The Low Bar
Aaron Friedman at Foreign Policy’s “shadow government” blog offers “one big thing that the Bush administration got right,” namely that “Whatever one thinks about the way in which it sought to address the problem, I believe that the administration’s post-9/11 assessment of the danger posed by the possible confluence of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction was essentially correct.”
That’s a pretty said claim if you ask me. Yes, it’s true that George W. Bush was correct to say that terrorists armed with nuclear weapons would be dangerous. But this is like congratulating him for knowing how to tie his shoes. Nobody disputes this point. The novel idea Bush brought to the table about this subject was his decision to prevent al-Qaeda from getting a nuclear weapon by invading a country that had neither a nuclear weapons program nor operational ties to al-Qaeda. This is like saying that whatever you think of Herbert Hoover’s economic policies, at least he correctly ascertained that a return to prosperity would be desirable.
46 Responses to “The Low Bar”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 7th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
“The novel idea Bush brought to the table about this subject was his decision to prevent al-Qaeda from getting a nuclear weapon by invading a country that had neither a nuclear weapons program nor operational ties to al-Qaeda.”
The idea that Saddam Hussein was a threat and had to be dealt with in some way actually wasn’t novel at all. You can easily google up ominous warnings about Hussein from Al Gore, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, etc. Bush’s novel idea was to act on this, and in that he was supported by broad majorities in both Houses of Congress and, you, of course.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
“Whatever one thinks about the way in which it sought to address the problem, I believe that the administration’s post-9/11 assessment of the danger posed by the possible confluence of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction was essentially correct.”
Similarly, whatever one thinks about the merits of the 1994 Arnold Schwarzenegger movie “True Lies”, I believe that that movie’s pre-9/11 assessment of the danger posed to Miami by the possible confluence of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction was essentially correct, and, to its credit, made over seven years before the Bush regime came to the same conclusion.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
“Whatever one thinks about the way in which it sought to address the problem, I believe that the administration’s post-9/11 assessment of the danger posed by the possible confluence of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction was essentially correct.”
As compared to everyone else, who thought that combining terrorists and weapons of mass destruction would be just fine…..
January 7th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
If I was concerned about terrorists getting nuclear material, I might do something like preventing terrorists from getting nuclear material. You kow, maybe accelerate the dismantling and destruction of old Russian nukes, infiltrate a nuclear knowledge trafficing ring, not out CIA agents, etc. Stuff like that
January 7th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Nice succinct point.
Marred as so often by a stupid typo. Just say yes to proofreading, Matt! You can do it.
(I’m trying to think of the argument for “feature, not bug” but I don’t think there are large numbers out there drawn to bad spelling or typing or whatever makes Matt do it.)
January 7th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
While I agree with your conclusion, I should point out that WMD may also include conventional, chemical and biological weapons not just nuclear. I think most intelligence agencies in the world incl. Saddam (with few exceptions) believed that they had weapons of mass destruction.
But your point that Iraq under Saddam did not have operational ties with al-Qaeda or any other international terrorist organization is correct. Bush does not deserve any credit for saying that wmd in terrorist hands is dangerous. With an ill advised war , he is leaving America in a less safer state than before.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Bush’s novel idea was to act on this, and in that he was supported by broad majorities in both Houses of Congress and, you, of course.
But only Mr. Friedman is holding this up as a thing someone got right. Most people now see it for the clusterfuck that it was.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:29 pm
Wasn’t Aaron Friedman’s claim written rather than said?
January 7th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
“But only Mr. Friedman is holding this up as a thing someone got right. Most people now see it for the clusterfuck that it was.”
Seems to be working out now, but it’s still early. We really won’t know for another decade. It could very well be that the democratic, pluralistic model of Iraq works and leads to sea changes in the Arab world. Considering that the sclerotic old system spawned Jihad in response, upsetting the apple cart was worth a shot.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
This reminds me of a David Brooks column some time ago, where he argued that Bush’s strength was that he stuck to his ideals. Which, of course, is pretty fucking dumb.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Gabriel,
I tend to agree with you on Iraq being a major screw-up but your reasoning is flawed. Say for instance Obama was 99% sure global warming is as bad as the scientists say it will be. If Obama takes action, as he should, but then at a later date we find the science was wrong, should Obama be blamed for his very rational decision? The relevant question is: was Bush negligent at the time he made his decision not was his decision wrong in hindsight.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:24 pm
Haha great analogy.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Gordon, way to argue with yourself yet still end up nowhere.
And the answer to your question is a very obvious YES
January 7th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
“The relevant question is: was Bush negligent at the time he made his decision not was his decision wrong in hindsight.”
Correct. And the answer is yes, perhaps criminally so, because he had access to what the CIA evidence actually was and knew that the information being presented to the public and the UN was categorically untrue. Unlike the rest of us and people like Matt, who did not have access to such information and were only negligent because they believed what their leaders told them.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Vaccinating every man, woman, and child in the U.S. with an untested vaccine; duct tape and plastic sheeting, cutting funds for first responders, outing Valerie Plame…
He grasped the obvious, once. Terrorists + WMD = very bad. Now every bit of reality has to be run through the Bush wringer. Anything that he thought was true is suspect.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
I was a little surprised to see my name on MY’s blog.
The Shadow Government blogger in question is Aaron Friedberg, not Aaron Friedman.
January 7th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Hmm, when do you think Bush’s “post-9/11 assessment of the danger posed by the possible confluence of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction” is going to actually translate into policy? Since, after all, we are talking about the administration that thought it was a win win idea to keep Osama bin Laden on tap as a terrorist, letting him escape into Pakistan, a nuclear armed state, and set up camp for eight years. The win, of course, was that bin Laden could then be used as a bogey man to scare Americans into approving the conflux of sleaze and mass murder called the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
And out of this, the Bushies, I’m sure, read Osama’s tacit signals – no attacks on the U.S. soil, allowing for a limited green light re attacks on European soil. Great minds, great assessments! My hope, of course, is that someday, in its honor, some GOP congressman proposes the Order of Tora Bora for Fooling the American Public Beyond the Call of Duty.
January 7th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
“because he had access to what the CIA evidence actually was”
And so did members of the House and Senate intelligence committees (and, by extension, the rest of their respective caucuses had the gist of it).
“The Shadow Government blogger in question is Aaron Friedberg, not Aaron Friedman.”
Friedberg, Friedman, what’s the difference. Another Jew blogger. Don’t you Heebs have enough disproportionate influence on our country’s politics as is?
January 7th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
The worst part about this of course is the ample evidence we have from Richard Clarke and others that plenty of people were aware of this great terrorist danger pre-9/11, not post.
January 7th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
“And so did members of the House and Senate intelligence committees (and, by extension, the rest of their respective caucuses had the gist of it).”
From what I understand this is not actually true. In the case it was, anyone who knew about it and did not raise a giant red flag should suffer the same fate as Bush (or at least be voted out at the next possible opportunity).
January 7th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
But this is like congratulating him for knowing how to tie his shoes.
Actually, to follow through on your main argument, Matt, this would be like congratulating Bush for knowing that his shoes should be tied … then falling on his ass when it turned out that he’d tied his left and right shoes together.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Incidentally, my main contention with Jews is the issue of circumcision.
The uncut penis is such a thing of beauty and grace, that any religion which demands its mutilation (Judaism, Islam) have barbaric.
If they could suck on uncut cock now and again, they wouldn’t be killing each other.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
I get the feeling they are trying to make themselves irrelevant before they even get started.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Fred is clearly a conservative troll trying desperately for attention. His attempts are so 2004.
January 7th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
Ben
You are obviously one of the snipped.
If you still had your hood, you would know the beauty I speak of.
January 7th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Fred is clearly a conservative troll trying desperately for attention.
No no, this invective from Fred is amateur classic second-generation trolling, as in immediately after the days of Usenet, when everyone was still confused about trolls-under-bridges vs. trolls-used-in-fishing. Enough off-topic puns and invective, and one can get the entire thread to circumnavigate its original topic or purpose for being.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:29 am
One of the dumbest arguments that conservatives make for supporting George W. Bush’s unprovoked acts of aggression against the Iraqi people is that of hindsight. As if the decision to go to war was the sort of thing you got credit for if your intentions were good.
It’s not you evil fuckers.
You only get to go to war if you are right. You only get to murder people in their sleep if they pose an imminent threat to your safety. If you think you do and you are wrong then you are a criminal. It’s a one way deal.
There are hundreds of thousands of dead people and millions of displaced in spite of the fact that they posed no threat to the United States. George W. Bush gave the order to start murdering them.
People died. Your pissing on their graves doesn’t make their deaths any less tragic. It just makes you an evil fuckhead.
January 8th, 2009 at 2:36 am
Anyway, of course this wasn’t a case of “negligence”. The decision to use 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq was made first, almost immediately in fact. That makes what followed a case of Bush acting purposefully, not negligently.
Thanks for pointing that out and it’s a real shame that this still has to be pointed out, but just to be sure I’ll point it out once again for the slow learners:
Bush (I’m using shorthand here) wanted to invade Iraq all along and he needed to find a pretext for invasion. 9/11 got people into the right mood, but wasn’t enough in itself, so Bush came up with WMD. His sole interest in WMD was as a pretext for invading Iraq, which is why he actively sought out and pushed dubious evidence as a way to market the war.
Anybody who uses terms like “intelligence failure” is ignoring these facts and engaging in revisionist history. Either these people are still playing Bush’s game to the bitter end, they are woefully uniformed or just plain stupid.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Remember, we must be balanced in our assessment of the Bush administration. Since there is nothing good to say about the Bush administration, we have to say something that is nether good nor bad and dress it up positively. That’s called “journalism.”
Why must we be balanced in this matter? Shut up–that’s why.
January 8th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
There are certain ineradicable truths, no matter how much certain people wish otherwise.
1) There were no wmd’s in Iraq, period. All but the sickest delusional nimrods accept this.
2) Iraq was never a threat to the United States. Rubber chicken circuit bloviating and cut and paste ransom note quotes from Martin Luther King and Bill Clinton notwithstanding.
3) There was no real evidence and no good reason to believe in wmd’s in Iraq. It was not an ‘honest mistake.’ Rather, it was a campaign of lies, half truths, exagerations, scaremongering and cherry picking by the Bush administration. They knew their case was bullshit, but they were determined to stampede the war on.
4) Saddam Hussein would have died in the normal course, and his regime would have been replaced… with a lot less psychotic bloodshed.
5) As far as turning out for the best, the Iraqi’s have suffered literally two generations worth of damage. A million extra fatalities, almost five million refugees, simmering civil wars, the wholesale destruction of the economy and infrastructure… there’s no panglossian remedies.
6) 9/11 was Osama Bin Laden’s plot, but it couldn’t have succeeded without a lot of pretty relentless negligence by the Bush administration. I’m not talking conspiracy, I’m talking about a fatal pattern of neglect and negligence by a group of people who couldn’t find their ass with a GPS locator.
7) People who are seriously worried about terrorists gaining nuclear weapons are probably the same people terrified that Santa Claus will come down the chimney and diddle their wife while they’re not looking.
February 1st, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Can you provide more details on this?
February 9th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I am very impressed with this. I will put this blog to my facebook favourites.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:00 am
viagra
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 2nd, 2009 at 4:31 am
levitraIncredible site!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:14 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 12th, 2009 at 10:44 pm
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:19 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 5:55 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:18 am
buy viagra online
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 23rd, 2009 at 4:21 am
viagra
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:53 am
Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:00 am
Incredible site!
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 4:43 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra