C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
Now, about today's Pentagon Inspector General's report (see executive summary here), the IG's finding that Doug Feith's office "was predisposed to finding a significant relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda" sounds a lot like "intelligence and facts ... being fixed around the policy."
Discuss.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
It ain't news to many of us, and I am thankful that facts are finally being presented to the public about it. It is my hope that we can look past the partisanship and focus on doing the best for our people with the information we're provided. A hallmark of good management is being willing to adapt when new information arises. May we prove ourselves to be up to the task.
Rod is mistaken -- the inspector general's report says no such thing. It's not Rod's fault; he was relying on an erroneous report in the Washington Post, which now includes a correction saying, in effect, none of this is true -- the charge was actually made, more than two years ago, by Carl Levin, one of the bitterest partisans in the Senate. The inspector general did find fault with Feith's operations. The basic problem, however, was not that Feith sold everyone a bill of goods, but that Feith's version was not very different from what all the other analysts, including the most honest and careful, were coming up with at the time. They just all happened to be wrong. Here's the link to the correction: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/08/AR2007020802387.html
I just posted an update to my first Feith post of the day, noting the correction. Thanks Jim for putting it here too.
I take it this means the "Lies! Liar! Lies! Lies! Liar!" crowd will now be turning on the WaPo with equal fervor. Or is Feith such a diabolical neocon that it doesn't really matter who's actually spreading untruths?
I thought this was all well known, that Bush put serious spin on all information to push the cause for war. This is just another example of spin before a war. Sure, individual bits of info turned out to be false. That's not the point. I percieved then and now that there was an overall pattern to downplay anything that went against what Bush wanted to be true, and to play up any bits of info that supported what he wanted. It is similar to what I hear today from Bush loyalists who still claim things like "Oh I think there really are WMDs there, we just haven't found them yet." and "Saddam was a big player in worldwide terrorism." It is human nature to believe what you want to believe, even when the evidence is heavily against it. Bush seems to have it worse than most. It makes some sense that those most loyal to him would share the same weakness.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.