Senate report skewers Bush
I should have posted on this earlier, but the Senate Intelligence Committee report released today (on Friday, of course, to minimize the damage) completely discredits the Saddam-Al Qaeda linkages that Bush put forward in support of the Iraq invasion:
It makes me feel crazy to say it, but more and more, it's looking like we should have kept that murderous tyrant around. He could have counter-balanced Iran, fought Al-Qaeda, and stood forth as a shining example of how Western Capitalist Democracy is much better than Stalinist Tyranny. We used to be able to say "at least the people of Iraq are better off", but I'm not really sure that's the case any more, what with the death tolls what they are, and electricity still off most of the day.
If we were going to invade Iraq, we should have done it right, but more and more we discover how we weren't even planning to get it right (HT: Atrios). I've of course known this for a while, but it never fully sinks in: This administration doesn't even take Iraq seriously.
UPDATE: Upon hearing of the incident I link to above in which Rumsfeld explicitly forbade post-invasion planning for Iraq, Sullivan renews his call to get rid of Rumsfeld. I think this is necessary for accountability purposes, but I'm pessimistic that it would improve the situation much. The real problem is Bush. Anyone Bush put in that position would probably have to accommodate Bush's petulantly naive worldview, or would get undermined and thrown out.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Saddam Hussein regarded al-Qaida as a threat rather than a possible ally, a Senate report says, contradicting assertions President Bush has used to build support for the war in Iraq.(AP via Majikthise). In fact, according to this article, Saddam tried to capture Zarqawi:Released Friday, the report discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that before the war, Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.
It said al-Zarqawi was in Baghdad from May until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi..."(Majikthise's headline says Saddam tried to kill Zarqawi, but I don't see that mentioned in this article, only that he wanted to capture him.)
It makes me feel crazy to say it, but more and more, it's looking like we should have kept that murderous tyrant around. He could have counter-balanced Iran, fought Al-Qaeda, and stood forth as a shining example of how Western Capitalist Democracy is much better than Stalinist Tyranny. We used to be able to say "at least the people of Iraq are better off", but I'm not really sure that's the case any more, what with the death tolls what they are, and electricity still off most of the day.
If we were going to invade Iraq, we should have done it right, but more and more we discover how we weren't even planning to get it right (HT: Atrios). I've of course known this for a while, but it never fully sinks in: This administration doesn't even take Iraq seriously.
UPDATE: Upon hearing of the incident I link to above in which Rumsfeld explicitly forbade post-invasion planning for Iraq, Sullivan renews his call to get rid of Rumsfeld. I think this is necessary for accountability purposes, but I'm pessimistic that it would improve the situation much. The real problem is Bush. Anyone Bush put in that position would probably have to accommodate Bush's petulantly naive worldview, or would get undermined and thrown out.
Comments