The Long Shadow
In yesterday’s NYT magazine, Bill Keller papers over a dark chapter for journalism and the NYT: the WMD craze, which was the Bush Administration’s pretext for the Iraq war:
The remedy for bad journalism is more and better journalism. Reporters at The Times made amends for the credulous prewar stories with investigations of the bad intelligence and with brave, relentless and illuminating coverage of the war and occupation. But what The Times writes casts a long shadow.
Let’s rewind the clock to when the shadow was cast. Here’s Jack Shafer in May of 2003, commenting on the announcement that the CIA was reassessing it’s faulty prewar intelligence on WMD’s:
If the government must re-examine whether data may have been “manipulated” to support the war, surely the New York Times should conduct a similar postwar inventory of its primary WMD reporter, Judith Miller. In the months running up to the war, Miller painted as grave a picture of Iraq’s WMD potential as any U.S. intelligence agency, a take that often directly mirrored the Bush administration’s view.
Now, thanks to the reporting of the Washington Post‘s Howard Kurtz, we understand why Miller and the administration might have seen eye-to-eye on Iraq’s WMD. On the same day as the Times editorial appeared, Kurtz reproduced an internal Times e-mail in which Miller described Ahmad Chalabi, the controversial Iraq leader, former exile, and Bush administration fave, as one of her main sources on WMD.
“[Chalabi] has provided most of the front page exclusives on WMD to our paper,” Miller e-mailed Times Baghdad bureau chief John Burns. Miller added that the MET Alpha””a military outfit searching for WMD after the invasion”””is using Chalabi’s intell and document network for its own WMD work.”
The failure of “Chalabi’s intell” to uncover any WMD has embarrassed both the United States and Miller. As noted previously in this column, she oversold the successes of the post-invasion WMD search.
If you want to know more, Michael Massing’s account in 2004 is definitive and essential. Here he is on the larger failing of journalists back then:
In the period before the war, US journalists were far too reliant on sources sympathetic to the administration. Those with dissenting views””and there were more than a few””were shut out. Reflecting this, the coverage was highly deferential to the White House. This was especially apparent on the issue of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction””the heart of the President’s case for war. Despite abundant evidence of the administration’s brazen misuse of intelligence in this matter, the press repeatedly let officials get away with it. As journalists rush to chronicle the administration’s failings on Iraq, they should pay some attention to their own.
By the time they did, it was too late. The rest is history. Or as Keller puts it, a “long shadow.”
The president in a speech at the Pentagon:
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors. I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.”
The date of the speech: Feb 17, 1998. The president: Bill Clinton. It’s just as wrong to cherry pick time periods that define “history” as it is to cherry pick time periods that define “warming” or “cooling.”
For more reality- see http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp
Jeffn n @1
That was when the inspectors were kicked out of Iraq by Saddam.
The reality is that Clinton pointedly refused to send American soldiers into Iraq. He was not stupid enough to do that, despite the calls from the Neocon lobby to do just that.
He did weaken Iraq with sanctions and a no fly zone. Unfortunately this hurt the Iraqi people while it did nothing to hurt Saddam Hussein’s grip on power. In fact, the CIA intelligence at the beginning of the Bush administration discounted Saddam Hussein as a threat to the US and US interests. So what Clinton did succeeded in blocking Saddam from acquiring WMD’s despite the fraudulent claims by those at the top of the Bush administration.
Did you mean that quote to show that the Bush administration was right to claim falsely the Saddam Hussein was acquiring WMD? Are you claiming that they didn’t falsify the intelligence, despite the solid documentation that they did so?
If so, what you posted doesn’t really make the case.
Eric, what in the world are you talking about? The link I posted shows quotes from Democrats regarding Iraq’s possession (and use- let’s not forget the documented use of weapons you say they never had) of WMD in 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, and 2003.
The 1998 speech I quoted was coincident with air strikes on Iraq- are you claiming pilots aren’t “American” or that they aren’t technically “soldiers.”
Let’s face history as it really was. Judith Miller and NYT were writing what they were writing about Iraq because that is what Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and yes, even George Bush, were saying at the time.
You and KK wish to amend history to read: Judith Miller and [accidentally the] NYT were writing what they were writing about Iraq because that is what Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Tony Blair, Jacques Chirac and yes, even George Bush, were saying at the time. This is called cherry picking- it leads to cocooning.
Oops, the strike through feature didn’t work on the last graph- the intent was to show Eric and KK are carefully editing the list of those who were all saying the same thing from 1998 to 2003.
By the time they did, it was too late
Oh please, dealing with the “Iraq’ problem had been on our TODO list since Gerald Ford authorized construction of King Khalid Military city. (The second largest military facility in the world after Fort Hood).
The WMD justification was just one of more then 20 reasons.
The Oil for Food program wasn’t working as the money was being diverted. It was becoming extremely difficult to maintain the oil for food program based on humanitarian grounds(people were going hungry). The day was coming where it would no longer be sustainable and Saddam would go back to buying guns and tanks big time which would mean maintaining a big footprint in Saudi Arabia which was also an untenable situation. (The whole infidel boots on holy Muslim soil nonsense).
WMD or no WMD…Iraq was going to be invaded. The last I checked, Bill Clinton was the President when the ‘Iraqi Liberation Act of 1998’ was passed.
Unfortunately, the media and the population at large have a very difficult time understanding second order justifications for action. I.E. A begets B and B is the real goal. We tend to get stuck on A.
The last I checked all the dictatorships in the Middle East have gotten a bit wobbly…and the official line from Washington has been ‘wobbly is good’. I can’t imagine that being the official line 10 years ago. The line would have been ‘wobbly is dangerous as it could upset regional stability’. I.E. Someone with a large army might take advantage of the wobble.
We have had 60 years of false stability in the Middle East based on military dictatorships.
Real stability comes with democracies that wobble to the left and wobble to the right as the mood of the people changes.
We end up adopting some of the better ideas of the left, then soon as we start adopting some of the dumber ideas of the left we wobble over to the right and do the same all over again in the other direction. Society improves.
Do you understand the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk, Jeff?
“Miller painted as grave a picture of Iraq’s WMD potential as any U.S. intelligence agency, a take that often directly mirrored the Bush administration’s view.”
.
Give Miller a break. She was just going with the consensus. I am sure if you were to have taken a review of the experts, 97% of which would have agreed with Miller.
.
As we all know, the consensus is always right 🙂
#6- I’m with you. Whenever I read these guys’ contortions on the truth and simple history, I keep thinking of the classic line from Animal House:
“Face it, Kent. You F’d up. You trusted us.”
I can’t wait to see how they spin 40 years of the party’s anti-nuclear activism now that it’s clear what a bone-headed mistake that was. “See, Jane Fonda was working for the neo-cons when she made the China Syndrome and Reagan then used the opportunity to…”
Jeffn, @3
You can’t be serious. The level of spending on air strikes, and the casualties were minimal, compared to the cost of the war. The legislation on this enacted at the behest of Clinton, expressly forbade American boots on the ground.
The things politicians, who were not in power, and did not have access to inside information were saying are irrelevant to the issue.
The evidence is clear from the Downing Street Memos that the intelligence was distorted. The fact is that Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush were determined to invade Iraq, no matter what the evidence showed regarding WMD’s. The people on the inside knew that the intelligence was “fixed around the policy” and the case for WMD was thin. This was written by a British Intelligence officer after a meeting with CIA director George Tenet.
Blair was concerned that if Saddam Hussein agreed to inspections, the British would have difficulty participating in the invasion. It was established that British intelligence fabricated the story that WMD were ready for Deployment within 45 minutes of the time the Saddam gave the order.
Ed Forbes @7
The fact is that inside the CIA the Iraq experts, and the Energy Dept. knew that the case for WMD’s was not there! It was the political types, Cheney, Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld who were cooking up this false story, with the help of Tenet, who wanted to keep his job and please his boss.
The CIA actually got 30 US resident relatives of scientists living in Iraq to visit Iraq to find out if WMD work was going on. All of them said that WMD work had stopped.
The whole point of the article by Keller, who is the editor, was that Miller was being played by the politicians in the Bush administration. She became a source for planted stories in return for the scoops that she got through her special access.
In fact the real experts on the aluminum tubes were in the energy department and they said that they were not suitable for nuclear weapons. A reporter needs to distinguish between real experts and people who have an agenda. This is a lesson for the climate change issue as well.
Harrywr @5,
You are talking nonsense. The weapons inspectors were in place and the inspections were effective when we invaded. They found that no WMD’s had been developed since the previous inspectors had left. The nuclear facilities were in the same condition as when they were left in 1998. In fact the US invasion caused some equipment to disappear probably sold to Iran because of lax security.
The Iraq liberation Act prohibited a ground invasion by the US.
There is no evidence that a costly war was inevitable.
The overthrow of dictatorships is occurring because the people of the middle east are getting organized. A little US airpower was instrumental in helping in the case of Libya, but US boots on the ground were not used or needed. It seems like a good thing now, but just like the situation in Iraq, we don’t really know how it will play out.
Let’s see. Saddam had a WMD program in Libya working on the production of nukes. We had no idea. Fortunately, when we captured Saddam, the Libyan madman gave it up.
The US eventually found and removed 550 metric tons of Saddam’s yellowcake.
He had biological and chemical weapons and was working on nukes. That was the belief of every intelligence agency in the western world. And it turned out to be correct.
That most liberals have absolutely no idea what the facts really are should tell you all you need to know about the quality of the “journalism” they rely upon.
Eric:
What does “level of spending” to address WMD have to do with whether or not Clinton believed he had them? Clinton said he had WMD- was he lying or not? Clinton used long-distance air strikes and cruise missiles to deal with two threats from the middle east in the late 1990s- Al Queda (bombed in Afghanistan in 1998 after the embassy bombings) and Iraq also bombed in ’98. On 9/11/01 we learned that strategy didn’t work too well with Al Queda. Why do you think that discovery was irrelevant to the question of Iraq?
You claim: “The things politicians, who were not in power, and did not have access to inside information were saying are irrelevant to the issue. ”
For some crazy reason, I assert that President Clinton was “in power” and Vice President Al Gore had “access” all the way up to late Jan. 2001 when they left office and that Democrats on the intelligence oversight committees of Congress from 1998-2003 all had “inside information.” Based on what evidence do you claim the opposite?
As for Downing Street, this is the address from which the English prime minister – from the Labor Party – shot down a lefty talking point by happily admitting that his intell services were, indeed, the source of the line in Bush’s State of the Union claiming that Iraq was actively trying to acquire uranium for a nuclear weapons program. This is the address stood by (still stands by) the uranium claim when every Democrat in the US wanted to pretend that Bush made it up. Believe it or not, nuclear program was considered to be a WMD threat by Democrats and Republicans.
Eric Adler Says:
September 12th, 2011 at 11:52 am Jeffn, @3
<i>The fact is that Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush were determined to invade Iraq, no matter what the evidence showed regarding WMD’s.</i>
Correct. Now that you’ve identified that the WMD argument wasn’t the reason then why did Blair, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush wish to invade Iraq.
The military and intelligience communities have a long history of leaking ‘damaging’ information if they think a policy is seriously wrongheaded. Why were they relatively silent?
Why was the US Military restructured in the 1990’s to deal with two simultaneous regional conflicts?
For what purpose?
Stealing the oil seems implausible as Iraq needed cash and was quite happy to sell it.
Why does the US State Department have a budget for a “Post Castro Action Plan?”
Clinton couldn’t make the case for ‘boots on the ground in Iraq’ anymore then he could make the case for ‘boots on the ground in Somalia’.
Post 9/11 with ‘revenge fever’ running high in the US making the case for kicking the crap out of an Arab dictator was easy.
Of course the fact that an event occurred that made it easier for our 43rd president to make a case our 42th president couldn’t is what drives the 9/11 truthes conspiracy theories.
Everyone knows who the ‘problem children’ of geo-politics are.
Doing something about the problem children usually requires a combination of circumstances that may only occur rarely.
Stan @12,
What did Libya’s nuclear effort have to do with Saddam Hussein? Nothing.
You are inventing history with your statement that Saddam Hussein was actively working on nuclear weapons.
When the UN inspectors got to Iraq, the very first thing they determined was that the yellow cake Uranium was stored in casks and had not been touched since the inspectors sealed them up in 1998. The very first report they made was that Saddam Hussein did not work on nuclear weapons since 1998.
http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/2003/ebsp2003n006.shtml
“After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq.”
These are the facts from the real world. Stan seems to live in an alternate universe!
Eric: “Ed Forbes @7 The fact is that inside the CIA the Iraq experts, and the Energy Dept. knew that the case for WMD’s was not there! It was the political types, Cheney, Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld who were cooking up this false story, with the help of Tenet, who wanted to keep his job and please his boss…”
LoL…Now who other politicals have I heard were “cooking the data” ?.
Eric: “Ed Forbes @7 The fact is that inside the CIA the Iraq experts, and the Energy Dept. knew that the case for WMD’s was not there! It was the political types, Cheney, Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld who were cooking up this false story, with the help of Tenet, who wanted to keep his job and please his boss”¦”
Yes because these people were stupid enough, with their evil plans to assume none of this would be figured out after the invasion! Why didn’t they just plant some evidence in Iraq? That would be more consistent than the way you are portraying the situation Eric.
And Libya’s nuclear program was halted, wait for it, because we invaded Iraq! There would not be an “Arab Spring” if it were not for the invasion of Iraq.
Next up from Eric the BS Lancet stuy, any wagers?
Harrywr, @14
It wasn’t worth the cost in Iraqi and American lives, and American tax money. The public understands that now. There was no threat to the US that justified it.
It shouldn’t be the US policy to invade a country because there is a dictator whom we don’t like. We would go broke very quickly.
It wasn’t just an initiative to promote freedom. Some of the officials in the Bush administration subscribed to the the policy proposed by the Project for a New American Century, that the US should dominate the Middle East by military presence.
The Bush administration very quickly doubled our military spending adding to the deficit.
Oddly enough, at today’s press briefing Jack Lew used the Bush defense on WMDs to defend the Administration’s quite inaccurate projection for unemployment figures after the 2009 stimulus. He said they relied on the information they had at the time. We didn’t know then that the economy was in even worse shape, he said. Just as we didn’t know Saddam Hussein was bluffing.
From time to time when I started analysing proxy reconstructions, I compared my role in analysing the Hockey Stick to that of an intelligence analyst who said that sometimes aluminum tubes are not necessarily evidence of WMD, but simply aluminum tubes. It did not mean that the policy could not be justified on other grounds, but did mean that the policy should not be justified even in part on Hockey Stick analyses.
It was not a comparison that partisans on either side liked very much, but seemed apt to me at the time and still seems apt to me.
Steve- you make good points that underscore why it is dangerous to launch these partisan efforts to rewrite history. Thanks to the inability to admit that everyone agreed in 2002 and before that Saddam Hussein had WMD. here’s the meaty stuff we can’t debate:
– why was the intell wrong and what do we need to improve it? Eric assumes the intel was excellent but that the politicians lied about it- meaning no reform is necessary.
– what parts of Clinton and Bush’s approach really worked and what didn’t so that we’re better prepared next time we face a nuke-hungry middle eastern country (like, I dunno, Iran). Eric seems to be claiming that, to the extent he did anything about the non-existent threat, Clinton’s alleged attack on the non-existent threat worked by eliminating the WMD that wasn’t there.
– Given the scope of what can happen in an assymetric attack, is “containment” a viable strategy, how could it be improved over what we saw in Iraq, etc. Eric appears to be saying there wasn’t any need for either containment or attack because there was never anything to contain.
WMD in Iraq was a real issue. The scandal is that it was exaggerated.
AGW is a real issue. The scandal is that it is exaggerated.
I’m reminded of the Alan Greenspan quote:
I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil
I recall talking with and asking questions to a Political Science professor/friend in 2002 about the whole Iraq push. WMD or AQ were good public selling points (the latter especially so after 9/11), but never really the main reasons for invading Iraq. The WMD/AQ “evidence” was largely spun around a pre-determined goal. It also reminds of of how global warming deniers or so-called “climate skeptics” go about doing science. While comparing science to politics is largely apples and oranges, deniers operate mainly with a political mindset. The goal is to prevent emissions reductions and any perceived constraints on “free market” principles. The rest is a silly sideshow, fixed around that goal.
The mainstream media bricked the Iraq story. That was also during a time when daring to even question anything related to national security coming out of the administration was seen as almost treasonous, something that would potentially lead to a “mushroom cloud”. The lack of evidence presented to the public was brushed off as perhaps being too sensitive to divulge for national security purposes. If anyone made any claim that AQ was working with Iraq, it was immediately trumpeted without scarcely a second thought. Further lack of evidence after inspectors were let in was just evidence that Saddam was good at hiding stuff. When Iraq presented evidence that WMD were destroyed, it was evidence that he was falsifying evidence. When not every single WMD was completely accounted for, it was evidence that Iraq was lying and stockpiling WMD. Remind you of anything? Things only changed in the media later in 2003, but after the fact.
In climate science, repeated unsubstantiated claims by James Taylor from the Heartland Institute, Joe Bastardi on Fox News, ridiculous spin from Roy Spencer, or catchphrases like “hockey stick broken” or “hide the decline” hold sway over the mounds of science easily accessible to inquisitve astute journalists (which includes mounds of evidence indicating what “skeptics” claim is almost all bunk), journalists that are in short supply these days.
With that I offer my congratulations to a true skeptic.
http://eureka.australianmuseum.net.au/EEF99C60-76BC-11E0-A87E005056B06558?DISPLAYENTRY=true
NewYorkJ, it takes a truly twisted perspective to look at this and come up with the idea that it’s the skeptics that are hoodwinking the world.
As with the Iraq war, the consensus team sits in power, holds the levers of power, holds the data, has administration support, supplies the editors and reviewers for most of the journals, and gets stories in the major media on demand.
Furthermore, they have kept up a drumbeat of stories about Himalayan glaciers, polar bears, the Amazon, African agriculture, malaria and more–all of which have one thing in common–serial exaggeration and a refusal to acknowledge serious problems with their ‘stories.’
Finally, serious misconduct by people like Rajendra Pachauri goes completely uninvestigated, while the IPCC ignores completely the IAC recommendations.
But to you that means that it’s all the skeptics’ fault. It’s more or less delusional.
TF,
Those who drummed up the hype on Iraq are those drumming up the climate denier hype. Hard for anyone to miss that, other than the truly deluded.
http://www.desmogblog.com/of-global-warming-deniers-iraq-and-wmds-at-the-media-research-center
The stark similarity is that both deniers and neocons (very large overlap) make unsubstantiated claims to support political and ideological goals, and ignore evidence to the contrary, then perhaps blame someone else when someone exposes them. You also co-wrote a book doing something similar, so your take is understandable. Start with a narrative, then fix the evidence around it. Ignore context.
As with the Iraq war, the consensus team sits in power, holds the levers of power, holds the data, has administration support, supplies the editors and reviewers for most of the journals, and gets stories in the major media on demand.
Well gee, by the same logic, smoking and lung cancer is mostly hype, and evolution is mostly a hoax, both propped up by a grand conspiracy among scientists, who work to stifle the realists like Fred Singer and Roy Spencer. Unfortunately, political support for the scientific community is mixed at best, as is media coverage. Many politicians are even working to defund science.
Dessler and [Revkin] said it best:
With climate science, we have an overwhelming evidence (available for an inquisitive mind to access) leading to scientific consensus, often ignored by politicians and media in favor of very dubious claims.
With Iraq, we had little evidence, quite weak, and trumpeted by both mainstream press and further by most of the same political fools who currently bash climate science.
The Bush administration takes the blame for handling the postwar transition poorly, very poorly.
But, gee, we removed an evil dictator who habitually murdered tortured and raped his subjects (particular anyone who disagreed – and prehaps their entire families, just to make sure).
One that was known to have had WMD’s. Was known to have used WMD’s against his own people. Had started a couple of (Iran, Kuwait) wars of agression (though the Iran stalemate was working out pretty well). Was known to want WMDs (and there was no reason to think he wouldn’t use them.)
And this is the evil of the Bush administration?
I love liberals.
I am a liberal, kdk33. While I do not lament the passing of Hussein, who was exactly as you describe, what we did was wrong.
Not because of what it did to him. But because of what it did to us.
While my previous comment is held up in moderation…
Articles in the Mail on Sunday show the same uncritical reliance on dodgy sources that caused David Rose’s catastrophic mistakes about Iraq
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/dec/08/david-rose-climate-science
NewYorkJ, that guy’s picture looks familiar. Isn’t he the guy that wrote, “No one has been as badly let down by the revelations in these emails as those of us who have championed the science. We should be the first to demand that it is unimpeachable, not the last.”
He could have added a few words about the climate establishment’s contributions to the debacle–the Al Gores, the Joe Romms, the Kevin Trenberths.
But it is they who are acting like the BushBlair tapdancing duo that led us to war without the evidence. It is they who are pounding the table demanding a top-down approach without having done their sums.
Tom,
What we did for the people of Iraq (and possibly the entire middle east, time will tell, as springs turns to summer turns to fall). Was not without cost, in fortune, in lives (ours and theirs) and, as you say what it did to us – particularly the us that actually did the fighting (I did not, lest that be misconstrued).
War has a price, often steep. We sacrificed much to free opressed peoples in a far away place. The reward for us (and everybody else) is a more secure planet (we could have bought the oil for much much less). If it wasn’t so costly, these decisions would be rather easy, wouldn’t they?
The transition was handled very poorly, with that I agree. Otherwise, I am proud to have supported both wars, am proud of the Bush administration for making these tough decisions, am proud of our military, and am confident we did the right thing (though the wrong way at times).
If Keith wants to post about journalistic misbehavior, he could start with the October Surprise: 2 investigations, senate and house, serendipitously coinciding with Bush I’s re-election campaign. Both concluding mere weeks after the election that.. well, it was all nonsense after all.
ps. I am no fan of Bush II, the man spent like a drunken sailor, not much of a conservative. I’ll gladly bash him on other fronts. But not Iraq.
kdk33, you make some good points, but my aim was elsewhere (if not off..)
My concern is the numbing effect wars of choice have on our sensibilities. The money was huge–amounting coincidentally to the size of our current deficit. The loss of life was unforgivable.
But that we can look at a war in the same vein as the Great Power Games of the 19th and 20th centuries is, to me, just horrible.
If this was a war of choice, I would have chosen not to go to war.
TF,
As you ignore the article content and pull a STM, it’s worth noting that Monbiot gradually backed down from his first impression when he learned some of the context and let the investigations play out.
The ‘climategate’ inquiry at last vindicates Phil Jones ““ and so must I
The UEA’s climate science chief has been cleared: he was provoked beyond endurance. It was unfair to call for his resignation
Some people learn from their mistakes. Monbiot did, at least partially (although he still gets a few things wrong). You can also see that in the Keller article. If you weren’t so fanatically vested in your narrative and concern trolling, you might learn something from them.
And all David Rose can say in his defense is someone else lied to him on Iraq. That happens when one consistently relies on dubious sources to support a pre-determined agenda. He hasn’t changed his ways. He’s still promoting the same type of climate denial garbage from similar dubious sources.
Marlowe Mistaken, your thoughts are Mis-shapened
Rajendra Pachauri lied about every aspect of the Himalayan glacier debacle. Every aspect.
He lied to the press. He lied to his organisation. He lied to the organization he asked to fund TERI”s study–so much so that they withdrew the grant.
But I guess it’s okay, because he wasn’t a reporter.
Rajendra Pachauri is the head of the IPCC. He has power. Kinda like Bush. David Rose is a reporter. He has no power. Kinda like Judith Miller.
kdk33 Says:
September 12th, 2011 at 7:33 pm
War has a price, often steep. We sacrificed much to free opressed peoples in a far away place. The reward for us (and everybody else) is a more secure planet…
It’s unlikely war is ever waged primarily to free oppressed peoples and it’s these very oppressed people that end up paying the highest price (the immense civilian costs in Iraq are excused under the guise of the supposed current stability in that country, but what happens when the US troops leave and and someone like MuqtadÄ al-á¹¢adr decides its time to make a move?) It’s impossible to ascertain whether or not we have a more secure planet as a result of invasion (what if there had been an internal uprising a la Libya?)
TF,
While I’m no great fan of Pachauri (he was supported over Bob Watson as the IPCC head by the Bushites when they thought his oil industry ties would suit their purposes), nonetheless, you just lied about him. But I guess it’s ok because you and David Rose are just ordinary reporters with zero accountability or minimum standards of integrity, while scientists are expected to never make mistakes. But even Telegraph had to reluctantly apologize to him for libel.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2010/aug/26/rajendra-pachauri-financial-relationships
Steven Chu: If you look at the climate sceptics, I would have to say honestly, what standard are they being held to? It’s very asymmetric. They get to say anything they want.
And yes, the Himalayan glaciers on balance are retreating, regardless of a mistake in a 1000+ page report deniers apparently keep drooling over.
Ian Says:
September 12th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
but what happens when the US troops leave
Troops is a highly technical term that has significant definitional fluidity.
I.E. Whats the difference between an ‘military advisor’, ‘military technician’, ‘military attache’ or a ‘troop’?
NewYorkJ, while I may make mistakes occasionally, I am not lying. Pachauri was informed of the mistake in 2004. He bid on a project for TERI in 2008 knowing of the mistake. He delayed releasing the announcement until after Copenhagen–and crucially after TERI won the bid. And when that surfaced, they yanked the bid away from TERI.
I believe the person who has an issue with the truth on this is yourself.
Tom Fuller @24
Please stop making the Iraq War intelligence the analog of climate science. The history is very different than your account.
The Neocons in the defense department, under Wolfowitz, cooked up the intelligence on Iraq to suit their objective – an invasion of Iraq. George Tenet played along to please his boss. The real experts on Iraq at the working levels in the CIA did not believe the sources Wolfowitz relied on. In addition the experts on nuclear technology in the energy department did not buy the Aluminum tubes story. Even Tenet tried to stop Bush from claiming that Saddam was actively seeking nuclear material from Niger.
The CIA sent 30 Iraqi emigres who were relatives of Iraqi scientists into Iraq to find out if work was in progress on WMD’s and all reported that there was no work ongoing. This information was not supplied to Bush by Tenet, because it would have displeased the boss.
http://www.aknews.com/en/aknews/8/254174/
The final straw was the IAEA report that they found no sign of any work on nuclear weapons after inspecting for 3 months, and Hans Blix ran down all the tips the CIA provided on possible biological weapons work and found that none of them panned out. So the consensus of the experts was that Saddam was not working on WMD’s, and was not an imminent threat to the US, as claimed by the Bush administration. The Iraq War was not waged because Bush was misled by experts. It was waged in spite of the evidence provided by the experts. The top people ignored the evidence.
A similar thing happened with evidence of AGW. Political appointees in the agencies and in the white house edited the reports of scientists to tone down or deny evidence of AGW.
All of that is well documented history. It is clear that the same people who don’t accept the strong scientific evidence for AGW, deny the history of how we got into Iraq as well.
Eric, learn to read, please.
TF: while I may make mistakes occasionally, I am not lying.
You could just be uncritically parroting lies from others, which you do routinely. Given the sources you think are credible, that is quite likely.
Your problem is with what you write, NYJ, not with what I write.
Ian,
The same could be said of the civil war.
Tom,
I agree that “wars of choice” (we could quibble on the definition, but I think I know what you mean) are a tricky business – in almost all cases left alone. But not every case.
I supported going to war in Iraq. I understand the other side of the argument. I did not like the way we handled the transition – very naive on our part, I think.
The difference between me and certain senators/reps is I’m willing to stand firm. The WMD silliness is cover for those of a certain party to place themselves on the “popular” side and simultaneously demonize the folks in the other party – Bush lied, therefore I’m not accountable for my speeches & votes at the time. Kind of a trick, to hide, their declining character.
You make some good points, kdk33, and I don’t consider your position evil or immoral. But peace is so precious that I believe abandoning it requires a far more compelling justification than that provided by this conflict.
Keith, have you be chance read this week’s edition of the economist? There’s an article about scientific misconduct with eerie parallels to our favorite topic.
I would be interested in your views.
kdk33
Not being a citizen of your country I assume you mean the American civil war? Not sure what you are refering to with that statement. Kdk, I s’pose what I find a little unsettling is your statement:
I am proud to have supported both wars, am proud of the Bush administration for making these tough decisions, am proud of our military, and am confident we did the right thing (though the wrong way at times).
Perhaps there is a cultural element of difference, in Australia it is uncommon to come across this level of patriotism. For me war is nothing to be proud of, although the actions of some involved may be incredibly courageous and thus engender a level of respect, and those that chose to engage in war can never be sure they have done the right thing. To quote your General MacArthur:
I have known war as few men now living know it. It’s very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes.
Cheers, Ian
Ian,
Yes, the american civil war, or, as iit is commonly known here in the south: “the recent unpleasentness”.
Tis a pity you find this unsettling (I’m not even sure it’s patriotic): I am proud to have supported both wars, am proud of the Bush administration for making these tough decisions, am proud of our military, and am confident we did the right thing (though the wrong way at times).
The rest of your post is to broad for me to interpret. Are you saying we should have stayed out of WWII? Seriously??
Tom,
Fair enough.
What a fascinating thread, on many levels.
Would like to address numerous comments, but only time for one, right now: kdk33 (47): you totally miss or deliberately ignore Ian’s (46) point.
And your vapid cheerleading I find “unsettling.”
Thus, I doubt you’ll find anything remotely useful in my latest post.
eric (15),
There were reports going back even prior to 9/11 of Iraqi and Libyan cooperation on nukes. These reports included large numbers of Iraqi technicians in Libya. Both were connected through the mad Pakistani (whose removal is another great reason for taking out Saddam).
Many of the supposed facts which liberals have swallowed are utter crap (see e.g. Joe Wilson’s fantasy). But your willingness to suck down the lefty kool-aid cannot hide the fact that the Libyan nuke program was shut down as a result of taking out Saddam. Even if your contention is accepted for purpose of argument that there were no connection originally, the shutdown is a benefit of the war. Sort of like how the end of slavery in the US is a fortunate side benefit of the Civil War — not contemplated or used as a justification by Lincoln in 1861.
What I find fascinating is that there are an enormous number of factors by which the Iraqi invasion will ultimately be judged which we cannot possibly know today. Some because they still lie in the future and some because they remain secret. I am appalled at the idiots who think they already know enough to judge the outcome. Their willingness to pronounce judgment in the midst of their overwhelming ignorance speaks more to their adherence to their political religion than to any exercise of rational judgment.
Keith,
I find your post to be meaningless ad-hom and irreleveant. It reflects, on you, poorly. Moreover I could care less what you think.
I did not get Ian’s point, and said so, and asked him to clarify. Our conversation would work best if you kept quiet.
“if I kept quiet”?
kdk33, You’re on my blog, and while you’re welcome to spout your inanities, if you are insulted by me pointing them out, then you should take them elsewhere. Or maybe start your own blog.
Stan,
Similarly, I see you’ve drunk the Cheney/Rumsfeld koolaid. You’re not addressing the point of this post or the related criticisms of the rationale for the Iraq war.
What’s fascinating to me is how you and others have such holy standards when it comes to truthfulness with respect to the climate climate (which, when the criticism is warranted, I am in agreement with–see the sideline point I make in my current post), but that on the issue of the Iraq war and the deliberate twisting/hyping of intelligence and exploitation of emotion in the service of a cause–is glossed over.
One word for you guys: Hypocrites.
Keith,
Yep, I’m on your blog, and I’ll be here periodically until you kick me out, which you are free to do at any time.
[Good. Don’t tell me to stay out of a conversation taking place on my blog and you’ll be fine.//KK]
@46
I recently had the pleasure of speaking with Gary Weaver, author of this book, about the things that make the U.S. culturally different from other western democracies. As you’ve noted, one of those differences is the degree of public displays of patriotism (which would be considered excessive in other western democracies). His response –in a nutshell– was that the U.S. fixation on patriotism is a reflexive response to the individualist character of the nation. In other democracies where the cultural emphasis is closer to the communitarian side of the spectrum, a lesser emphasis on patriotism is required to bind the society together.
Stan @50,
I am familiar with reports about Khan supplying Libya, and rumors about Khan helping Iraq by providing plans for equipment. I have never seen anything about Libya and Iraq cooperating.
In addition, the IAEA in its inspections found no evidence of any Iraqi activity at all involving nuclear weapons. The nuclear facilities remained sealed after 1998 when the previous inspectors left. Despite the fact that this was made public prior to the invasion, the press in the US played this down.
Intelligence officials were appalled at the speech Secy of State Powell made to justify the US invasion.
Ignoring these facts and pointing to unverified rumors about cooperation between Iraq and Libya shows that you are inhabiting your own private world and inventing your own reality. You have no idea how foolish this looks.
@ Marlowe #54,
That is an interesting thought & thanks for the link!
Re Eric Adler @55
Eric – I would be interested to ask if you have read the National Intelligence Estimate from before the invasion of Iraq? If you had, you would know that the majority of intelligence agencies (CIA, DOE, DIA, NGIV) agreed that Iraq was 5-7 years from having a usable nuke after kicking the inspectors out in 1998.
You would also know that the CIA was convinced that the famous aluminum tubes were intended for nuclear centrifuges (other agencies did not agree and the CIA was wrong). And that Powell was more or less setup.
The CIA absolutely 100% lead the charge that we had to do something in Iraq. There were dissenters, but Bush & Cheney went with the CIA’s intelligence where another president might not have, but the whole WMD issue was primarily an intelligence failure.
If you read the NIE, the Butler Report and all the other stuff I would be interested to know if it tells the same story you seem to believe. Go to factcheck.org and search WMD Iraq, or google “nie wmd iraq”.