DemFromCT has a great post on The Next Hurrah (TNH) (cross-posted on the frontpage of DailyKos) about the new intelligence assessment that reports the obvious (instead of the false):
An intelligence assessment that the war in Iraq increased Islamic radicalism, worsening the terror threat, set off a sharp debate today among American political officials over credit and blame for the war and the broader fight against terrorism. (New York Times via TNH)
This isn't really news, because anyone with more than a couple of neurons in working order (and not using them just to breathe and defecate) can see this is true. The White House is terrified of this report and is firing back with the only argument it has left, if you can call this an argument:
The White House, apparently concerned that reports of the intelligence assessment could undercut one of its most fundamental arguments for staying in Iraq, quickly issued a statement seeking to rebut points about it that were reported in The New York Times and later in The Washington Post today.
The statement pointed out that President Bush had often spoken of the decentralization and dispersal of terrorist groups around the world, and it reiterated his frequent cautions that the terrorist threat remained potent. It noted that Osama bin Laden had declared the war in Iraq to be the most "serious issue today for the whole world."
So that's the argument. In a nutshell, Iraq is the front line on the war on terror because Osama bin Laden says so. Osama and his cronies must be chortling up the sleeves of their caftans. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the intelligence estimate and every ounce of common sense globally available, is right, and that the Iraq debacle was seriously damaging the United States and enlisting sympathy and new recruits for bin Laden daily. Grant me that outlandish idea, for a moment. If that were true, and you were bin Laden, what would you prefer, that the US remained bogged down in Iraq, like Gulliver tied down by the Lilliputians, or that the U.S. withdrew completely and removed Iraq as an issue?
How would you get what you wanted if you were bin Laden? You'd lead the dumbest US President, ever, around by the nose with a public statement that Iraq is important. Costs you nothing. Gets you everything.
No, oh, no, Mr. President. Please, please, oh please, don't throw me in that Iraqi briar patch.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
I am frightened that I find myself becoming more and more desensitized to the idiocy of all this. I used to get incredibly angry about the Iraq war, especially when most news sources and policy-assessing organizations were assuming only the role of cheerleader. But that was so yesterday. As many other citizens are finally coming around to face reality and come to terms with it, I'm not even shocked anymore.
The spectacle of a religious war should provide some decent cover for a pull out. Many unintended consequences will emerge around the edges with Turkey, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia the locus for most of these bad results. In some sense the world economy is at stake given the global dependence on the region for petroleum. Might be hard to find a good seat to watch this train wreck.
What a cock-up. We don't even have the excuse of good intentions.