Iraq, the CIA, and the White House for the information impaired
A friend of mine -- someone I do respect and enjoy talking with on many subjects -- is also pretty conservative. In an attempt to counteract some of the jouyous liberal celebration regarding Scooter Libby's downfall, he posted a link to an article about The Untold Story of Judith Miller and Joe Wilson. It contained a giggle-inducing number of basic factual errors, but aside from that it trotted out the old accusation the the CIA has been 'out to get the President' since day one.
Using the CIA as an institutional fall-guy has been popular over the last couple of years. If you'll remember, when everyone realized that Iraq had no WMD's and was a complete non-threat to the US, much was made of Bad Intelligence Data From The CIA. "We were just going on what we were told" was the excuse du jour, before 'We were just trying to bring democracy all along' became the popular spin.
To those who had been following the build-up to war and investigating the intelligence from day one, this line was hilarious. Clearly, though, some people don't get the joke. For them, I've provided this helpful chart.
How Dangerous Was Iraq?
- How Dangerous Iraq Really Was
- How Dangerous the CIA Said Iraq Was
- How Dangerous the White House Said Iraq Was
Look closely at it and ponder it for a moment. Iraq was a complete military non-threat. It wasn't even a paper tiger -- it was a paper badger. The White House, though, thought it was super-duper holy bejeebus let's blow stuff up dangerous. This was the argument favored by Sadaam, of course, who had a vested interest in telling everyone he was supremely dangerous.
The CIA, though, disagreed. The CIA is charged, mind you, with finding out stuff -- not acting as the White House's marketing agency. They still over-estimated the danger posed by Sadaam and Iraq, but based on what they knew they insisted the situation was nowhere near as dire as the White House insisted it was. In response, the White House pretty much stopped listening to the CIA and started generating its own intelligence data from sources that confirmed its view of things.
When the dust finally settled and it turned out that Sadaam was a threat to his own people and no one else (like the vast majority of dictators currently in power around the world), the CIA took the blame. Because, y'know, they overestimated how dangerous he was.
How does this relate to the Joe Wilson case and our favorite piece of partisan hackery? Joe Wilson went to Niger to investigate claims that Sadaam was buying uranium there. The White House was using these claims to help prove that Iraq was dangerous. The CIA was skeptical, and had told the White House as much -- they sent someone to investigate further and determined that it was, in fact, a baseless story. They were right.
If that's what the writer calls a "covert operation" conducted against President Bush, perhaps the CIA was a bit too easy on him.
Hi. :)
Hi. :)
Iraq, et al
Articluate regurgitation of the points of view that align with your own. The really impressive part is that you, like your sources, actually sound authoritative when in reality you know only what you're told.
I'll have to wait patiently until you pass through this phase and actually start looking at and including ALL reasonable points of view and reports. This endless stream of sniveling, know-it-all criticism launched from behind the thin veil of fairmindedness is necessary I suppose.
"When the dust finally settled and it turned out that Sadaam was a threat to his own people and no one else."
Cracks me up.
One of your biggest fans!
Awesome!
Anonymous, thanks for your post. I had no idea that I had a fan, but you've definitely made my day.
A case can certainly be made that Saddam MIGHT have been a threat to those outside his country. After all, I might be a threat. You might be, too. For all we know, the Prime Minister of Pakistan could be plotting right now to destroy us all. What we need to look for are credible threats.
In laughing at that point in particular, you seem to suggest not only that everyone thought Saddam could attack us, but that he actually had this capability. Thankfully this was not at all the case. Saddam had no more capability to harm those outside his country than any other tin-pot dictators did. In addition, he had no ability to change that fact.
You imply that I have not, in fact, looked at other points of view. This is incorrect. You also imply that on my personal blog, I should include a he-said she-said tennis match of viewpoints I have examined and found wanting. I respectfully submit that you are confused about the nature of publishing, weblogs, and objectivity.
After all this, thoug, I see that you've done nothing to produce the piles of information you suggest contradict my opinions. I'm disappointed. If I was mistaken, and Saddam did in fact have the credible capability to attack the US -- or even any states in the Middle East -- please correct me with sourced information rather than blanket assertions. I depend on my fans for things like that.
Post new comment