I missed the President’s speech yesterday, but Jeff Goldstein was happy, which usually bodes well. He has high standards for a guy that drinks martinis while sitting on the floor in his boxer shorts. Being less gifted in wordsmithery but possessing perhaps a touch more class, I drinks ‘em in jeans, a sweatshirt and ugg boots, while sitting in a chair and tapping at a keyboard.
Glen(n) also seemed satisfied that the administration has shaken itself off a bit of the dolors subsequent to a series of political setbacks, some serious, some manufactured, some absurd. And as for me? About time, says I: There’s a war on, and it’s no time to be laying in the corner, licking your… wounds, let us say.
He also tips us to a couple worthwhile posts: Milbank and Pincus in the WaPo, men who cannot in good conscience be described as wide-eyed ing?ɬ
Actually, the last I can recall when strategic intel was 100% right is when the Soviets put missiles in Cuber (to use JFK’s pronnunciation), I remember as a mere child of 8 living in Port Charlotte, Fl, watching one broadcast showing U-2 (SR-71) photos of the sites. Didn’t understand all of the implications, but the photos still stand out in my mind.
Senior, I’d almost call that tactical intel: Although they were strategic weapons, strategic intel (at least the way I use it) would have meant that we’d have been aware of the Soviet’s intent to place the nukes on Cuba before they ever got there. The Kennedy administration essentially woke up one morning to the realization that there was a close-in threat on their flanks that they hadn’t seen coming.
Lex,
I think you are being guilty of what so many are accusing the Pres. You are merely selecting for republishing the info (in this case the only WaPo extract) in your favor, and are mostly ignoring the rest. I would also take issue that the WaPo’s main thrust is oppositions (Dems) concurrence with the groupthink regarding WMD. I think the main thrust of the article is right there is para uno:
‘…that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.
Neither assertion is wholly accurate.’
We can explore go these assertions – especially the full availability of the NIE and candor of its accuracy and precision.
Now – I was wholeheartedly for this war. I even argued this point to semi-hostile liberal crowds. I believed then and now that the main reason was to de-capitate this viral Baathist regime. However, it seems to me that this admin overstated the case for WMD willfully and knowingly. Althought the evidence was statistical in nature (as you well articulated why) they presented it as FACTUAL, to a non-professional citizenry that cannot make the distinctions you can regarding intelligence estimates. Bottom line is that I feel manipulated and fooled. Perhaps the fool realizing he is one is one reason I am bitter toward this admin.
I could go on, but this should suffice for now. BTW, I love reading your blog, in agreement or disagreement. You write wonderfully.
Thx, Mike
Well, Mike – thanks for dropping in and your kind comments about the blog.
As for the other, I guess my point is and was that you can hardly expect the administration, having made the decision that the war was necessary – for a combination of reasons, WMD being only that one around which all of the various arms of government could come to agreement – you could hardly expect the administration in this case to argue in defense of Saddam by laying out the counter-arguments.
I think it’s true that all people, whether pols or citizens, tend to act on information which they believe on balance to be true (not being able in the real world to wait for 100% certainty) as though it was something they knew to be true. That’s true whether leadership is deciding issues of great import, or whether the people are deciding whether or not they are for the decision being made. There’s no need to feel foolish about having been wrong. You were by no means the only one.
But neither does that mean that we have not done a great good thing, either.