Why do they hate us?

But rather than do so, CIA Director Tenet merely sent Graham a letter discussing the findings. Graham then complained that Tenet's letter only addressed "findings that supported the administration's position on Iraq," and ignored information that raised questions about intelligence. In short, Graham suggested that the Administration, by cherrypicking only evidence to its own liking, had manipulated the information to support its conclusion.

Recent statements by one of the high-level officials privy to the decision making process that lead to the Iraqi war also strongly suggest manipulation, if not misuse of the intelligence agencies. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, during an interview with Sam Tannenhaus of Vanity Fair magazine, said: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason." More recently, Wolfowitz added what most have believed all along, that the reason we went after Iraq is that "[t]he country swims on a sea of oil."

Worse than Watergate? A potential huge scandal if WMDs are still missing.

Krugman is right to suggest a possible comparison to Watergate. In the three decades since Watergate, this is the first potential scandal I have seen that could make Watergate pale by comparison. If the Bush Administration intentionally manipulated or misrepresented intelligence to get Congress to authorize, and the public to support, military action to take control of Iraq, then that would be a monstrous misdeed.

This administration may be due for a scandal. While Bush narrowly escaped being dragged into Enron, which was not, in any event, his doing. But the war in Iraq is all Bush's doing, and it is appropriate that he be held accountable.

To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

It's important to recall that when Richard Nixon resigned, he was about to be impeached by the House of Representatives for misusing the CIA and FBI. After Watergate, all presidents are on notice that manipulating or misusing any agency of the executive branch improperly is a serious abuse of presidential power.

Nixon claimed that his misuses of the federal agencies for his political purposes were in the interest of national security. The same kind of thinking might lead a President to manipulate and misuse national security agencies or their intelligence to create a phony reason to lead the nation into a politically desirable war. Let us hope that is not the case.

 

What an interesting accusation: "the state-controlled newspapers throughout the Islamic world" spew forth all sorts of filth.

It is interesting indeed because in the US of course the State does not controll the press. It is entirely free and independent. Unless of course you are stupid enough to point out that most of the press is owned and controlled by one Rupert Murdoch who had to become an American citizen before he was allowed to do what he does now. His Aussie homeland loves hime for that!

And as for the hatred of Muslims, I think even your free press has shown numerous examples. Where does that come from? Could it be from that one born againer residing in a government white structure in D.C.?

Yes, in most of the developing world the press is controlled by the various respective governments, some of which are even Christian, or perish the thought, Jewish! And in the rest of the world there are informal means of control. Like Rupert demonstrates so amicably. Pity his tricks did not always work. Take a close look at Europe, and you see what I mean.

 

I'm not sure what combination of insufferably pretentious, deeply deluded, reflexively hostile, and pathetically ill-informed you are. I do know that you commenced your contributions to this thread with insults aimed at me personally, and that you continually ramble on in this pseudo-familiar manner, as though winking to an audience that agrees with and understands you.

You also continually get entangled in your odd presumptions: You're so desperate to appear witty and superior, you end up making statements like "Unless of course you are stupid enough to point out that most of the press is owned and controlled by one Rupert Murdoch." Does this mean that you actually do realize how stupid it is to say that "most" of the press is owned by Murdoch? Or does it mean that you are so deluded that you think that knowledgeable people really do believe that statement to be true?

As for the statement that prompted this latest contribution from you, do you really believe that possibly questionable statements and depictions that may occur from time to time regarding Islam and Muslims in the American media are somehow equivalent or similar to the imprecations against the infidel that are shouted out every Friday at mosques all around the world, to the blood libels recycled from "classic" anti-Semitic works and distributed throughout the Muslim world , to endless calls for the destruction of Israel and "death to America," to the glorification of suicide bombers, to weird claims that the US defeated the Iraqi army through use of special nuclear weapons, or backroom deals with Saddam himself? It goes on and on, and I'm wondering if you're personally aware of any of it.

Here are just a couple of recent examples for you.

From the mosques:

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=6927_Peaceful_Religion_Watch

From the Saudi educational curriculum:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26645-2003Jun6.html?referrer=emailarticle

From the Egyptian state-controlled media:

http://www.memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD51203

I rarely see what you mean, because you're apparently too committed to your smug, sarcastic, and self-absorbed attitude to state your positions clearly. If you are trying to say that you consider the European media to be objective, or relatively objective, you are, again, late to the discussion, both on this thread and elsewhere. The anti-American bias in leading European news organizations - public and private - has been documented and analyzed at great length, both in the US and by observers over there.

I am by no means trying to argue that the US media are wholly unbiased or objective. I believe that neither side has a monopoly on truth, fairness, and accuracy, though I also believe that there are identifiable institutional, cultural, and historical reasons that explain why the mass media both in Europe and the United States lean to the left. Some of those reasons are where this thread began.

 

nice construction - scornful, pompous, dismissive, ad hominem - it hits all points (but to fully adhere to the neocon structure you could maybe add that even raising such a point might lead decent Americans to question his "patriotism." to really top it off, a vague insinuation of criminality or of sexual perversion might do the trick.)

as to the article, perhaps another way to look at it would be that anti-US hatred is an effect, rather than a cause, and that a willingness to believe the allegations of lying and distorting is also an effect of the same cause.

 

And what have either of you, Magna and Madison, done in response to my post other than to attack me? You call me "pompous," you attach guilt to me by association with some nebulous group of talk radio-consuming jingoists who supposedly depend on sexual insinuations and attacks on patriotism to make their points, but you never deal with the issue. I directly responded to your "message," Magna, such as it was. Did you even bother to read the material that I had just linked on the same subject?

I don't see either of you speaking up and calling for order, on this thread or elsewhere, when individuals whose positions and opinions happen to coincide with yours engage in personal invective and insults. Yet when I implicitly express scorn for a certain perspective - with no real personal content whatsoever, merely the implication that the "messenger" may not be fully informed on his subject - suddenly your precious sensitivities are engaged.

To me, the idea expressed by Magna is deserving of some scorn: That disputes over the details of US intelligence reports have something to do with, e.g., a Saudi educational curriculum that preaches hatred of the infidel or the famous claims swallowed whole through much of the Muslim world that 9/11 was a Jewish conspiracy. Sorry if it hurts your feelings to have this pointed out.

 

At you personally?

I never outed you, but if you need something, well then, go to one of your gay bars and ask them to do it for you.

Pompous is the best word to describe your strange contributions.

Thank god I do not pay taxes for the education of people like you.

There you are: is that personal enough?

 

I'm not as impressed as you are with the opinions of this retired State Dept. official. He has his view about what would have justified a war - an "immediate threat" in the form of a dangerous nuclear weapons program or a certain level of cooperation with AQ. He's certainly entitled to his opinions about proper justifications for the war and proper uses of intelligence material, but his perspective is only one among many. Moreover, he does not charge that intelligence was, as you put it, manufactured and falsified: He apparently believes that the import of some intelligence, in areas of particular concern to him, was exaggerated. Both the facts in question and their importance in the larger scheme of things remain debatable.

I felt this particular item, not the larger issue, qualified as a non-story. Perhaps I was being too glib. I concede that his view of one retired official does rise above the zero level in import.

I did not previously respond in detail to the story, but I did respond to what I took to be your "message": That such stories might help explain "why they hate us." Nor did I "divert" the discussion, as the state-controlled media and other elements of broad opinion in the Muslim world have been a major part of the discussion here, and were, indeed, the central subject of the immediately prior post. It is your post that, strictly speaking, was non-germane, if not impertinent, within the larger context.

Or perhaps we can blame Optional : For one thing, he's used to taking the heat. For another, his multi-part c&p probably belonged on a different thread.

I can certainly understand how tiresome certain forms of argumentation, or non-argumentation, can be, but certainly the proponents of what you call "the neocon worldview" are not the only ones on ET who sometimes heap scorn on those who disagree with them. I myself had just been dealing with contributors who repeatedly have directed personal attacks at me and who habitually make derogatory blanket condemnations of all who support Administration policy.

I appreciate your recognition that I may have been "the most even-handed" among those who take my side, but perhaps you should have considered this fact before chiming in with Madison's derogatory - not to mention diversionary - statements.

Sorry, but it strikes me as rather precious to get upset about the use of the word "precious" - especially when it's used in the context of defending oneself from being directly insulted and, in an obviously hypocritical way, being grouped together with slanderers, insinuators, et al...

We disagree about the causes of the war, about the fair characterization of the Administration's case for war, and even about the fair characterization of the US' prior relationship with Iraq. It is your last statement that gets to the crux of the issue relating to the larger question of this thread: Even if - and to me it's a big if - the possible use of false pretexts for the Iraq war might justify future opposition to the US, it can't possibly explain why hatred of America and what it represents was already, long before the war in Iraq and long before Bush took office, a fairly pervasive phenomenon in some regions of the world.

You say:

You seem to be suggesting that they've been hating us, or preparing to hate us, in anticipation of this revelation. You can't really mean that - so maybe what you really mean is that such revelations would merely be new confirmation of some pre-existing perception about how the US operates. But even if this perception was accurate, how would that justify and explain (homicida and fanatical) hatred? Why should a country hate "us" for having been lied to?

If the roles were reversed - if "they" were lied to, and their governments or other forces launched attacks - would we, in your view, be justified in hating them?

 

???????? Any scorn I heaped on those who disagreed with my view was fully returned and, in most cases, instigated by them in the first place. Furthermore, I have stated repeatedly that I support those with differing opinions to state those opinions, and I have managed to stay out of this argument for the most part for quite some time now anyway.

Round and round and round. You state that you believe Saddam had WMD - like Blix, et al did - and also admit he was a threat to the US, yet you feel the need to argue if it was an immediate threat. Given the portability of WMD in today's age, how was it NOT an immediate threat? Would the usage of such weapons on American soil and the ensuing thousands or more casualties impress on you the IMMEDIACY of such threats?

What IS interesting to note on ET is the waffling of those who supported the war but now are eager now to question it. It is obvious that so many posters here argue merely for the sake of arguing.

Kymar, keep up the good work.