Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
From Sullivan
The vice-president's direct attack on the New York Times' portrayal of the 9/11 Commission report was a zinger. On balance, i think Cheney is right. The links between al Qaeda and Saddam may not have amounted to a formal alliance, but they existed all right, as the Commission conceded. The NYT itself reported that "The report said that despite evidence of repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda in the 90's, 'they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship.'" But if there were "repeated contacts" between al Qaeda and Iraq, how can it be true that, as the headline put it, that "Panel Finds No Qaeda-Iraq Tie"? Headlines truncate things, of course. But Cheney is dead-on in describing this headline as misleading. Here's Tom Kean, the chairman of the Commision: "What we have found is, were there contacts between al-Qaeda and Iraq? Yes. Some of them were shadowy - but they were there." Here's Lee Hamilton:
- "I must say I have trouble understanding the flack over this. The Vice President is saying, I think, that there were connections between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is what the governor just said, we don't have any evidence of a cooperative, or a corroborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al Qaeda operatives with regard to the attacks on the United States. So it seems to me the sharp differences that the press has drawn, the media has drawn, are not that apparent to me."
The NYT had the gall to demand that Bush and Cheney apologize. In fact, it's the NYT that needs to apologize.
ETA
But it's also true, it seems to me, that even if there were no contacts, Saddam was still a clear and present danger after 9/11 precisely because of his record with WMDs and links with terror groups. One recalls that Saddam's official press was one of the few to openly celebrate the 9/11 attacks against the "Great Satan." Bush made the right decision - the only decision a responsible president could have made at the time. What frustrates about Cheney, however, is his inability to concede that the intelligence he used about WMDs was embarrassingly wrong. Here's the exchange with Gloria Borger:- BORGER: In hindsight, Mr. Vice President, are you disappointed in the quality of the intelligence that you received before launching an attack against Iraq? Vice Pres. CHENEY: I can't say that, Gloria. I think the decision we made was exactly the right one.
He can't say it. The vice-president would have more credibility when he's right if he could also concede when he's been wrong.
|
AQ has proven to be a powerful political force. I'm sure many nations have met with AQ representatives. Our invasion of Iraq seems to have enhanced AQ's prestige and political power to the extent that many governments that had also met with them are now quaking in their sandals (see Saudi Arabia).
Now our forces are overcomitted - even more so than they were in Kosovo - and we have few options with the other governments that have AQ knocking at the palace door. We have military might, but that's only good for military action. The military is not good at, nor is it designed for, nation-building. How many more Iraqs can we handle?
Conceding for the moment that SH's (tenuous) links to AQ justified the war in Iraq (though this was not the admin's very public justification for war), doesn't mean that war in Iraq was the correct decision. It fails to distinguish between can and must. Just because you could fuck paigow doesn't make it a wise decision.
