BuzzMachine

The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.

The Kremlinology of Iraq and The Times

40 comments on The Kremlinology of Iraq and The Times

The Kremlinology of Iraq and The Times

: The New York Times appears to fall on its sword today over some of its reporting on the lead-up to war in Iraq. But it’s not necessary what it seems.

In one view, this is The Times going after Bush: By admitting they were stupid to rely on Ahmad Chalabi and his henchmen for stories, they can put themselves up on a pedestal of late-blooming virtue and say that Bush was even stupider to rely on Chalabi and his henchmen for intelligence that led to war. The problem I have with that is that The Times is being quite selective in its sword falling. Every day, the paper — any paper — is filled with anonymous sources and mistakes and stories that don’t turn out as reported and predicted. Why is the paper taking the extraordinary move of public confession with this story? Because there’s an agenda.

In another view, this is The Times getting ready for various attacks on reporter Judith Miller that are coming (at the Personal Democracy Forum, Eric Alterman said it was shameful that The Times had not fessed up on Miller’s mistakes and the crowd, lefty like Eric, applauded; there’s a bill coming due).

In yet another view, this could be The Times getting ready for more to come out about Chalabi and even various reporters’ dependence on and relationship with him. Lots more is going to come out about Chalabi from every side of the fight. Yesterday, the NY Sun (no link available) said that the raid on his office and home “cam as the Iraqi National Congress leader was preparing a potentially devastating audit of how Iraq’s oil resources and seized assets were being disbursed by the chief of the Coalition Provisional Authority, L. Paul Bremer.”

You can’t read this story without a Kremlinologist. And I’m sure that today, many webloggers will do a fair bit of Kremlinology behind what The Times says:

But we have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have been. In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged

40 responses to “The Kremlinology of Iraq and The Times”

  1. syn Avatar
    syn

    I do not believe the NY Times has the capacity to even quote itself correctly.

  2. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    WHY are they concerned? They are not now and have not been “The Newspaper of Record” for many decades.
    When they switched from reporting news to creating news they surrendered their moral authority. There is less profit in honesty and truth than in rabble rousing and rumor mongering.
    Gossip sells more papers than accurate history.
    The NYTimes makes money selling gossip. Sometimes they even make up some gossip. Othertimes they quote unreliable sources. Did they think anyone would notice or even care?
    Its just gossip.

  3. HH Avatar
    HH

    The NY Times has no problem admitting they “got something wrong” on the right… Of course if they had to admit all the foul-ups showing their actual leftward slant, there’d be no time to cover the news.

  4. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    Jeff,
    I think you’re wrong on this one. What the real picture is emerging is not only did the NYT get a cause for war wrong, they repeatedly got it wrong and they got it wrong because they were deliberately manipulated by one of the main beneficiaries of the war. These stories were not sourced to Chalabi, so they failed to give a skeptical reader the chance to know where the news was coming from. For instance I would have much, much more skepitcal of these reports of WMDs in the NYT if I knew Chalabi was behind a lot of them.
    The NYT screwed up and their audit of how they screwed up was necessary.

  5. Andy Freeman Avatar
    Andy Freeman

    When an outlet doesn’t identify its sources, it must accept full and complete responsibility for the accuracy.
    And, when an outlet does cite sources, it must accept responsibility for exposure.

  6. John Steven Avatar
    John Steven

    I’m surprised that Judith Miller could have ever been seen as an ‘fair reporter’ on Iraq issues by the Times, considering that she’s been attached to the wingnut anti-Saddamists at least since the Gulf War when she co-wrote a sensationalist book on the subject with the infamous Laurie Mylroie.

  7. Steve in Houston Avatar
    Steve in Houston

    Wretchard of Belmont Club has some thoughts here: http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_belmontclub_archive.html#108557152205455635
    The post doesn’t adrress the endlessly debated issue of “bias” but instead the inherent limitations of journalism, structural and procedural, and how that’s exacerbated by arrogance of the type found at the Times and elsewhere.

  8. ed cone Avatar
    ed cone

    Jeff writes: “Every day, the paper — any paper — is filled with anonymous sources and mistakes and stories that don’t turn out as reported and predicted. Why is the paper taking the extraordinary move of public confession with this story?”
    Hmm. That is a poser. Maybe…..because those other mistakes in the paper did not involve possible deliberate deceptions by sources with a pro-war agenda, which same sources had the ear of the government that chose to launch the war?

  9. daudder Avatar
    daudder

    is there another media organization that even tries to correct its mistakes? Does Fox?
    Although not perfect, this is what makes the Times great.

  10. KMK Avatar
    KMK

    “The Times never followed up on the veracity of this source or the attempts to verify his claims”.
    “Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all.”
    Says it all. Can’t keep track of their own articles nevermind fact checking.
    “Complicating matters for journalists, the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq”. – Which officials?
    “Ahmad Chalabi, has been named as an occasional source in Times articles since at least 1991” – So it can’t just be the Bush administration, right?
    “We consider the story of Iraq’s weapons, and of the pattern of misinformation, to be unfinished business. And we fully intend to continue aggressive reporting aimed at setting the record straight”. – Misinformation for 13 years and now they want to set the record straight. Why? What’s the angle?

  11. Jorg Avatar
    Jorg

    So how about some accountability for the frothing warmongers who repeated every rumor about possible WMD last year? Should we gather up Instapundit, Buzzmachine, Green footballs et al and send them for a foot-patrol in Fallujah?
    Talk about the kettle calling the pot black!

  12. JN Avatar
    JN

    It’s all Chalabi’s fault, misleading those innocent, pure neocons who just aren’t equipped to deal with such ruthless liars.
    When you’re a good person, sometimes evil people take advantage of your purity to manipulate and abuse.
    Those poor, innocent neocons. *sigh*

  13. Steve Rhodes Avatar
    Steve Rhodes

    This isn’t about the Times going after Bush – they can and do do that regularly on their editorial page.
    It is about them finally dealing with the mounting criticism of their WMD coverage, particularly Miller’s. It was harder to ignore it with recent Chalabi developments.

  14. wellbasically Avatar
    wellbasically

    Jorg is right. Jeff adopts a zen-like tone, like this all happened on another planet, and not right here on this web site too. These guys lied pretty consistently all the time. Who is in the INC: Chalabi, Khidir Hamza, Kanan Makiya…

  15. Kate Avatar
    Kate

    For the historical revisionists:
    Chalabi was never required to make a case for WMD in Iraq. Hans Blix did that, in his presentations to the UN Security Council in 2003.
    Also, I recieved a note from Orkent’s office that there will be a column about this “correction” on Sunday. I use the word correction advisedly, it’s convenient and it doesn’t accept any blame, but redirects it.
    “So sorry we were lied to”…
    Spare me.

  16. wellbasically Avatar
    wellbasically

    How would you prove you didn’t have WMD?

  17. Buzz Avatar
    Buzz

    Top Ten Ways to Get Noticed by the Media
    (10) Ride across Iowa on a Harley in a leather jacket
    (9) Start up an alternative radio network with no money down
    (8) “We’re going to Texas, we’re going to California, we’re going to take back the White House! Yeeeaaargh!”
    (7) Apologize on behalf of the NYT for not being hard enough against the war in Iraq
    (6) Get voted off of American Idol while Elton John complains about racist Americans who vote off all Iraqi entertainers.
    (5) Sing at an Iraqi wedding; you’ll get noted twice with two different names.
    (4) Announce that the Nick Berg video is a fake, and “I would know because I was in the AV club”
    (3) Blame the Jews
    (2) Make all speeches while screwing a hooded Iraqi prisoner from behind.
    (1) Be an awards presenter at Cannes

  18. Franky Avatar
    Franky

    there’s nothing like a man whose time has come. To take a massively exagerrated example, there are Hitlers born every day. But society needs to be receptive to them, and Chalabi’s time had come. There are a million little Chalabis running around now and 50 years ago, but he found a US administration receptive to his message because they agreed with his STATED goal; the removal of Saddam. Of course he had further aspirations. There’s a theory going around that we went to war at the behest of the Iranians. I see problems with it (that’s a massive gamble for the mullahs to enigneer a situation whereby we’re an occuping force on their border)….and Jesus I hope it’s not true. Talking Points Memo described these neo-cons as like a group of rubes arriving at Las Vegas and getting skinned by the first con-artist they meet on the street. It seems like their faith in Chalabi was a confirmation of this.
    (I read an excellent article on Salon on precisely this subject how Chalabia conned the neo-cons, but don’t want to post all of it here out of respect for Jeff’s forum, and not sure if I can find the linbk……but will happily email to whoever asks).

  19. Buzz Avatar
    Buzz

    Why believe in conspiracy theories anyway? There’s two numbers of interest: the cost of going to war against Iraq and the cost of leaving Saddam in power. After 9/11 it’s clear that the latter cost increased greatly while the former more or less stayed the same. The UN and inspections did nothing to mitigate that. Heck, with all of the anti-US electioneering going on during 2002-2003, the UN process probably exacerbated the problem in real terms. There are serious dynamics that compelled the US to go to war against Saddam and conspiracy theories don’t hold a candle to it. When the pacifist critics of the war grasp that fact, then they’ll be well on the way to figuring out what is required for future peace.

  20. Ross Avatar
    Ross

    Oh come off it! The right-wingers are all over the Times for repeating Chalabi’s lies but they seem to forget that news of his lies, his embezzling connections and conviction in Jordan and the public excoriation by people like Zinni that happened last year.
    Were they too busy beating the nonsense WMD drums then to notice all the signs? Chalabi’s just being used as a scape-goat. The reality is that the right-wingers were the ones trumpeting his lies until they were hoarse.
    The hypocrisy of bloggers like Jarvis shrilly denouncing the Times is just staggeringly ironic.

  21. Ross Avatar
    Ross

    Check out the article below published in May 2003, and stop the hypocritical yelling before you guys embarrass yourselves further:
    http://www.antiwar.com/forbes/?articleid=2673

  22. Hannah Avatar
    Hannah

    Some people want to have their (yellow)cake and eat it too!
    When Judith Miller was roundly fisked last year by many anti-war people the silence was pretty deafening from the warbloggers.

  23. second that Avatar
    second that

    you can repeat Hannah’s remakrs and insert Chalabi’s name

  24. shark Avatar
    shark

    I guess the question is if the Times got so much so wrong before the war, why should we think they’re getting anything right about the war (or anything else) now?

  25. shark Avatar
    shark

    is there another media organization that even tries to correct its mistakes? Does Fox?
    Although not perfect, this is what makes the Times great

  26. Hubris Avatar
    Hubris

    wellbasically,
    A related question: How do you prove you’re actually a Republican as advertised?

  27. wellbasically Avatar
    wellbasically

    I voted for Perot in 92, and Dole in 96. I was happy when Bush got in in 00, though I didn’t vote for him. Thanks for bringing it up, I have to go flagellate myself now. Pain is cleansing!

  28. Buzz Avatar
    Buzz

    Ross:
    I don’t give a whit about the Times. Note that it is not right wingers excoriating the Times for printing Chalabi’s lies: it is the Times itself. The right is exccoriating the Times because they are so willing to shoot themselves through the gut if they think they have a simultaneous head shot at the administration.
    WMD is not nonsense. It’s all about the cost of living with Saddam Hussein. Let’s say Blix comes out with a report in the summer of 2003 that Hussein has no WMD. What then: end of sanctions and monitoring for Iraq? When the pacifists and the war critics wake up to the fact that the vast majority of Americans were and still are frightened of that prospect, then they might be led to contemplate and advocate for a strong multilateral institution (not the UN!!!) that can absorb such security costs. It would have to be fair to weak and strong, rich and poor all alike. It means that leftist war critics like those at the NYT have to give up their fantasies of an EU or UN counterweight to US power that opposes the US for the simple Marxist sake of opposing the rich and powerful.
    Let’s put it another more technical way: I want to measure the capacity of Saddam’s WMD arsenal to kill people in units of HLL (human lives lost.) I can’t get a direct measurement, so I would settlle for a limit, say Iraqi WMD capacity is less than 1000 HLL at 95% confidence over a period of the next 10 years, and I will base my decision to go to war on whether I can attain such a limit or not. Do you begin to see where uncertainty in WMD estimation is as important as the estimate itself? So go ahead, keep calling it nonsense, Chalabi machinations, blood for oil imperialism, etc. Anyone who has ever made the decision to have their car serviced before a long road trip is familiar with this kind of reasoning based on uncertainty.
    In simple terms that the president favors, we couldn’t live with Saddam anymore, not post 9/11.

  29. wellbasically Avatar
    wellbasically

    Buzz you would need to include the intent to kill Americans. Saddam never attacked the USA and never did anti-US terrorism.
    Even by your standard, the war has been a failure, because it gave more people the intention to attack the USA, and isolated the US politically from our allies. The weapons themselves are easy enough to make. In any case Sept 11 happened with jet fuel, not WMD.
    I thought it was funny when Bush asked what would have happened if the Sept 11 terrorists had a vial of Anthrax. Here’s what would have happened — they would have killed six people instead of 3,000.

  30. Rick Avatar
    Rick

    Let’s ban jet fuel!!!!!

  31. Buzz Avatar
    Buzz

    wellbasically:
    Actually, Saddam had every motive to induce the withdrawl of the US from the region because of the sanctions, and US troops were in Saudi Arabia precisely because Saddam was eyeing those oilfields. The question then becomes: do his tactics include terrorism, war, and generalized regional mayhem to achieve his goals? In light of his wars on Iran and Kuwait the answer would have to be yes. Let’s not forget that he was periodically shooting at our aircraft. So again the question arises: what was he going to do after the sanctions were lifted? But I did leave out a number and so did you: after 9/11 the number of possibilities for causing terrorism increased as every bus terminal, power plant, chemical factory, etc becomes a target that wasn’t contemplated before. I left that out for simplicity, but it goes towards making the limit harder to set.
    And please don’t pretend that Saddam was contained or that the sanctions were going to continue indefinitely. With what we know now about the oil for palaces program, and the mounting pressure from the left (again!) to lift the sanctions, that is just a ridiculous position to take. And mark my words, Bush knew all about that before 9/11 and that is why they were pushing smart sanctions and the Russians and French were balking.
    As for giving more people intention to attack the US: if the Arab Street loved us enough to cheer on jumbo jets flying into buildings on 9/11, then I don’t think that the war itself is actually worsening that situation. There are other dynamics at work that explain Arab hatred for the US including religious xenophobia and tyrants well versed in the techniques of propaganda and repression. Over and over again, Bush has laid out the war in terms of improving those dynamics in the Middle east even at the cost of some short term problems arising while fighting a war. In other words, Arab hatred for the US was pretty bad before 9/11 and it was getting worse even if we sat here and did nothing because of dynamics that have nothing to do with us.
    As for our “allies,” it is a well known secret that France and Germany have a project to create a “multipolar world” in which they counterbalance the US. Read about it in last Spring’s or Summer’s (I forget which) issue of Foreign Affairs magazine. To help them punch above their weight, they need to dominate the EU common foreign policy and they can use the French UNSC veto. When debate came around for Iraq, the De Villepin and Fischer embarked upon a remarkable shuttle diplomacy aimed at protecting Saddam (thus enlisting him as a client) and reinforcing the status of the former French colonies of Africa as, well, former French colonies. So exactly in what sense did Bush “isolate” the US? Seems to me we were already pretty isolated by the actions of others, and Bush gave them the big “screw you, not with American security.”
    But again, why does it not even enter into the minds of people on the left that international institutions like the UN should be concerned with the basic security of all nations, even the rich and powerful ones? It’s pretty clear that post 9/11, the limit I was trying to set above all of a sudden becomes a lot more difficult to set. What eats that number, what absorbs the increased risk? Instead of dealing with those perfectly rational calculations, the French, the Germans, the UN, the left, etc all made the problem even worse by giving Saddam imagined breathing space while trying to make it more expensive for the US to act on its own.
    In that sense, they had as much to do with the cause of the war as Saddam himself did.

  32. Jeff Brokaw Avatar
    Jeff Brokaw

    Chalabi didn’t just make it all up — there have been 17 UN resolutions dealing with the same topic. But hey, what’s a few binding Chapter 7 resolutions among friends?

  33. wellbasically Avatar
    wellbasically

    I can’t take your lecture on sanctions, because I wrote to Clinton and Bush asking them to end the sanctions and pursue other avenues. I didn’t mean kill more Iraqis! they misunderstood.
    Even if for the sake of argument I conceded every point you had, the evidence shows that Iraq was flat on its back before the invasion, and could have been transformed peacefully. Saddam himself offered to have internationally run elections. That sounds like something the French, Germans, Russians, Pakis, Saudis, Turks etc. would have committed troops to.
    But isn’t that really the problem? Wasn’t the intent of war people like you guys to specifically exclude as many as possible, to show that the USA didn’t need anybody?
    The truth is that the war people wanted to have a war to kill lots of Muslims and make a point. There was never a true diplomatic approach because there is no true interest in democracy on the war side.
    As for the UN: like anybody else I am fully aware of the property rights of the rich world, including the USA. I would like access to middle class wealth and consumption to be spread around the world. I want the whole world driving SUVs and living in McMansions. But 5/6 of the world does not live that life. Yes the structure of the UN reflects the predominance of the US, but it must also reflect the democratic desire of each of the human beings of the rest of the world! It is in the interest of the USA to pay attention to that world before they decide to take their fair slice of the pie with violence.
    And don’t give me UN corruption, most of the corruption at the UN is one way — in the favor of the rich world. If the UN reflected the democratic desires of the world, it would be so far left it would make you choke.

  34. Buzz Avatar
    Buzz

    wellbasically:
    The truth is that the war people wanted to have a war to kill lots of Muslims and make a point. There was never a true diplomatic approach because there is no true interest in democracy on the war side.
    Well, now you’re just projecting your own imagination onto others. I’ve given you a rational explanation of the war in terms of risks and costs, and I’ve pined in public for an international organization that is institutionally strong enough to make wars unnecessary by absorbing those risks and costs, and I’ve suggested that the actions of the UN vis a vis France/Germany as well as other war critics in fact escalated the situation rather than defused it. All I wanted to know is what absorbs the risks and costs if we didn’t go to war.
    Saddam himself offered to have internationally run elections.
    Please stop. That is ridiculous on its face. Saddam is the man for whom 100.00000% of Iraqis voted for with their blood. Sure, whatever you say.
    I want the whole world driving SUVs and living in McMansions. But 5/6 of the world does not live that life. Yes the structure of the UN reflects the predominance of the US, but it must also reflect the democratic desire of each of the human beings of the rest of the world! It is in the interest of the USA to pay attention to that world before they decide to take their fair slice of the pie with violence.
    This is a crock. I don’t think that the UN should bend to the will of the rich and powerful for their sake as the rich and powerful. I don’t even think there should be a special status “security council” with special veto powers, and UN representatives should be elected directly by the populations they represent. My only point is that if you want the rich and powerful nations to play by the rules (whatever those are) then yes, you even have to be fair to the rich and powerful nations. It has nothing to do with property rights or SUVs, though your barely concealed bile shows that this is exactly what it has to do with on the left: depriving the US of this bit of national security after the 9/11 terrorist attacks as a proxy fight against SUVs, consumption, and the rich world. I would think that it is in the interest of the “whole world” to play straight with security calculations and act accordingly. How can the US “pay attention to that world” if they don’t do the same in return? And they haven’t: it was always about Franco/German hegemony in the EU, a multipolar world to specifically oppose the US, and stick it to the rich Americans.
    And don’t give me UN corruption, most of the corruption at the UN is one way — in the favor of the rich world. If the UN reflected the democratic desires of the world, it would be so far left it would make you choke.
    Well, actually the oil-for-palaces scandal is bigger than Enron and it may approach Worldcom in the end. Since that places it among the biggest scandals in history, and since it benefitted Saddam Hussein, it’s pretty hard to argue that UN corruption benefis the rich world (unless by “rich world” you specifically meant Saddam Hussein.) The very structure of the UN lends itself to vetoing military actions and thus protects tyrants and perpetuates power politics. And if the UN were suddenly democratic tomorrow, it might reflect the desires of people around the world to become secure and well off themselves. I don’t think that is hard left or right.

  35. wellbasically Avatar
    wellbasically

    >>>>The truth is that the war people wanted to have a war to kill lots of Muslims and make a point.
    Go to Instapundit and follow any Tom Friedman link.
    >>>>international organization that is institutionally strong enough to make wars unnecessary by absorbing those risks and costs
    Only as strong as the supporting states. The action of the USA deliberately weakened the organization, on purpose. The US fed the UN with bogus information on WMD. The US funded Chalabi to feed the other countries bogus info. Now you want the organization to absorb risks, after you eviscerated it? please get serious.
    To respond to the risk: I read today that the British and French embassies are pretty much wide open in Baghdad, whereas the new US embassy is behind two castle walls of concrete. It is no accident that the monkey climbing up the ladder shows the world his bottom. If the USA wants to reduce risk, the better idea would be to perform as a leader of the world, to the benefit of the world. Rather than as, in your view, demanding that the world protect the USA. For what? Maybe they’re not getting much out of it any more.
    There is a certain return in security for the world to simply do what the USA says. The USA has power, but it is not infinite power. If your calling me “left”, I assume you are “right”, and as someone from the right, you must understand the concept of diminishing returns. The world does what we say, up to a point, the point of diminishing returns. Then they are not so interesting in protecting us any more.
    What you are seeing from the UN is that, after strenuous effort, we have reached that point.

  36. Yehudit Avatar
    Yehudit

    “How would you prove you didn’t have WMD? ”
    There is an established procedure for verification. Other countries have followed it. Iraq repeatedly refused to. Iraq was in violation of many UNSC Chap VII binding resolutions over a decade.
    My info about Saddam’s WMDs comes from the Kay report, not Chalabi, and it satisfies me that Saddam had the manufacturing capabilities and materials to start reconstituting his WMD programs the minute the pressure was off. Meanwhile terrorists were wandering in and out of the country and could help themselves to some of it.
    We did the right thing.
    Another reason, in hindsight, that we did the right thing, is that the war exposed the huge UN corruption – basically fungible oil kickbacks could go to funding terrorists all over the world. Now that is stopped.

  37. Buzz Avatar
    Buzz

    wellbasically:
    Hmmmm, Tom Friedman? I’m not really familiar with his writing, but I find it hard to believe that any serious commentators out there are advocating war as a means to make an example. From a tactical standpoint, the 9/11 bombings were a colossal blunder for Al Qaeda, were they not? There they sit now with two armies on their doorstep as a direct result of a post 9/11 shift in cost and risk analyses by the Pentagon. Yet the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were not made to illustrate the tactical shortcomings of Al Qaeda to the Arab street, rather it is a self-evident side effect of said action.
    I generally advocate for an international body that is institutionally strong and that can be a guarantor of sorts for security issues. By institutionally strong, I mean that its findings of fact are not swayed by politics or dislike of certain nations. Although I sometimes use the unfortunate turn of phrase “like the UN, but…,” I am not talking about the UN. However, the US didn’t somehow marginalize or “break” the UN in the process of going to war in Iraq. It was already “broken.” The cleverest thing about the episode of Hans Blix isn’t that the pro-war side didn’t really care about his findings. (That much was obvious: if Saddam was cleared of WMD and sanctions were lifted, then what? This was a well known calculation as Bush said at the outset that we were in it for regime change.) The cleverest thing is that the anti-war side didn’t care either. France was going to veto any resolution that called for war no matter what the findings of fact about WMD were, and they said that. (So it’s just hilarious these days whenever Hans Blix opens his mouth: since no decision was ever going to turn on his findings, he is essentially a clown in his own tragicomedy. And the root reason is, as I’ve said above, the huge uncertainty in any findings that Blix could possibly produce.)
    A body that is institutionally strong by contrast would have made honest assessments of security post 9/11, and barring any equivalent remedy, declared Saddam no longer fit to lead Iraq. Then if he stepped down the war could have been avoided. Hard assessments to make, but that was the only way to avoid the war. The French miscalculation was that the US wouldn’t go to war without a UNSC resolution, and Saddam’s miscalculation was believing the French on that point. And the massive antiwar protests helped convince Saddam that the French were right, and thus helped to seal his own fate.
    On anti-American sentiments, I feel I’ve shown above already that these pre-existed 9/11, and would probably be there whether we invaded Iraq or not. They have little basis in rationality: they hate us for supporting repressive regimes in the mideast and then spew forth bile when we depose one, for example. It’s like road rage or pornography in that it is something people indulge in. It is a dynamic encouraged by said regimes and anyone else looking to be a player in the middle east, and that’s why the embassies need lots of barriers. Or do you think Al Qaeda bombed our embassies in Africa before 9/11 because of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which didn’t happen yet?
    I know you’re going to respond with “But why do they hate us, yak yak?” so I’ll respond in another sense: (1) Would be tyrants who rise to the top on the strength of their bullying like to have some proof of their strength, so they incite people against the US and subsequently provoke the US. “Look ma! I’m standing up the most powerful nation on earth!” (2) As the most powerful nation on earth, the people imagine that the US has the power to do things that in reality it has no control over. For example, the US doesn’t control the economic conditions of the world, but gets blamed for poverty whereever it exists. (Again, see number 1.) (3) Jealousy. (4) Coordinated propaganda from sources who oppose the US for reasons of promoting their own worldview, like Marxists.

  38. TJIT Avatar
    TJIT

    I’ll take the Times self critique seriously as soon as they give up Walter Duranty’s Pulitzer Prize.

  39. TJIT Avatar
    TJIT

    Supporting the UN as a valid humanitarian / international diplomatic institution requires one of the following. First, not being aware of the UN human rights disasters in Rwanda, Srebrenica, Sudan, and the oil for food scandal (which mainly benefited a third world tyrant Saddam Hussein). Second, being aware of these disasters and ignoring them. Either case tends to indicate that people arguing in favor of the UN as a credible human rights / diplomatic organization are not to be taken seriously.

  40. TJIT Avatar
    TJIT

    Something missed in all of the wailing over the presence / absence of WMD is that it would be diplomatically impossible to state one of the primary reasons for invading Iraq.
    The entire Middle East, with a few rare exceptions, is one giant, soul crushing, terrorist producing, human rights craphole. No one is going to be safe until there is regime change / or a human rights respecting democracy is established in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria.
    That change is impossible unless a beachhead for democracy in Middle Eastern Muslim societies is established (Iraq). This change also requires the presence of a large regional base for the US military (Iraq). It is also requires a large stable supplier of oil in the Middle East (Iraq) to help fill the supply hole if Saudi Arabia was to meltdown and lose its ability to supply oil to the world markets.
    Success in Iraq is critical if the people who live in the Middle East are to have a chance at a decent future. What has amazed me is the number of people on the left who are perfectly happy to have the region remain a human rights disaster if that is what is required to damage the Bush administration.