted a Hamas leader's statement that he hoped Obama would win the White House. Asked about McCain's suggestion that Obama is "favored by Hamas," Obama said McCain was "losing his bearings as he pursues this nomination."
Last month, as former President Jimmy Carter was set to meet with Hamas leaders, Obama told a group of Jewish activists and clergy in Philadelphia that he would not sit down with Hamas.

Al from Greenville of SC 10:56AM May 20, 2008

Hemingway did not call his great novel "A Farewell to Guns." To bear arms means to be in a military force. Arms does not refer to guns, it refers to weapons of all types. And the constitution joins "keep" to "bear arms" with the conjunction "and", not the conjunction "or." And the right is ascribed to "the People," not to individuals. This was clearly a declaration that people have a right to form militias. And in this country, the State governments are the bodies given that authority because the 2nd amendment says that a militia is important to the freedom of a state, not an individual.
Barone's take on guns is way off base. No one wants to deprive people of their hunting weapons, but society has a right to say that murder weapons and assault weapons have no place in our country. Handguns are offensive weapons, not defensive. When I was in the military, only officers had and were trained in the use of pistols. -- not for the purpose of fighting the enemy but to use to shoot their own troops who refused to obey orders.

Gary F of NY 8:48AM May 20, 2008

Ha ha. Them trick us no mass deduction weapon. Me want beer with Bush him good President! Him clever say we die from mass deduction weapon but to weapon. Funny funny Bush. Fire everybody no want war. We win ha ha good trick! Me want two beer with Bush, Rummy, Condo, Fethi, Powelli, Dicky, Wolfie. Ha ha ha. Obama bad. No trick.

David M of NJ 10:13AM May 19, 2008

While I know that this article is supposed to be about Iraq, I could
not allow Mr. Barone's comments about guns to go unchallenged.
The real fallacy in the gun-control argument is that having a gun
in your home makes you safer, when in fact the complete opposite
is true. This myth of self-defense, perpetuated bt the NRA, centers
on the bogus story of John Q. Public using his trusty sidearm to
defend his family and home against an attempted robbery/assault
from the evil wrongdoer. In point of fact, this scenario almost never
occurs. The statistical truth is that the simple presence of a gun in
the home dramatically increases the chances of a member of the household
being injured or killed as the result of a bullet being fired from that gun,
either due to an accidental discharge or a domestic situation that goes
quickly and tragically wrong. The fact that millions of law-abiding citizens
have a gun in their home is in fact an enormous problem, and a direct
cause of hundreds of injuries or deaths of innocent people (mostly children).
The argument that people, not guns, which are tools meant for the sole job
of killing things, are the only problem is as ludicrous as it is pathetic.
Before I get accused of being an elitist liberal who's probably never even
touched a weapon, I just want to say that I am a special officer for the
Department of Defense who has had many hours of training on various
weapons from 5-shot revolvers to .50 caliber automatic weapons. Guns are
a tool designed to accomplish a specific task, just like a hammer or a
screwdriver. It just happens that in this case, the task the gun is supposed
to accomplish is to fire a bullet and kill another living being.

Matthew of MD 7:36AM May 19, 2008

While I know that this article is supposed to be about Iraq, I could
not allow Mr. Barone's comments about guns to go unchallenged.
The real fallacy in the gun-control argument is that having a gun
in your home makes you safer, when in fact the complete opposite
is true. This myth of self-defense, perpetuated bt the NRA, centers
on the bogus story of John Q. Public using his trusty sidearm to
defend his family and home against an attempted robbery/assault
from the evil wrongdoer. In point of fact, this scenario almost never
occurs. The statistical truth is that the simple presence of a gun in
the home dramatically increases the chances of a member of the household
being injured or killed as the result of a bullet being fired from that gun,
either due to an accidental discharge or a domestic situation that goes
quickly and tragically wrong. The fact that millions of law-abiding citizens
have a gun in their home is in fact an enormous problem, and a direct
cause of hundreds of injuries or deaths of innocent people (mostly children).
The argument that people, not guns, which are tools meant for the sole job
of killing things, are the only problem is as ludicrous as it is pathetic.
Before I get accused of being an elitist liberal who's probably never even
touched a weapon, I just want to say that I am a special officer for the
Department of Defense who has had many hours of training on various
weapons from 5-shot revolvers to .50 caliber automatic weapons. Guns are
a tool designed to accomplish a specific task, just like a hammer or a
screwdriver. It just happens that in this case, the task the gun is supposed
to accomplish is to fire a bullet and kill another living being.

Matthew of MD 7:36AM May 19, 2008

Eric, it would've been nice if you would have included more of the report in it, than a veiled comment that you are trying to use to bolster your argument. Here, I'll give you two extra paragraphs and your original quote from the report:
"Three final notes before proceeding. First, our main tasks were to find out how the Intelligence Community erred in Iraq and to recommend changes to avoid such errors in the future. This is a task that often lends itself to hubris and to second-guessing, and we have been humbled by the difficult judgments that had to be made about Iraq and its weapons programs. We are humbled too by the complexity of the management and technical challenges intelligence professionals face today. We recommend substantial changes, and we believe deeply that such changes are necessary, but we recognize that other reasonable observers could come to a different view on some of these questions.
Second, no matter how much we improve the Intelligence Community, weapons of mass destruction will continue to pose an enormous threat. Intelligence will always be imperfect and, as history persuades us, surprise can never be completely prevented. Moreover, we cannot expect spies, satellites, and analysts to constitute our only defense. As our biological weapons recommendations make abundantly clear, all national capabilities--regulatory, military, and diplomatic--must be used to combat proliferation.
Finally, we emphasize two points about the scope of this Commission's charter, particularly with respect to the Iraq question. First, we were not asked to determine whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That was the mandate of the Iraq Survey Group; our mission is to investigate the reasons why the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments were so different from what the Iraq Survey Group found after the war. Second, we were not authorized to investigate how policymakers used the intelligence assessments they received from the Intelligence Community. Accordingly, while we interviewed a host of current and former policymakers during the course of our investigation, the purpose of those interviews was to learn about how the Intelligence Community reached and communicated its judgments about Iraq's weapons programs--not to review how policymakers subsequently used that information."
Now, when we take your quote and put it back in the context here, we see that the Silbermann-Robb Commission is not as partisan as you're making it out to be. On top of that, it is absolutely correct that they not be given the authority to investigate policymakers. That goes into territory of investigating legislators and that requires much greater authority than what the Commission was given.
On an aside, Eric, you know nothing about me. However, I'll clue you in on something: I was against the Iraq War when it commenced. As time went on, though, as I listened to the vileness and hatred that guys like you spewed, I began to rethink my own beliefs and opinions about the war and about America and liberalism in general, and decided that I would shed whatever liberalism was left within me (and believe me, it wasn't a whole lot) and decided to support the war effort and America. Sorry, but none of the characters you mentioned changed my beliefs, no I came to this decision on my own. I know, I know, a conservative can't think for himself/herself and must be subjected the lies of somebody else.

Chris of AZ 12:49PM May 16, 2008

Do well-informed journalists still guess what's going on behind the scene? What does "produce on short notice" mean in terms of wmd's? Criticism continues of the premise and progress of the invasion of Iraq. Removing Sadam removed no grave threat to us in the US.

Max Phillips of OH 10:07AM May 16, 2008