Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
KRISTOL: "BUSH'S PRESIDENCY WILL PROBABLY BE A SUCCESSFUL ONE." You almost have to ask yourself if William Kristol really believes this stuff. I'm sure his column will be ripped apart by day's end, but let's just start the morning off with a few obvious counterarguments:
Kristol: "What about terrorism? Apart from Iraq, there has been less of it, here and abroad, than many experts predicted on Sept. 12, 2001."Reality: The State Department's own numbers show a dramatic rise in the incidence of global terrorism under the Bush administration, from about 175 attacks in 2003 to 655 in 2005. In what camp is this considered a success?
Kristol: If the United States hadn't gone into Iraq, Saddam's ties to Al-Qaeda would today "be intact or revived and even strengthened."
Reality: The September 11 Commission found no evidence of a "collaborative relationship" between Al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. But today, four years after the American invasion, one of the fiercest insurgent groups in Iraq, Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, models itself after the organization that attacked New York and Washington in 2001, yet is a whole cloth product of the war.
Kristol spouts all this nonsense about success in Iraq in order to come to the conclusion that the United States should begin drawing down troops in 2008 (though no sooner). I agree with Brad Plumer: Saying this ill-conceived war is "Won and Done" is more than inaccurate -- it's an invitation to make more catastrophically deadly foreign policy mistakes in the future. Iraq is Un-Won and No-Fun for anybody -- time to get out.
--Dana Goldstein
COMMENTS (8)
Kristol is scheduled to participate in a live online chat about his op-ed at WashingtonPost.com today.
I can't wait to see what questions he takes. I'm sure the questions from outraged readers won't make it.
Posted by: Corinne | July 16, 2007 9:47 AM
I loved the weasel wording that Kristol used: "less of it ... than many experts predicted...." Not "less of it," but "less ... than predicted." Who are these experts? He doesn't say. How much terrorism did they predict? He doesn't say. But by wording it this way, he can claim that the "Reality" response from TAPPED doesn't contradict his statement.
Posted by: PaulB | July 16, 2007 10:49 AM
"Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia, models itself after the organization that attacked New York and Washington in 2001"
By that do you mean the C.I.A. and other parts of the American intelligence community? Come on, this whole "19 hijackers" 9/11 official myth is thoroughly deconstructed in another thread on this blog, located here: http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=06&year=2007&base_name=post_4055#comments
Since you are writing articles for TAPPED one would think you must be aware of this discussion Ms. Goldstein. Do yourself a favor and check it out.
Posted by: Realist | July 17, 2007 3:51 PM
The 9-11 Commission themselves have said their report was NEVER meant to be a conclusive look at Saddam Hussein's possible relations with al Qaeda.
As the manager of www.regimeofterror.com I have been in contact with DIA, CIA and Sen Intel spokesmen who have all told me there has yet to be a comprehensive and total look into this subject, despite many asserting the opposite.
I have no idea who among these two sides (don't forget that Saddam's regime was hundreds of thousands of people and al Qaeda was at least thousands) was meeting pre invasion but there have been literally hundreds of these guys who have been caught in collusion since 2002 and I have a list of them that I've compiled and will post soon at 2002.
It's a shame that people's opinions on this have become so split on partisan lines and it's a disservice to the truth. I just humbly ask that you guys take a step back, take a deep breath and listen to what the actual people who would know (members of Saddam's regime and members of al Qaeda) have to say on the subject. Only some of this has been made public and it's been of an inconsistent measure so this topic is by no means over.
Just because Saddam's Iraq may have had some links to al Qaeda doesn't mean war was necessary either. Step outside of your position on the Iraq war to look at this topic on it's own, outside of the Beltway BS and the war and look at it on it's own. Truth matters here, not partisanship.
Posted by: Mark Eichenlaub | July 17, 2007 4:51 PM
Mr. Eichenlaub, you would do well to follow your own advice that "Truth matters here, not partisanship". I wholeheartedly suggest you read my comments in the thread located here:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/tapped_archive?month=06&year=2007&base_name=post_4055#comments
Since America's foreign policy and much of its domestic policy is built around 9/11, demolishing the official 9/11 "19 Al Qaeda hijackers" myth will change your calculus quite a bit.
Posted by: Realist | July 17, 2007 5:26 PM
Let me guess Realist. 9-11 was an inside job, right?
Posted by: Mark Eichenlaub | July 18, 2007 3:29 PM
Yes. The only other alternative is that "nineteen hijackers with boxcutters" were somehow able to cause skyscrapers to defy the laws of physics in Manhattan, somehow cause the most high-tech Air Force in the world to stand down, somehow be able to fly airliners with precision when they couldn't fly Cessnas worth a shit, and all the other impossibilities of the official myth. So apparantly you believe in the fairy tale of the physics-defying, Air Force-standing-down, "Islamic fundamentalists" who drank vodka heavily, snorted coke, smoked pot, gambled, lived with girlfriends, got lapdances from strippers and sought services from prostitutes, couldn't fly a small propellor plane worth a damn but suddenly were experts? If you believe that bunch of bullshit, I've got a nice bridge I'd like to sell you. Rock-bottom price, right in the heart of Brooklyn, no messy paperwork necessary.
Posted by: Realist | July 18, 2007 4:34 PM
P.S.-- If truth really does matter to you, then go to the thread I linked to where the very matter of 9/11 is discussed in detail and the official myth is exposed as being about as believable as that pathological liar character played by Jon Lovitz on SNL. If the truth however doesn't matter to you, then by all means go on ignoring evidence that makes you uncomfortable, bury your head farther in the sand, continue wringing your hands about "Al Qaeda" and be about as productive as a dog chasing its tail.
Posted by: Realist | July 18, 2007 5:48 PM