What Saudis?

I’m no fan of Bob Woodward. But I was riveted by his interview with Mike Wallace last night on 60 Minutes. In Woodward’s version of the run-up to the Iraqi war, GW Bush comes off, frankly, as a putz. My Nation colleague David Corn has a nifty analysis of the Woodward disclosures.

The disclosure that appears to unsettle the White House the most is Woodward's assertion that in mid-January 2003 Bush decided to proceed with the invasion of Iraq. Woodward also notes that in November 2001, Bush asked the Pentagon to whip up a plan for war with Iraq. Such an order can be defended by the administration as prudent planning. After all, in the post-9/11 world, you never know when you might need such a plan…But in the months before the war, the White House insisted that Bush was pursuing diplomatic options in good faith… [In] late January [2003], Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said, "Nobody, but nobody, is more reluctant to go to war than President Bush....He does not want to lead the nation to war."
But, according to Woodward, Bush was already leading the nation to war, having made the decision on January 11. National security adviser Condoles Rice--who has become the administration's explainer-in-chief--suggests that Bush was merely thinking aloud at the time. But Woodward's account is pretty strong, noting that the Saudis were informed before Bush bothered to tell his secretary of state.

By the way, how much longer are the Saudis going to wait before dropping the price of oil? I give already.

What oil? What Saudis? White House flack Scott McClellan does his best impersonation of Ari Fleischer when asked. Read all about it on Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo.

The White House’s slippery evasiveness on the accusation that a foreign power might have been enlisted to influence our national election oozes…well...oil.

Comments

[Noname]

That David Corn guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Believeme, I know. i see right through him.

[Michael J. Totten]

Gee, Noname, that was compelling.

[Michael J. Totten]

Marc,

I never believed Bush was hoping to avoid regime-change. He clearly wanted it. This was just one of those things that was said for diplomatic reasons.

Telling the Saudis before telling Colin Powell is less cool.

[Marc Cooper]

Michael: Yes. Bush was always for regime change. Indeed, it was Bill Clinton who signed the Iraqi independence act that also codified regime change. So no one has the right to be surprised by Bush's intent to overturn Saddam. But here's the point that I don't think should be taken lightly --> the more you believe that sort of change is warranted and just, then the more imperative it becomes that: a) there be an open and real consultation within the cabinet which means not excluding the secretary of state b) that congressional leadership also be included and taken seriously c) that we as a nation be serious and straight with the world community including the hoary old UN. Either we take our intl standing seriously and cooperate as much as possible with our historic partners and friends or we don't. And finally, the more you believe in that regime change, then the more seriously you prepare the American people by levelling with them (which this admin did not do), you spell out the level of human and finacial sacrifice you are demnanding and you respect the reaction that evokes. Much or none of the above transpired. The real irony, Michael, is that the miscalculation and the hubris of this admin has produced a situation where, tonight as I write, the entire American project in Iraq now depends on the good will and blessing of the very pro-Iranian cleric Sistani. That's one helluva of a place to be. No?

[Michael J. Totten]

Marc,

I'm not too happy with the way the administration went about this either, for some of the reasons you stated and some other ones, too. I always did prefer the Hitchens route. I wrote about this in a column last year.

http://www.techcentralstation.com/053003D.html

Excerpt:

Paul Berman made the best case for war in Terror and Liberalism. "Freedom for others means safety for ourselves. Let us be for the freedom of others." Like-minded Christopher Hitchens bluntly calls the liberation of Iraq "a slum-clearance program." Both Hitchens and Berman used liberation as the set-piece of their arguments, and history will reward them. Bush's case for war is more in doubt. In the end it is not even relevant, which Bush and his critics both miss.

The administration should have known better. Many of Bush's advisers are students of history. They should know, then, to factor in the hindsight-of-history effect. Bush's rationale for invasion obscured the moral dimension of war, and it remains obscured to this day. It muddied the pre-war discussion, and now his critics grab headlines when they gripe about footnotes. Let this be a lesson to him, and those who follow him in office, that the liberal case for war was always the stronger one.

[miklos rosza]

Bush is not going to go down in history as a great orator. That's settled. Everyone speaks so nostalgically of Bill Clinton in this regard, but I personally found Clinton's tough to listen to, even I supported him all the way.

Because it always came off to me as calculated high school presidency political bullshit.

The first time I started having a sneaking admiration for Bush was when I realized he was willing to do unpopular things. He meant what he said. That seemed unbelievable to me!

If I was Osama and heard GWB say "We will come after you, and we will find you," I would be scared. If Clinton said the same you'd know it wasn't serious, because Clinton wasn't serious.

I may be running on emotionalism here (or "Emotivism," as it's called in philosophy), but my desire for vengeance is unslaked.

(To use a Biblical word.)

[Michael J. Totten]

Miklos,

I hear ya about Clinton, and I supported him too. He said once he wished he were president during a crisis. I believed him about that then and I believe him about that now. I think he might have done an okay job if 9/11 occurred on his watch. 9/11 might have made him a great man, and all the silly Monica stuff might have become right-wing footnotes. He is more interesting and complicated than most of his detractors allow.

[miklos rosza]

Michael: agreed.

[miklos rosza]

Just as Bush is so much more intelligent than the lightweight ad hominems allow. Laura reads W.G. Sebald, for Christ's sake! That's not something you pick up off of Oprah or from trying to please some hypothetical focus group.

[steve]

marc wrote:
that we as a nation be serious and straight with the world community including the hoary old UN.

--actually that was Bush's strength, he knew there was no way the UN could be sold on the idea that Iraq was a 'threat' to either the US or the rest of the world. Bush recognised the only way to get the official invasion of Iraq was to just violate the will of the international community and 'just do it'... All the lies and hype about WMDs was designed to the end of rationalising the invasion without having to come out before the invasion and admit we were overthrowing Saddam (or "Sodom" as the Bushies decided it should be pronounced) because, well, as Friedman put it, "we could"...

[steve]

"If I was Osama and heard GWB say "We will come after you, and we will find you," I would be scared. If Clinton said the same you'd know it wasn't serious, because Clinton wasn't serious."

--yeah, i know...osama's just shaking in his boots as we look for him in Eyerak...

[Crid]

> Either we take our intl standing
> seriously and cooperate as much
> as possible with our historic
> partners and friends or we don't.

How many members does a coalition have before we stop calling it a unilateral action? Or is it more that some particular "partner" mustn't have their feathers ruffled? As I understand it, the French and Russians in particular are up to their knees in oil-for-food, and it's not like France disavows unilaterlism in Cote D'Ivory.

[steve]

How many members does a coalition have before we stop calling it a unilateral action?

--well, minus spain...and the large no. of countries that are 'coalition' members that are so for the sake of US aid, contracts, etc....that 'coalition' is looking pretty weak there...farcical in fact...
the only people who take seriously the idea that there is a 'coalition' are US reporters...outside the US no one talks seriously about a 'coalition' in Iraq, everyone recognizes it's a US occupation...

[Crid]

> farcical in fact...

The Fijians might refute this. Last I heard, they were in charge of security during cash transfers to banks, and they weren't fucking around.

I just think you can't have it both ways. At some point you have to say what a nation can or cannot bring to to contest, else concede that the cry for international support was a delay tactic.

Whose muscle did we miss during this invasion? Would that one (limping) French carrier have made a difference? They had little to bring to the field in terms of moral justification.

I'm OK with this being known as a USA invasion. Saddam was known as a USA poodle, and that was a LOT worse. It's neat that the boomer generation is the one that finally told the world that we're willing to go back and clean up a mess.

> ...osama's just shaking in his boots...

I pretty sure we blew him out of those galoshes with a daisy cutter in November 2001. But two months after the 1993 WTC bombing would have been better.

[Michael J. Totten]

Crid: "Saddam was known as a USA poodle, and that was a LOT worse."

Yeah.

Then there was that in-between period that was captured perfectly in the movie "Three Kings." I didn't like the in-between period much either. Neither did the Iraqis.

[steve]

I just think you can't have it both ways. At some point you have to say what a nation can or cannot bring to to contest, else concede that the cry for international support was a delay tactic.

--of course it was a delay tactic...if you don't believe the lies of the US about Iraq's "threat", how else to react? Besides, the UN is mandated only to approve of an invasion such as Iraq when there is a clear threat. When the US made up its case, that only convinced UN countries further that they were being asked to do something the UN is not allowed to do by charter, namely endorse invasions when no threat mandates it.

Powell made a fool of himself at the UN, British newspapers lambasted the lies and the use of a fake dossier provided as a gift from Britain...
That only solidified the case against supporting the US in the international community.

Keep in mind why Bush did what he did, something Marc, Ignatief, Hitch...don't appreciate: the option of going to the international community, i.e. the UN, and convincing them to support regime change because the US didn't like "Sodom"...wasn't an option--especially when the inconvenient little problem of 70-95% opposition among the electorate existed in European countries...

[rosedog]

To bring the conversation back to Marc's original comments and the Woodward book...

Wisconson Congressman David Obay just issued an interesting statement regarding Bush and Co. allegedly snatching money appropriated on an emergency basis for one purpose, and applying it in secret to ramp up for Iraq:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/0419-11.htm

"I find the Woodward revelations to be disturbing. Four days after 9-11, Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young and I pushed through Congress a $40 billion emergency appropriations bill to respond to al Qaeda and the damage they created. The Administration asked for a total blank check-unlimited funding for an unlimited time. We refused, but did give them unprecedented flexibility with the assurance that they would keep Congress plugged into what they were doing.

"But, if Mr. Woodward's book is accurate, it is clear that once again the Administration has declined to cooperate with those who are trying to cooperate with them. The Administration owes Congress a full, detailed and immediate accounting.

"Furthermore, if this is all true, it is ironic that the President was surreptitiously authorizing expenditures to begin a plan for war at the very same time he was resisting bipartisan Congressional efforts to provide desperately needed funds for homeland security, to make sure Americans were not vulnerable to further attacks."

On the subject of Iraq, some unusually strong statements were made by Egypt’s Mubarek as reported by Reuters this morning.

(http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=QN1O0XA20OZSOCRBAEZSFEY?type=worldNews&storyID=4882261)

According to Reuters, Mubarek said:

"Today there is hatred of the Americans like never before in the region."

Mubakek predictably pointed to Bush’s blanket support of Sharon’s actions, but added that:

“At the start some considered the Americans were helping them. There was no hatred of the Americans. After what has happened in Iraq, there is unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it. The despair and feeling of injustice are not going to be limited to our region alone. American and Israeli interests will not be safe, not only in our region but anywhere in the world..”

[Crid]

> Powell made a fool of himself at the UN...

Horrific scandal rocks the UN every year or so. Last year it was some sort of child abuse or sexual exploitation in the eastern Europe. This year it's a hundred billion worth of graft, spoiled vittles and watered medicine in oil-for-food. There are many of us who are no longer compelled to lift our voices in song just because someone mentions the UN, as if this twisted council of village idiots represented the highest aspirations of all humanity.

> According to Reuters, Mubarek said:
>
> "Today there is hatred of the Americans
> like never before in the region."

Isn't Egypt the country that stands second in the list of nations sustained by US foreign aid? Has Islamic life had a greater defender in the past oh, five or six hundred years, than GW Bush?

Hosne may be working his own angle here. We should try not to get too upset so long as he's cashing the checks.

[steve]

This year it's a hundred billion worth of graft, spoiled vittles and watered medicine in oil-for-food.

--yah, geez, i wonder if it's anything comparable to all the oil revenues that are unaccounted for by the CPA these days...ah ha!, we liberated the iraqis from the UN!!
-------------------
as if this twisted council of village idiots represented the highest aspirations of all humanity.

--i know, better to trust mr. bush...

[rosedog]

"Isn't Egypt the country that stands second in the list of nations sustained by US foreign aid?"

Hey, I know. It really is a bummer when even the friends we've purchased fair and square start to bad mouth us. All this and King Abdullah of Jordan, who was hanging out in California as recently as yesterday, decides he has to rush straight home instead of visiting POTUS Bush, as scheduled, leaving the White house to blather something about tight schedules and “domestic concerns.”

Even the venerable Bill Buckley put up a column this afternoon in the National Review titled: DEAD DIPLOMACY – The Jordan Snub Is a Problem.

Buckley writes: “If you think Jordan's King Abdullah was acting precipitately, you have lost count of diplomatic currents and crosscurrents in the recent season. Jordan's rebuff came after one week of excoriations by Egypt's Hosni Mubarak. It is serious business to antagonize Mubarak…”

Do they have their own agendas? Uh, yeah. Hosni and the King would really, REALLY prefer not to be assassinated or overthrown by their citizenry.

Thus they're playing to the folks at home, rather than to Daddy Warbucks.

Plus Abdullah might be getting a teensy-weensy bit jumpy about the fact that, when Sharon and Bush talk about a permanent Palestinian state, they point to Gaza, but they keep glancing toward Amman.

"Has Islamic life had a greater defender in the past oh, five or six hundred years, than GW Bush?"

You were being ironic. Right?

[Crid]

Steve, I fear your comments can be taken at their cynical face value: There's no limit to the amount of suffering and wretchedness you're willing to see afoot, especially in other lands, if Bush might come to look good by its suppression. Noted, thanks.

[steve]

There's no limit to the amount of suffering and wretchedness you're willing to see afoot, especially in other lands, if Bush might come to look good by its suppression. Noted, thanks

--yes, i've noticed Bushies putting out that talking point, especially of late when their failures in Iraq are now staring at the American people and crying out "We have no solution!!"...
Oh, but Bush didn't enjoy the suffering created by the invasion and occupation when he landed gloriously on an aircraft carrier deck, eh?
Save your crocodile tears for the suffering of the Iraqi people for someone else...And while you're at it, maybe you might let your marine officer pals in on a little secret: blaring rock and roll music at Iraqis isn't winning any friends in Iraq...if strategy means anything to the US military these days, a doubtable proposition it would appear...

> Hosni and the King would really, REALLY prefer not
> to be assassinated or overthrown by their citizenry.

Right. When were their last elections?

> You were being ironic. Right?

Naw, don't snark the point, answer it. Who's done more to give muslims a free and diverse pursuit of faith? For getting girls in Afghanistan back into schools, W earns a lot of respect.

[rosedog]

I'm glad you asked: the last elections in Egypt were in 2000. Next to be held in November of 2005. And, yes, they are disorderly, crude, and corrupt.

Jordan, on the other hand, is---as I'm sure you're aware---a so-called constitutional monarchy. However, Abdullah, not the popular guy and consummate domestic diplomat his dad was, rules as an absolute monarch. But we don’t care, see, because he’s OUR absolute monarch. The deal was, Hussein’s brother, Crown Prince Hassan, had been set to succeed Hussein since nearly forever, or more accurately, since 1965. But, as Hussein grew more and more ill, we began to notice that the brother was a bit of an Arab Nationalist who, despite Jordan’s economic dependence on the US, was fond of sounding off about how the Washington shouldn’t throw its weight around quite so much when it comes to Mid-East affairs. As a consequence, the CIA figured that the whole Hassan-succession thing wouldn’t do at all. So, a month or so before Hussein died, he changed the succession to Abdullah. (He had his own reasons too, admittedly. In truth, Hussein preferred his youngest, Hamza, but that would have required an amendment to the Jordanian constitution.)

As for GeorgeW-as-champion of the Muslim world--- honestly, Crit, you seem like a smart, aware guy, although a bit conservative for my personal taste, but that one's so patently absurd, I don't know where to begin to address it. I'm not being snarky, I'm serious. The mere thought makes me tired.

[Crid]

> I don't know where to begin to
> address it. I'm not being snarky,
> I'm serious. The mere thought makes
> me tired.

I seriously believe you: you're stumped. Kinsley was right when he said this war wouldn't have happened without GWB (neither possibly would Afghanistan). And if there's an individual who can claim to have done more for muslim life in the past century or so, I want to know who it is. I'm here to learn.

I like the question because Dems are being pressured into defending some monstrous people by their hatred of Bush. It's as if people think brutal fundamentalism is the only meaningful expression of Islam, and should be treated as a righteous contender to the western modernism, as if that were the way to honor religious tolerance. Forget GWB: Has anyone done more to defend muslim life on several continents than the US Army?