Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

It does seem as though the WaPo has suddenly become very much like the WSJ; the editorial pages have no resemblance to the news pages. I wonder why.

WaPo has leaned right on many issues since the mid-Reagan era or before.

Interestingly, the NYT is much better editorially than WaPo on Iraq, but much worse in terms of news coverage.

My favorite quote comes from one of the crazy callers to c-span's Washington Journal. "The commision says that there wasn't any CREDIBLE evidence but that doesn't mean there wasn't any evidence."

That one definitely takes the prize for the dumbest thing I've ever heard on C-span.

You must have missed Bob Dornan's speechs then. Though Scott McInnis also has his moments.

Posted this elsewhere and I'm too lazy to do anything other than copy and paste it here.

The existence of the letter and related documents (ie, the resolution) better explains the Administration's stubbornness at maintaining their conviction that they really truly believed Iraqi WMDs were a threat — one that could only be ameliorated by war. Copping to anything else — reverse dominoes, whatever — makes the war illegal, here and abroad. (At least as far as this notlawyer can tell.) The relevant passage from the resolution:

"(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and..."

However, the case being made here (and at kos, everywhere else) with respect to terrorism and Iraq's cooperation in the context of the legal documents is less definitive. The resolution compels the president to determine that

"(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution *is consistent with* the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations,organizations,or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

"Consistent with" does not mean "because." It seems to let them off the hook today, Iraq-Al Qaeda cooperation-wise. So, if somebody asks, the president will say that our invasion of Iraq was consistent with fighting terror in general and Al Qaeda in particular because it is the first step in the transformation of the ME from terrorist-incubator to valued partner in humanity's project to advance civilization and the cause of freedom.

To my knowledge, the documents accompanying the president's letter have not been made public. I bet those are an interesting read.

Contrast the Post's piece of feckless mendicity with the Times editorial on the same subject, same day:

....Of all the ways Mr. Bush persuaded Americans to back the invasion of Iraq last year, the most plainly dishonest was his effort to link his war of choice with the battle against terrorists worldwide. While it's possible that Mr. Bush and his top advisers really believed that there were chemical, biological and nuclear weapons in Iraq, they should have known all along that there was no link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. No serious intelligence analyst believed the connection existed; Richard Clarke, the former antiterrorism chief, wrote in his book that Mr. Bush had been told just that.

Nevertheless, the Bush administration convinced a substantial majority of Americans before the war that Saddam Hussein was somehow linked to 9/11. And since the invasion, administration officials, especially Vice President Dick Cheney, have continued to declare such a connection. Last September, Mr. Bush had to grudgingly correct Mr. Cheney for going too far in spinning a Hussein-bin Laden conspiracy. But the claim has crept back into view as the president has made the war on terror a centerpiece of his re-election campaign.

And agreeing with our host....
....Mr. Bush is right when he says he cannot be blamed for everything that happened on or before Sept. 11, 2001. But he is responsible for the administration's actions since then. That includes, inexcusably, selling the false Iraq-Qaeda claim to Americans. There are two unpleasant alternatives: either Mr. Bush knew he was not telling the truth, or he has a capacity for politically motivated self-deception that is terrifying in the post-9/11 world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/opinion/17THU1.html

"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." - President George W. Bush, September 2002

Dick Cheney on "Meet the Press," Sept. 14, 2003:

"[T]he Iraqi government and the Iraqi intelligent service has a relationship with al-Qaeda that developed throughout the decade of the ’90s. That was clearly official policy. . . . If we’re successful in Iraq, if we can stand up a good representative government in Iraq, that secures the region so that it never again becomes a threat to its neighbors or to the United States, so it’s not pursuing weapons of mass destruction, so that it’s not a safe haven for terrorists, now we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."

These lying sack of shit conservative fucks have got to go.

Somebody missed the wiggle room built into the letter.

"take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

So while the emphasis on September 11 give this letter a hook to sell the war, the letter preserves the ability to claim that the reference was instead to Hamas. Hamas had, of course, never threatened the US at the time, so there is still nothing here to justify war under standard "just war" thinking, but it does provide plenty of room to claim there was no explicit link between Saddam and September 11.

The GOP talking point is that everyone agreed with Mr. Bush about WMD, Saddam and al Qaeda in the run up to the war so who are they to criticize now? The defense seem to be that if Mr Bush is a dupe, then everyone else is, too. What it misses it that senators received their information on Iraq prior to the war from Mr Bush.

Brad, you're confusing me.

First you come out and say, "Impeach these clowns. Impeach them now."

Then you dance away from that and say, "But there is an election coming up. If George W. Bush loses it, things may still be OK."

Now you're back to saying, "Impeach George W. Bush. And Richard Cheney. Impeach them now."

Could you please make a decision about whether you want to see George Bush and Richard Cheney stand for reelection? (For the record, I've been consistent since the first reports of torture and abuse started coming out of *Afghanistan*— these guys must be impeached for high crimes.)

Brad DeLong writes, "Impeach George W. Bush. And Richard Cheney. Impeach them now."

Oh, brother!

I have a better idea: take a reading course. Then you'd know that Dan Froomkin and Mimi Hall apparently also can't read.

The letter actually uses Public Law 107-243 ("Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002") as the law authorizing Bush to wage war in Iraq.

By the way, Brad, where were your calls for impeachment of Bill Clinton when he was waging war in Kosovo without anything even close to what G.W. Bush had in terms of authorization from Congress?

Answer: you were silent, because you're a shamelessly partisan Democrat.

http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0201f.asp

Oh Medium Lobster, first you escort us gently down the slippery slope. And now you guide us through the labyrinth of "absence of evidence is no evidence of absence." How can your grateful public express its debt to you?

You capture the insidious essence of the danger that threatened us:
"Oh, there was an al Qaeda connection, my friends. It was an al Qaeda connection of the heart, and in lusting after international terrorism, Saddam Hussein committed that partnership on a dangerously conceptual level - one that could not be ignored on this very material, tank-and-bomb-filled reality."

You call us to our senses, keeping our eyes fixed firmly on what's important in the stars and sheltering us from the enemy's attempts to distract us by trivialities on the ground:
"Remember that 9/11, after all, changed everything - even elementary rules of logic - and we cannot pursue the real threats of today before we've finished eliminating the more deadly potentially-shadowy threats of tomorrow."

And you remind us that we can never lower our guard but, as the chosen defenders of civilization, must eternally man the watchtowers against the barbarian wolves clothed as sheep:
"The good news is that this menace is defeated. The bad news is that, as David Frum and Richard Perle have demonstrated, America has many shadow-enemies left to conquer. The Medium Lobster would note that, while we lack evidence to prove it, France may have considered partnering with Saddam and bin Laden - and they are a nuclear threat. Be warned."

Oh Medium Lobster, we ache for a leader, and you have claimed our allegiance by the shining of your vision-thing and your penetrating moral clarity. We are, oh Medium Lobster, your eternally devoted groupies!

http://fafblog.blogspot.com/2004_06_13_fafblog_archive.html#108747845265161494

www.cnn.com

states:

"CHENEY BLASTS MEDIA ON AL-QAEDA - IRAQ LINK"

So, in this story by cnn, Cheney says:

"The press, with all due respect, (is) often lazy, often times simply reports what somebody else in press said without doing their homework."

(I agree with that), but Cheney adds:

about 9-11 commission and Mohammed Atta meeting agen in Czeck-land:

"What the commission says is they can't find eveidence of that" (connection)..."We had one report, which is a famous report on the Czech intelligence service, and we've never been able to confrm or to knock it down."

Ohhhhhh, I know that the commission reported and other investigators have reported that Atta was filmed by a bank camera surveillance system withdrawing money at same juncture he was supposed to be in Czech -land.

Can it be there are 2 Atta's and Cheney (Mr. Pump-head) is clinging to old data, clinging to straws. Or is it the old Joseph Goebbels thing: (If you say a lie long and loud enough, people will believe it)...like stealing a page right out of Hitler's playbook.

Remember when the mobile weapons lab were found in Iraq and after it was confirmed by news agencies that this mobile lab was really weather-reporting related, and NOT a weapons lab a la mobile...Cheney days after this was "knocked down" still clinged to this statement in an effort to prove presence of weapons of larger destruction. So, you see, the press is lazy ...and also Cheney is even lazier, but also a Big Fat LIAR.

maybe the reason people starved for information are believing what they read on the web is because the "press" is not doing its job, and is sanctifying lies by not reporting they are lies, so people cull and believe what they read on a gossip web...can anyone prove a link of the commission report on this bank -camera link refuting what Cheney states, because the Press is leaving it alone, so where do we stand.

kharris wrote, "Somebody missed the wiggle room built into the letter."

Yes, many/most of their pronouncements have appropriate wiggle room built in. Of course, that doesn't mean there wasn't (isn't) an ongoing attempt to deceive the public.

Look at Cheney's recent claims of a "relationship" between Iraq and Al-Qaeda. There's lots of wiggle room there---there's certainly was a "relationship"; the question is whether there was a *substantive* relationship involving Hussein giving aid and comfort to Al Qaeda. Which there wasn't.

(David Ignatius, one of the Wash. Post's stable of columnists, pointed out a few months ago that you'd *expect* contacts between Iraq's security service and al Qaeda---that's what security services do---without concluding that those contacts are indicative of a meaningful, substantive collaborative relationship.)

Mark Bahner wrote:
"By the way, Brad, where were your calls for impeachment of Bill Clinton when he was waging war in Kosovo without anything even close to what G.W. Bush had in terms of authorization from Congress?

"Answer: you were silent, because you're a shamelessly partisan Democrat."

There's nothing wrong with BDL's partisan status---it's better, after all, than being a shameless "libertarian." ;-)

"http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0201f.asp"

But that link points out (correctly, IMHO) that there's been a long history of presidents effectively committing the nation to war without a Congressional declaration. In principle, one could thus argue that *all* presidents having done so should be impeached. Failing that, one must gage the extent of the crime committed---and it's clear that Bush's action in Iraq was a crime at least an order of magnitude more severe than Clinton's in many respects (human and financial costs; extent of deceit involved in making the case for military action; etc).

"acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. "

Anyone who claims that the above is stating that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks is either stupid, disingenuous, or both.

If only Brad DeLong could be both editor of the Washington Post and President of the United States at the same time. Also, we don't need to be updated every time Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, Matthew Yglesias, or Dan Froomkin writes something. The neat thing about the internet is that we can visit their respective sites when we want to see what they've written. Maybe you should spend less time blogging and more time asking Larry Summers to publish things for you?

Mr McDonald, I disagree. IMO, the best blogs are those that try to create a community of sustained conversation. I prefer the engagement among bloggers that is promoted by folks like DeLong, Drum, Yglesias, the group blogs like Volvokh and Crescent, and even an Atrios or Tacitus. I don't think I'm alone in preferring that approach to a blog that's mainly the author's daily performance or one that degenerates into a chat room with trolls. That may have been fine a year ago. But a lot of us expect more now than quick-paced entertainment or a "news and opinion" filter.

Having grown up in the DC area, I remember when the Post had a clue. Hell, it was my hometown paper during Watergate! How I miss Ben Bradlee.

am wrote, "Anyone who claims that the above is stating that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks is either stupid, disingenuous, or both."

Yes, the statement certainly doesn't *logically* imply that. But it clearly is attempting to *conflate* Iraq and 9-11.

Thankyou nadezhda for the patch (the Medium Lobster) and defending your position on Brad's practice of patching from other sites. No doubt about it, this enhances community.
Fritz: the internet is not just a collection of isolated sites to visit.
OK, so this overstates your complaint, but you started it with: " we don't need to be updated every time Kevin Drum, Josh Marshall, Matthew Yglesias, or Dan Froomkin writes something."

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

"liberal" writes, "In principle, one could thus argue that *all* presidents having done so should be impeached."

Yes, in fact, if the President's Oath of Office has any meaning, whenever the President clearly violates the Constitution, he should be impeached.

Note the caveat, "if the President's Oath of Office has any meaning." It does not.

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Get it up mate, it's fun!

O sancta simplicitas! - Oh, holy simplicity! (Jan Hus)

Puris omnia pura - To the pure all things are pure

This will get yours up again, dude!

It gets yours up to the top dude! The girl will enjoy it!

Muppets love Viagra!

I don't really think your thoughts are right. Maybe you need a loan?

If you're looking for Kontaktanzeigen online, check the blog!

If you're looking for Kontaktanzeigen online, check the blog!

Hire a car to feel higher!

Great site fatty lose weight with reductil and reductil uk

Keep this info up!