Rove’s revisionism on Iraq
Peter Feaver has a very interesting post up about the assertion in Karl Rove’s new book that “if the administration had known the true extent of Iraq’s WMD stockpile and programs it would not have pushed the use of force resolution in October 2002 and invaded in 2003.” In other words, if our intelligence were right, there would’ve been no invasion of Iraq.
As Peter points out, this is especially interesting because President Bush insisted in 2005 that he would’ve done exactly the same thing even if he knew the facts about Saddam’s arsenal. Then, in 2008, Bush seemed to waver when asked the same question. What will Bush say the next time he is asked?
Feaver agrees that if we had all the facts about the WMD, there would’ve been no war. I agree, too. It would’ve been hard to get Republicans behind the idea, let alone half of the Democrats in the Senate.
I’d also go one step further and say that Bush’s answer from 2005, also given by other Republicans, was more of a response to political pressure than a detached analytical judgment. (Memo to self: Make sure I didn’t make that same argument back in 2005. Also, hire an intern to read my archived posts from back then.)
Generally, I would expect liberals to be very happy about Rove’s contention that there would’ve been no invasion if the intelligence were better. Yet Frank Rich had this to say:
As Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff, said on MSNBC, it’s “not a very comforting thing” to tell the families of the American fallen “that if the intelligence community in the United States, on which we spend about $60 billion a year, hadn’t made this colossal failure, we probably wouldn’t have gone to war.”
Wait, so Rich and Wilkerson would’ve been happier if Rove defended the invasion of Iraq as the right thing to do even if we knew the whole truth about Saddam’s WMD? I don’t recall too many liberals making that point while Bush was president. I guess the times they are a-changin’.
Cross-posted at Conventional Folly
4 Responses to “Rove’s revisionism on Iraq”
But it is even worse than that, and Rove knows it. I swear Rove is allergic to the truth. Much of the faulty intelligence DID NOT come from the REAL intelligence community. The CIA and other burroughs had significant doubts about the veracity of claims from 'curveball' etc. Much of the intelligence used to support the war was mined by Dick Cheney's hand picked group (Office of Special Plans). They didn't like the intel they were getting from CIA, so they cherry-picked the raw intel for support for what they already believed (ignoring and dismissing intell that contradicted what they wanted to believe). The White House pushed us into that war. Once again, Rove is trying to re-write history to cover his a$$.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b…
Where I am, there's a one-day (one-episode) delay from Rose's published schedule to when I get to see an appearance on his show. Friday was Rove's appearance on Rose; rather than watch and hear the video of it I am waiting until time to watch tonight, so I enjoy it “live.” Maybe he'll try defending terrorism on Rose.
“Maybe he'll try defending terrorism on Rose.”
Sorry, up all night and I just used the wrong word (though some lefties may say it's correct and I'm not going to quibble because I don't share his or Cheney's defense of the real thing). I should have said “torture.” I'm curious if he'll try to defend torture on Rose's show.
It's not the ones who are “catapulting the propaganda” that are disconnected from reality – they know damned well what they are doing – it's all those pathetic white people who are swallowing this garbage whole! And let's face some sobering truths, shall we? Other than a small handful of blubbering Uncle Toms, they're almost entirely white. The disconnect between reality and delusion in this country is widespread and appalling. That would partially explain the political careers of people like Jeff Sessions and Michele Bachmann. People like them are only able to advance because of the stampeding ignorance of their constituents. In the land of the brain-dead, the half-wit is king.
We really ought to give Karl his due. Let's face it, the guy has found himself in a nasty, unenviable situation. How would you like to be in the poor bastard's place? Think about it! He is desperately trying to buy some time with his idiotic book. He needs to stall history's verdict just long enough to get through the rest of his life as “a beloved elder statesman” – or however the hell he wants to be viewed. After his life on earth is over, why give a damn about how future generations will perceive him?
Then again, the guy is so unbelievably arrogant, maybe he really thinks he can pull a fast one on history. Maybe he actually believes that he can manipulate posterity to such a degree that one-hundred and fifty years from now, historians will view him as tenderly as they now do Lincoln's secretaries, John Hay and John Nicolay. Someone should inform him that while a public villain might be able to fool his contemporaries, he will not – he cannot – fool history – not for long anyway. History has an uncanny way of catching up with and cornering a scoundrel.
So let's all sit back and have a good laugh while watching Karl Rove try to whitewash his crimes against the American people. This ought to be a hoot-and-a-half!
http://www.tomdegan.blogspot.com
Tom Degan
Goshen NY