Matt Miller's Iraq Mistake: Pundit Struggles With Past Support For Invasion, War

Washington Post:

When I look over those columns today, from the distance of nearly eight years, they seem reasonable and serious.
Except, of course, that their premise was utterly wrong.

Read the whole story: Washington Post

Comments

[IntellectuallyHonest]

05:13 AM on 09/06/2010

At least he's man enough to admit that what he did was wrong. Cheney and Lieberman, on the other hand, are not about to turn around and put their hands behind their back to be cuffed.

[whatrunuts]

11:48 AM on 09/02/2010

Let us assume that Mr. Obama's "smarter" view had prevailed, that we had left Saddam in power in Iraq. What would the world look like today?

Mr. Obama and others believe that Saddam and his nuclear ambitions could have been contained. I think exactly the opposite was likely.

At the time of Mr. Obama's 2002 antiwar speech, three other significant, non-Iraqi events were occurring: Iran and North Korea were commencing toward a nuclear break-out, and A.Q. Khan was on the move.

In March 2002, Mr. Khan, the notorious Pakistani nuclear materials dealer, moved his production facilities from Pakistan to Malaysia.

In August, an Iranian exile group revealed the existence of a centrifuge factory in Natanz, Iran.

A month later, U.S. intelligence concluded that North Korea had almost completed a "production-scale" centrifuge facility.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703882304575465721991599994.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

[MarcEdward]

12:58 PM on 09/02/2010

"Mr. Obama and others believe that Saddam and his nuclear ambitions could have been contained. I think exactly the opposite was likely."

Saddam did not have any WMDs, so your entire theory is based on lies.
FAIL

[NicoloM]

11:02 AM on 09/02/2010

A mea culpa without any better reasoning skills than 8 years ago.
But we are still his dupes that we continue to argue in his “frame”, rather than asking--
WHY?
Why did we actually invade Iraq the second time?
What was the terrorist strategy for the pattern of escalating attacks which include 9/11?
Why did Bush1 issue a unilateral cease fire without bringing Saddam to justice in ‘91?
What was OPEC’s plan in ‘97 when Saddam dumped oil on the market during the Asian flu and drove down the price of oil? Why did the Saudis have a national debt?
Why did the Saudi’s ask us to get out military out of their country after 9/11?
Why did we turn over our Saudi bases six weeks after the second invasion of Iraq began?
Who made a fortune off this war?
WMD was and still remains a mere dodge. "All the other guys are doing it" doesn't make it better.

[MarcEdward]

09:01 AM on 09/02/2010

A comparison:
Let's play pretend.
Pretend you hired some local contractor to build you a garage. He says it will cost $10K and take "weeks, not months" to be done. Sounds great!
But things go wrong. After 3 years you notice he hasn't even poured a cement foundation, but he's been billing you for all his workers and materials for 3 years and so far your out $60K. But he comes to you and says "I have a new strategy - we're going to have a surge, it will take 6 months, but your garage will be done!" Well, why not toss good money after bad, so you sign on for 6 more months, but at the end of 6 months he says "I just got done hiring the workers, so the starting date is NOW, give me 6 more months." So you do, but after that time he comes to you and says "Well it worked. Your garage is built. Thing is, it's so fragile that if my men stop leaning against the walls, it will fall down. So you have to pay my workers to lean against it and prop it up for the next 4-10 years. That will cost you a few more $100k"

That is the Iraq war.

[hasbin2hib4]

08:27 AM on 09/02/2010

Hans Blix, Richard Clark, Scott Ritter, Joseph Wilson (& others) had it right all along. You chose to listen to neocon shills and supported a "mistake" that has costs billions and affected millions of people. Before commenting on matters related to US foreign policy, at least get educated on the history & US involvement in the region. Colin Powell knew better, but didn't resign. An insecure & ignorant president was influenced by a ruthless & greedy vice president and a cadre of neocon "experts" whose agenda wasn't weapons of mass destruction. This "preemptive war" was about oil and improving the balance of power in Israel's favor. Iran was the big winner.

[vince7]

08:13 AM on 09/02/2010

Man you give a whole new meaning to the term "pundit". Your mea culpa doesn't entitle you to a pass. Many lives were wasted because of a lie. Even with all of your contacts and access you refused to tell the truth. You were not misled. You sought favor from the power elite. Even the talks in barber shops were more on point then the junk you pushed on us.

To redeem yourself you should quit and go work at a VA hospital.

[MarcEdward]

08:56 AM on 09/02/2010

He did not really apologize.
He still acts like "other people thought so too!" is an excuse, ignoring the FACT that we had weapons inspectors on the ground. Simply waiting another 2-3 months would have proven that there were no WMDs. He also defends the failed Surge, believing the inside-the-beltway punditocracy that "the Surge worked!" despite the fact that if you judge it by it's stated goals, the Surge failed. It's like if I contracted a guy to build a garage, and it'd be done in 6 months, but 4 years later he's still trying to build the garage and he says "See, it's built, but it's so fragile I'll have to leave workers leaning against it for years, and you have to pay them"

[iceage7]

07:31 AM on 09/02/2010

I myself said that this is just a justification to get rid of saddam. I did not need to have the intelligence availed to me..I could just see it..It was not hard to figure out..I mean come on..

[VungTauVet]

09:13 AM on 09/02/2010

And little georgie wanted to get Saddam for putting out a hit on big daddy. Another thing for google map users, the USA had satellite surveillance of Iraq scanning every square inch. Anyone remember Gary Powers or the fotos of the missiles in Cuba ??

[iceage7]

07:30 AM on 09/02/2010

I stopped reading the article when i got to
I don't believe President Bush misled the country about these facts, because many other sources held the same view of Hussein's capabilities...BS..When bush came to power there goal before 9-11 was how to overthrow saddam hussein and 9-11 provided the ripe opportunity

(I don't believe Colin Powell was intentionally misleading anyone at the United Nations either, but it turned out not to be his finest hour.) ...BS...Collin advised bush not to invade iraq..He told bush if u do u own it..Collin was not convinced either but what doing what he was asked to do..Remember he said he wants the CIA chief sittting right behind him when he made the speech at the UN..why coz he did not want to take the fall on his own and to appear like the accusations had creeibility

So go try another

[DannyEV]

07:01 AM on 09/02/2010

One other thing and then I'm done: more than anything else, Miller's BS is yet another testament to the enduring fear everyone in Washington had--and still has--of Cheney's enduring, sociopathic vindictiveness. Cheney is probably the most hated and feared "man" inside and outside his own party. Miller et al. are still coddling him. Similarly HuffPo continues to tip-toe around him at least in its moderation of discussion threads dealing with this and other topics involving Cheney. Obviously Cheney still has a lot of power to destroy and not the slightest inhibition about doing so. And everybody in Washington--and a great many other places--know it and keep their mouths shut.

[DannyEV]

06:52 AM on 09/02/2010

And then there's the little matter of the weapons inspectors who had, after extensive work, found nothing; but whom Georgie recalled because he had an itchy trigger finger.

Millier, you're nothing but an accessory to Cheney and has band of merry liars.

[DannyEV]

06:49 AM on 09/02/2010

Why do people with this line of "reasoning" and self-justification always ignore that sanctions imposed on Iraq in the Bush I/Clinton years had had a demonstrable effect on life in Iraq? Everything needed to build weapons had been embargoed. It had gone on for years. What evidence had we?

He thinks our finding Hussein in a hole will be seen as "honorable'?

He's still living in an alternative universe the ignores the lies of Bush & Cheney about yellowcake uranium that resulted in the attempts to discredit Joe Wilson and cost his wife her career and, undoubtedly cost foreign operatives with whom she worked their lives. I'm quite sure CIA could give us plenty of information of these and other costs of the war waged by Cheney against Wilson for outing Cheney's lies.

Matt Miller neatly steps around (i.e., ignores) this ugly side of the whole horrible episode and essentially still gives ClownGeorge a pass for his tasteless gags about WMD at the Press Corps banquet, Rumsfeld's claim to know that Iraq's WMD were "east, west, south and north somewhat" of Tikrit.

Liars - deliberate liars all - and Miller just gave them yet another pass.

[VungTauVet]

09:15 AM on 09/02/2010

How did Saddam get his hands on all of the american CASH they found stashed in his palace ?? I sure as _ _ _ _ didn't send it to him!

[DannyEV]

04:58 PM on 09/02/2010

well--I don't have an answer for you to that question. I DO know, however, that Donald Rumsfeld had business dealings with Saddam in the 80s.

[2lib4oh]

05:45 AM on 09/02/2010

I don't think that the apology is sincere or successful. "Probabilistic reasoning" does not encompass the insane rush to war, the refusal to allow UN inspectors to finish the work. This "Jingoism" is not reasoning at all.

[DannyEV]

07:11 AM on 09/02/2010

Yup. And Bush's whispering to Richard Clarke--within hours of the destruction of the WTC--that he wanted the security apparatus to find a link between 911 and Hussein--indicates that such mechanisms as "probabilistic reasoning" had no role in this enormous crime.

Evidently Miller hasn't read Clarke's book.

[nm11928]

05:15 AM on 09/02/2010

George W Bush not only ruin Iraq (democracy will not stick because the country will break up), but Bush killed America too!

All those of you who voted for Bush: thanks for nothing. RIP America...

[Ascoli]

05:34 AM on 09/02/2010

Amen

[KaneandAbel]

04:45 AM on 09/02/2010

What is the saddest in this whole affair is that Pandits have such power that they can be used by a manupulative administration to send the country to war!!!

The way the pundits were twisted or were self motivated to be the dogs-of-war for (just) more access to those in power, that allowed the country to go to war; is a travesty of the america's investment in weapons of war.

We spend more then the rest of the world (REST OF THE WORLD put together!!!) spends on arms, ammunitions, "Weapons-of-Mass-Distruction".

All we need is - once in a while - provoke the dogs-of-war to go and spend the arms and ammunitions on one country or the other. We just need the excuse. Thats enough to drop daisy-cutters, agent orange, nuclear-laced shells into a country.

That these dogs-of-war are regularly used for this purpose is a shameful aspect of our society. Just a "sorry, I was wrong" will not bring back for the loved ones their 4400+ (US soldiers) and for 200000 Iraqi families their loved one. This is a number too large to ignore and wipe under the carpet ......

I hope you can sleep well at night with your "I am sorry"

[nm11928]

05:08 AM on 09/02/2010

Great post! Your spot-on!

[ZenFUel]

04:08 AM on 09/02/2010

anytime these fools say something like "everyone thought there were weapons ...british intelligence, chinese intelligence, australian intelligence , zebra intelligence" ...just finish them off by asking 'what about the weapons INSPECTORS...you know the guys actually on the ground looking for these weapons that all this intelligence said was there '

end of discussion

anything beyond that is utter nonsense and if I had a loved one that passed in this nonsense, I would have lost my mind