Ross Douthat Makes Me Laugh, And Cry

Ross Douthat has a very cogent article defending the tenor of the questions asked by the ABC debate moderators, expounding a notion that I breeze past as filling in the "Getting to Know You" file.

But!  The laughter:

[David Brooks] argued that reporters have an obligation to ask about the "freak show" issues - as Harris and Mark Halperin famously dubbed them - because voters care about them.

No, no, no.  The Harris/Halperin book was published in 2006; Bill Moyers used the phrase in December 2004 to describe his encounter with right wing radio:

Moyers last night introduced the first report, "A Matter of Opinion," by recalling a car trip he and wife Judith Davidson Moyers (a partner in his business) took and how shocked they were when they started scanning the radio dial. What he heard, Moyers said, was "a freak show of political pornography" on a scale he found "malignant."

The report, produced by Kathleen Hughes, documented conservative excesses on the "public" airwaves. Sean Hannity, a bullying buffoon on the "fair and balanced" Fox News network, spent much of his time this year campaigning for George W. Bush, telling an audience in one city that a vote for Democrat John Kerry would help "Osama get his way."

Doesn't anyone at The Atlantic listen to Sean Hannity, who airs the Moyers clip occasionally?

And the tears:

Now of course if it’s sometimes hard to tell how a candidate will govern from his policy positions (does anyone want to hazard a guess about how Obama and Clinton will actually handle the mess in Iraq?)

Well, does anyone care to guess how McCain will handle it?  I'll say, pretty much the way he says he will.  Other guesses?

We really don't know what either Barack or Hillary will do, and we joke about it, or hope out loud that they are lying about inevitable withdrawals regardless of the facts on the ground.  The fact that the Dems are offering two candidates for Commander in Chief and neither is credible on one of the most important issues facing the nation and certainly the most important issue over which they will have direct control is frightening.  In a jokey sort of way.

Comments

[Foo Bar]

The fact that the Dems are offering two candidates for Commander in Chief and neither is credible on one of the most important issues facing the nation ...

Here's an example of McCain's credibility on Iraq. From February 2003 [$]:

"Is there any doubt in anybody's mind that if Saddam Hussein thought he could harm the United States that he wouldn't give any terrorist organization some weapon of mass destruction?" McCain asked in a speech last week sponsored by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

"I don't think he would discriminate."

From the October '02 NIE (the one McCain said he was briefed on numerous times:

We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD.

Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States, fearing that exposure of Iraqi involvement would provide Washington a stronger cause for making war.

From Senate testimony in October '02:

Senator Levin Carl Levin, Democrat of Michigan : . . . If (Saddam) didn't feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?

Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack -- let me put a time frame on it -- in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.

[Paul Zrimsek]

The people who've been doing most of the squawking about the unseemliness of paying attention to a candidate's associates seem to be pretty much the same people who've spent the past eight years seeing Karl Rove behind every rock. Odd, that.

[ParseThis]

We know that Iranian-backed groups in Iraq are terrorists. We know that Iraq's government is Iranian-backed. We know that 'al Qaeda' is an acceptable shorthand for all these groups. So we know that al Qaeda has won. And since McCain doesn't know the difference, he will continue these winning ways and help al Qaeda consolidate its gains.

[MayBee]

FooBar-
Those two examples don't refute the first one.

McCain: that he wouldn't give any terrorist organization some weapon of mass destruction?

NIE:We have low confidence in our ability to assess when Saddam would use WMD.

Intelligence Witness: My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack

A hair splitter like you must surely have recognized that.

[Foo Bar]

Right, if he had wanted to harm the U.S. and he passed WMD on to terrorists, that wouldn't be a use of them at all.

Got anything for me from any of the intelligence that was released that expressed high confidence that Saddam would give WMD to any terrorist group if he thought he could harm the U.S.? And no, the scenarios depicted where he might use them if we invaded or were about to invade don't count- not as a justification for invading.

[Foo Bar]

And on the topic of freak show questions and Ayers in particular, let's note that the Chicago Tribune has published Ayers many, many times over the years. This is the same Tribune that endorsed McCain in the primaries, the same paper that hasn't endorsed a Democrat for president since 1872.

Maybe McCain should reject the Trib's endorsement.

[Foo Bar]

Maybee:

There's more from the NIE key judgments specifically on the idea of Saddam passing WMD on to terrorists:

Saddam, if sufficiently desperate, might decide that only an organization such as al-Qa'ida--with worldwide reach and extensive terrorist infrastructure, and already engaged in a life-or-death struggle against the United States--could perpetrate the type of terrorist attack that he would hope to conduct.

In such circumstances, he might decide that the extreme step of assisting the Islamist terrorists in conducting a CBW attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.

So assisting Islamist terrorists with a WMD attack was, according to the intelligence, a desparate, extreme step that Saddam would consider if that was his last chance to take victims with him.

According to McCain, though, there was no doubt that if Saddam thought he could hurt us, he would pass them on.

[boris]

After GHW was defeated by BJ, Saddam actually thought he had won the 1st gulf war. That's why he thought he could get away with gaming the US and bribing the UN, France, and Russia. He did not realize he was running on borrowed time and using up his one and only 2nd chance.

Saddam did not believe he had been defeated and that compliance was his only option after 911. That kind of delusion would have led to a mushroom cloud somewhere eventually and in that alternate reality the results would have been unimaginably worse for everyone.

[Danube of Thought]

I take it that Foo Bar thinks that McCain's credibility is somehow diminished because he didn't fully accept the judgments of the NIE. For my part, I would conclude that anyone who did accept such judgments uncritically, and would allow his decisions to be guided by them regardless of the risk of their being catastrophically wrong, is ipso facto unfit to lead.

[Danube of Thought]

Foo Bar, why don't you go back and peruse some prior NIE's and brief us on what they predicted about such matters as the fall of the Soviet Union, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait or, for the matter of that, Saddam's arsenal of WMD's?

Must one have a dirty mind to conclude that you cite NIE's approvingly when they suit your purposes, and ignore them when they do not?

[Danube of Thought]

"According to McCain, though, there was no doubt that if Saddam thought he could hurt us, he would pass them on."

Also according to Bill Clinton, John Kerry, and a host of Democrat luminaries. And neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton ever expressed the slightest contrary view. Unfortunately for Foo Bar, none of the authors of the magnificent, selectively quoted NIE is currently a candidate for president. So among the three who are, Foo Bar, who ya got? Surely you have the courage to tell us?

[Danube of Thought]

"Maybe McCain should reject the Trib's endorsement."

You mean, he should reject it on the ground that no one should fail to reject the endorsement of a newspaper if it has ever published the commentary of a murderous criminal? Is that the principle you're invoking, Foo Bar? If not, just what principle is involved?

[Foo Bar]

And neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton ever expressed the slightest contrary view

Obama in 2002:

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

As for the idea that McCain was judicious enough not to rely on the intelligence in certain parts- I'll leave it to other JOMers to counsel on the wisdom of that line of defense.

[MikeS]

I agree with Boris and Danube. Leaving Saddam in power wasn't worth the risk. History will view this war as a continuation of the Gulf War that Saddam refused to allow to end.

FooBar is obsessed with the WMD angle. There were many reasons to use force against Iraq. My recollection is that the anti-war groups complained that Bush kept changing reasons for wanting to depose Saddam.

[MikeS]

"...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

We know now (after analyzing captured Iraqi documents) that bit of Obama's judgment was wrong.

It was this piece of judgment in particular that 75% of the American people disagreed with in March 2003. There were many reasons to depose Saddam, and by better than 3 to 1 the public thought that Saddam could not be safely contained.

[bgates]

FB - got anything for me from any of the intelligence in the 30 years before 2002 that gives high confidence in the intelligence community's assessments? And no, the scenarios describing possible repercussions if we invaded don't count.

And on the topic of Ayers, why don't you try faking some measure of discomfort with the idea of murdering American servicemen so we know you're at least willing to pretend to be pro-American?

[Danube of Thought]

I note that neither Obama nor any of the intelligence wizards who crafted the NIE asserted that Saddam did not have WMD's--each and every one was simply opining on the unknowable question of when and how he might put them to use. All were agreed that he had them; all are now known to be wrong.

So Foo Bar thinks those who counseled against attacking him on the ground that, although he had them, they didn't think he would use them, are somehow vindicated? Since they all thought he had them, who can now say whose judgment was superior?

I think the wisdom of not relying on the findings of US intelligence has been vindicated repeatedly over the course of many decades, and rather than foist the counselling job off on others, Foo Bar, why don't we hear it from you?

What's the principle suggesting that McCain should reject the Trib's endorsement? You haven't answered...

And amongst the three candidates, who ya got?

[narciso]

Why is it someone who calls him "Parse this" cannot do this simple thing. AQ as we have known for some times maintains affiliates in 60 countries. From the Algeria GIA and the GSFC to the Phillipine
Abu Sayyaf (both were beneficiaries of Saddam's Mukharabat)Indonesia's Gemaa Islamiya, Egypt's Gamaa Islamiya,Gilbuddin Hekmatyar's Pakistani based but Iranian connected Hezb i Islami (THe Mukharabat also had ties to these groups) The Iranians since 1979, have maintained connection to all sorts of Islamist elements, Shia, Sunni
et al. The doctor who tortured William Buckley, was an Iranian trained at the Soviet Patrice Lumumba U,Dr. Azziz al Abub, who apprenticed at a training camp in Baghdad, and worked with the nationalist Palestinian Abu Nidal. The late Mr. Mugniyeh worked for Arafat's Force 17 security force, before becoming Hezbollah's main planner of the Beirut bombings. Now senior members of AQ leadership structure like the former Egyptian Army Col. Seyf al Adel, who was present in Mogadishu in 1993, have been detected transmitting information to an AQ cell in Saudi Arabia, despite being under 'house arrest' in Iran, at the
time. Then their are the Iranian Revolutionar Guard force (Quds force
commanders)who's cadres serve a similar function as the Chinese PLA. typified by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Larijani, Ghalibaf.
at the top of the leadership pyramid. Other's like Mohsen Rezai, a longtime correspondent with Newsweek's Michael Hirsh, have been tied to their nuclear program, and ballistic missile acquisition from China and points East.

[Danube of Thought]

"FooBar is obsessed with the WMD angle." Actually, he's obsessed with avoiding the fact that Saddam was universally believed to have them. The only people who have been vindicated by subsequent disclosures are those who said we should not invade because he didn't have them. So far as I know, that group consists solely of Scott Ritter, who at the time he was saying it had been paid $400K by Saddam, and had previously testified to the contrary under oath.

[Soylent Red]

Let us also remember that there was much outcry from the Left about our strategy of containment. That containment strategy was under review, in fact, due to the outcry (it was for the children dontcha know).

So the Left would suggest that we not only can't affect regime change, but that we can't contain either.

Also, National Intelligence Estimates are an amalgam of wild ass guesses and actual intelligence product. Most of the time they are a snapshot "best guess at this time" used to identify intelligence gaps, and inform policy toward collecting on those intelligence gaps.

They are not, and never have been, serious evidence. Particularly the unclassed stuff that is released to the press. That stuff is just wildly speculative sometimes.

So if John McCain, or anyone else to include you FooB, takes an NIE as gospel, they need to have their head examined.

[MikeS]

Even the most rudimentary Risk Analysis would include not just the likelihood of an event occurring, but the costs that would be incurred.

So if you graph it out on using x and y axis...Obama is toast.

[Danube of Thought]

Perhaps Foo Bar has simply forgotten what Obama had to say in 2004 about the decision to invade. Let us refresh his memory:

"In an interview reported by the New York Times on July 26, on the first day of the convention, he reiterated his opposition to the war but declined to criticize Kerry and Edwards, saying he was 'not privy to Senate intelligence reports.'

"He then continued: 'What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case was not made.'"

It is thus quite clear that one simply cannot invoke Obama's superior judgment overr that of McCain based upon his reading of the intelligence--he had not read it. How would he have voted had he done so? Out of his own mouth, he does not know.

And of course, what Obama had to say in 2002 about the shoddy state of Saddam's armed forces and so forth had absolutely nothing to do with the risk of his providing WMD to others who would use them.

And this all began with what was supposed to be an attack on John McCain's credibility?

[ben]

The left has selective memory in their revisionist attempt to make Saddam look less threatening. Here are some facts about "safely containing" him:
1. Saddam HAD WMD and USED THEM against his own people and the Iranians. He refused to account as to disposal or whereabouts.
2. Saddam invaded two neighboring countries without provocation. These wars killed over 1 million people.
3. Saddam lobbed SCUD missiles into populated areas of Israel with the express intent of killing civilians and expanding the conflict.
4. Saddam paid the families of suicide bombers in Israel.
5. Saddam intentionally set fire to all the oilfields in Kuwait in a huge ecological disaster that cost billions to extinguish and clean up.
6. Saddam was violating virtually all the terms of the First Gulf War and was not complying with the Oil for Food Program conditions.
7. Saddam had killed and was continuing to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
8. Saddam had access to BILLIONS of dollars, which he could personally control at a stroke of a pen, with no accountability.
So when Bush said in a State of the Union speech that "trusting in the sanity of Saddam Hussein was not an option" he pretty much laid out the rationale for not leaving this guy in office.

[Bill in AZ]

Yeah, ben, but what did Saddam do since this morning when history began for fubar

[ben]

Rolled over in his grave, dismayed that so many Foobars and Parsethises think he was just a cuddly teddy bear.

[MikeS]

Debate questions about instances where the candidates have shown bad judgment are of course relevant to voters.

In Obama's case it seems on the surface that his judgment, as to who he associates with, has been consistently bad. These questions give him a perfect opportunity to tell about the times he exercised his good judgment.

He could tell us about the time when he judged that a bomber was to unrepentant, or a racist was too vitriolic, or a donor was too shady, or when an elitist was just too bitter for him to associate with.

[JM Hanes]

Foobar:

"...and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history."

As an antidote to such wishful thinking: The Cost of Containment and Sanctions, Exhibit A.

[Danube of Thought]

Let us examine Obama's judgment, and his credibility, in light of what he had to say in November, 2005:

"Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) injected himself Tuesday into the forefront of a growing bipartisan call to reappraise American foreign policy in Iraq, saying the U.S. should begin a gradual withdrawal of its troops next year so Iraqis become empowered to take charge of their country's fate."

Can anyone imagine what would be taking place in Iraq and the Middle East today if this apple-cheeked young novice's advice had actually been followed?

[Pofarmer]

Can anyone imagine what would be taking place in Iraq and the Middle East today if this apple-cheeked young novice's advice had actually been followed?

Yep, and it most certainly wouldn't be helping the price of oil any.

[ben]

"He could tell us about the time when he judged that a bomber was to unrepentant, or a racist was too vitriolic, or a donor was too shady, or when an elitist was just too bitter for him to associate with."

Sorry, but the Obamamessiah deems such distractions beneath him. Only non-believers would bring up such questions, their names will be duly recorded and they will sent to re-indoctrination centers later.

[JM Hanes]

"Can anyone imagine what would be taking place in Iraq and the Middle East today if this apple-cheeked young novice's advice had actually been followed?"

Not when the Democrats are in charge of hindsight.

[Barry]

Foo Bar:

"Got anything for me from any of the intelligence that was released that expressed high confidence that Saddam would give WMD to any terrorist group if he thought he could harm the U.S.?"

Sure, anthrax. We don't know where it came from, or who spread it. If you don't think this entered into the calculation to get rid of saddam, you are a fool.

[M. Simon]

The Trouble With Politicians:

You hope they are lying to you. Except when you hope they are telling the truth.

[M. Simon]

In answer to foo bar and WMDs.

WTC 1. 1993.

[M. Simon]

"There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein's Iraq. His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region and the security of all the rest of us.”
--W. J. Clinton, February 17, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
--Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
--Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
--Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
--Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country….
Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
--Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
--Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
--Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
--Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
--Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
--Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
--Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...”
--Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

[Cecil Turner]

Got anything for me from any of the intelligence that was released that expressed high confidence that Saddam would give WMD to any terrorist group if he thought he could harm the U.S.?

So it's only true if the CIA says it is? Looks to me the worst you can say on this particular subject is that McCain disagreed with the CIA analysis . . . and given their record on Iraq's WMD, that's an odds-on bet. But if you're truly looking for an indication of WMD provision/training, how 'bout the same one you quoted:

We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.

Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent U.S. military action. [emphasis added]

[Foo Bar]

Looks to me the worst you can say on this particular subject is that McCain disagreed with the CIA analysis

No, it's worse than that. "Is there any doubt in anybody's mind that if Saddam Hussein thought he could harm the United States that he wouldn't give any terrorist organization some weapon of mass destruction?" isn't just an expression of McCain's opinion. It suggests that there wasn't anyone whose opinion could possibly be taken seriously who had any real doubt on the question.

[boris]

Or it could just be a figure of speech.

[boris]

I might have said it this way "Is there anybody willing to take the chance if Saddam Hussein thought he could harm the United States that he wouldn't give any terrorist organization some weapon of mass destruction?"

It captures the gist of McCain's statement far better than yours: "Is there anybody STUPID enough to DOUBT that if ..."

[Sue]

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

Wow. Obama knew all of this in 2002? He shouldn't be running for president, he should be running for DNI head or maybe there is an opening with The Amazing Kreskin.

[bgates]

Second, we need to address the crisis in the housing market - because we know that the housing crisis is the source of many of the other economic problems we're facing today.
Could the national debt, the trade deficit, the cost of oil, or the business cycle be the source of these economic problems? Obama isn't just suggesting there are no contrary opinions anyone needs to take seriously, he's saying there are no contrary opinions at all. If McCain is saying people who disagree with his opinion aren't worth listening to, Obama is saying people who disagree with him don't even exist. Please, fb, squeal with outrage.

[Danube of Thought]

McCain, like three-fourths of the US Congress, was unwilling to accept the risk that Saddam would make WMD available to terrorists, regardless of the level of risk perceived by US inteligence. This was a man who had invaded two of his neighbors and fired ballistic missiles into four of them, and had attempted to assassinate a former US president--none of which had been considered likely events by the CIA.

Against this is arrayed the 2002 "judgment" of Field Marshal Obama--a judgment from which he backed off in 2004.

Slam dunk, so to speak.

[royf]

Foobar I know you basically just distribute Dem talking points so actually having a thought on a subject might seem extreme.

But what do you think about Saddam? Do you think he would have done everything in his power to harm the USA as long as he had deny ability. Or do you think he was just a poor misunderstood dictator? And don't give me the dem point about being no real threat to the US, I mean we had already fought a war over there and we were having our planes shot at daily, That TP is BS and won't wash with me. I want to know whether you think Saddam was harmless or not?

On thing I notice that the lefties never seem to mention is the almost total reductions of suicide bombings in Israel since Saddam isn't paying off families. Do you think those two things are related?

[MayBee]

It suggests that there wasn't anyone whose opinion could possibly be taken seriously who had any real doubt on the question.

As long as we're hairsplitting, I'll point out that he was asking a question. So someone could have said, "Yes! Yes! There is doubt in my mind!". It wasn't a proclamation.

He gave money to terrorists- the Palestinian suicide bombers. Who else did he give money to? Libya's nuclear weapon program, perhaps?