Call off the dogs. There is no need for an investigation into the CIA’s evidence regarding Iraq’s WMD. No need whatsoever, because Maureen Dowd has already decided they lied:
Before 9/11, the administration had too little intelligence on Al Qaeda, badly coordinated by clashing officials.
Before the Iraq invasion, the administration had too much intelligence on Saddam, torqued up by conspiring officials.
As Secretary of State Colin Powell prepared to make his case for invading Iraq to the U.N. on Feb. 5, a friend of his told me, he had to throw out a couple of hours’ worth of sketchy intelligence other Bush officials were trying to stuff into his speech.
U.S. News & World Report reveals this week that when Mr. Powell was rehearsing the case with two dozen officials, he became so frustrated by the dubious intelligence about Saddam that he tossed several pages in the air and declared: “I’m not reading this. This is $%&*#.”
First America has no intelligence. Then it has $%&*# intelligence.
Why does she have this valuable newspaper real estate?
Ted Barlow
I couldn’t agree with you more. Maureen Dowd should be a popular weblogger. She should not have an editorial page column; she just doesn’t add anything to the debate except snarky phrases, and she’s frequently wrong (the Bush ellipses, Hillary’s supposed gift registry). I have a hard time deciding if Maureen Dowd or Camille Paglia are more worthless. I think I’d have to give it Paglia, who frequently tries to prove political points by pointing out analogies to Roman myths, but it’s a close one.
John Cole
And the worst thing, Ted, is that investigations into this sort of intelligence failure should be a NON-partisan issue.
I don’t think Bush and Blair intentionally lied or exxagerated the WMD reports- I have perused the CIA documents that are available to the public, and I was convinced. Hell- the UN, Congress, Clinton, and the entire world was convinced.
This investigation is important not as an exercise in partisan finger-pointing (which will occur regardless), but rather as a comprehensive review of what the hell is wrong with our intelligence branches. Some will try to make this into a “Bush lied” game, but you have to ask yourself, what is worse- him lying, or him acting in good faith on intelligence this BAD? Neither situation is very comforting.
Ricky
Ted, well stated. I need to get to your site more often (then again, so should YOU!). :)
Stentor
Why does she have this valuable newspaper real estate?
Because people actually read her. Far too many people, to judge from the amount of Dowd-bashing I see around.
HH
That’s a bit circular though isn’t it? People read her because she’s in the New York Times.
DANEgerus
Considering her worshipful support of Bill she seems to have conveniently forgotten it was Clinton administration policy and intelligence that began the Saddam-WMD policy..
She’s just a Lewinsky-wannabe…
Andrew Lazarus
But it’s not only Maureen Dowd who’s calling off the WMD search! Aren’t many of our chemical weapons units coming home now? And as I predicted, isn’t the latest false alarm slowly being retracted?? (But not before the so-called liberal media tells the proles that WMD have been found.)
Late October 2004: A can of “Raid” has been found in a bazaar in Halliburton City (formerly Baghdad). Bush and Rumsfeld rush to the cameras to announce that the brilliantly hidden dual-use chemicals have been found! The right wing of the blogosphere goes wild in vindication!! Why, James Baker calls on Democratic Candidate Joe Lieberman to quit his campaign regardless of the vote outcome (hey, it worked before).