Jeffrey Goldberg today:
Did I say “pre-emption”? The doctrine that shall not be named? The Bush administration did the nation no service by pre-empting an Iraqi weapons-of-mass-destruction program that no longer existed in any meaningful way. The danger, of course, is in the ever-swinging pendulum, whose movement could lead a Democratic president to flinch when presented with intelligence (“intelligence” often being a euphemism for “Mr. President, we really don’t know exactly what’s going on, but …”) that a ship, or a port, or a nuclear plant faces an imminent, or semi-imminent threat.
Some other guy named Jeffrey Goldberg, back then:
For instance, when Doug Feith had a hard-on about launching military action against Arab terrorists in Paraguay, who stepped forward and wrote the scare piece? Now we have a big special-ops base! And when Chalabi wanted to disseminate a dodgy tidbit about Saddam having a secret evil plan to kill 100,000 Israelis in a single day with bioweapons, was it not Goldberg who duly pimped it to the New Yorker’s million discerning readers? It was indeed.
Goldberg did this, in fact, in his (in)famous 2002 feature "The Great Terror," which helped create the well-worn media portrait of Saddam as a genocidal lunatic with WMDs on hair-trigger ready to exterminate every hamburger-eating, freedom-loving person in the world. Both Bush and Cheney spoke approvingly of the 16,000-word article and singled it out as a good explanation why a war effort was justified. But the "Great Terror" is a J-school nightmare: bad sources, compromised sources, unacknowledged uncertainties, and the whole text spun through with an alarmist rhetoric that is now either laughable or nauseating, depending on your mood.
Login Here




18 Comments
Spotlight


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About TBogg
Advanced search
RSS/XML Feed
It’s Elul! He’s saying he’s sorry! One of the things listed explicitly in the confession is “yatznu ra”, “we gave bad advice”.
I thought this post was going to be about the evil twin issued for McCain who does all the nasty attacks, just as HW Bush had an evil twin memorably exposed to the world by Garry Trudeau.
Sadly from what we know of the temper of the real McCain an evil twin does not have to be posited.
Hell, now that they know they’ll never be called on lying, they don’t even try anymore.
Frankly, neither “laughable” nor “nauseating” came to mind when reading Goldberg’s latest piece.
“Infuriating” is the plaudit that struck me as most as most accurate.
.
Do as I say now, not as I said then…
Never forget the fallback position: “Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator and the world is better off without him.”
Many proliferation experts I have spoken to judge the chance of such a detonation to be as high as 50 percent in the next 10 years. I am an optimist, so I put the chance at 10 percent to 20 percent. Only technical complications prevent Al Qaeda from executing a nuclear attack today.
The bi-monthly Cliff105 reality check:
The FBI has no hard evidence bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks.
http://www.teamliberty.net/id267.html
As for the NYT slop quoted above –I don’t see a twin. Seems like the same Goldberg hysteria then as now, only al Q. has been restored to the top bogeyman slot.
So the point of Goldberg’s Opus Dopus is that a when the intel is unclear, the Democratic President will apply caution and the Republican will assume the worst case scenario? We really can’t afford many more Republican cowboys pressing buttons before the facts are in.
But the “Great Terror” is a J-school nightmare:
Shoulda been called the Great Error. I’d like to see a War on Error, although it would be a tale of WoE.
That’s Just What I Said
Further isn’t his scenario basically the August 6th briefing that his boy Bush ignored. A ship, port or nuclear facility facing an imminent threat does not necessitate we bomb the bejeezus out of anywhere. Instead wouldn’t we want to beef up security and find the people attempting to do the dastardly deed before they try?
So his scenario isn’t even a pre-emptive war scenario
Jesus. Could he just go to hell already? (and take that fuck Ken Pollack with him.)
So, we better elect John McCain who’ll shoot from the hip and land us in another quagmire or worse.
…the Republican will assume the worst case scenario?
Half right – they’ll assume the worst case about the problem, and the best case about their proposed solution. Then fire any generals who disagree with them.
Then fire any generals who disagree with them.
Or, if you’re McPalin, promote them.
He was so evil he bought his evil weapons from Reagan/Bush and he asked permission to attack Kuwait.
Yep. Pure evil, s’il vous plait.
Man, that has really got to piss off everybody over there. I mean, how many man-hours have they put into investigating the biggest attack on American soil since perhaps the War of 1812? Has anyone actually asked them what they’ve been doing on that? Somebody should ask Mueller.
And speaking of generals … did I just hear General Barry McCaffrey state on the Rachel Maddow show that the Bush administration should back off on these promises to the Iraqi government and allow the President-elect to dictate the future policies regarding that nation after the results of the election are known?
Barry McCaffrey is calling out the Bush adminsitration? Really? Next thing you’re gonna tell me is that McCain nominated a wholly unprepared dipshit as his veep …
oops, sorry, calling Palin a dipshit is somehow sexist according to the leading lights here at FDL …
Pretty much the entire wingnutosphere in a nutshell.