Josh Marshall – Sloppy or Dishonest?

Is it just me, or is Josh Marshall either too dumb, partisan, or sloppy, to be considered reliable?
Here’s a piece on how the Bush case for war was built on Saddam’s nuclear weapons program. It wasn’t. I seem to remember 10 or 15 reasons to off Saddam — and Saddam’s failure to account for the whereabouts of his nuclear program, which provided justification for Bill Clinton’s airstrikes in 1998 — was just one of them.
No Josh, you are a big lying liar and that’s one of the lies you lyingly tell! (If Al Franken applies it to Bush and it’s the wittiest thing ever said, I don’t see why it isn’t equally witty applied to Mr. Marshall, Doctor of Journalism). Bush didn’t say Saddam had nukes. Never. Not once. Ever.
Moreover,


the Kay report, so blithely dismissed by the scorched earth left wing of the blogocracy, actually contains a lot of information about how nuke and bioweapons programs were systematically hidden, shifted around, buried, and generally covered up by Saddam. Andrew Sullivan, a guy I don’t like very much but who is an essential voice, is all over it here.
From the Kay report:

Iraq’s WMD programs spanned more than two decades, involved thousands of people, billions of dollars, and was elaborately shielded by security and deception operations that continued even beyond the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

In other words, Saddam’s coverrup continues, living on thanks to successful measures taken prior to and during the invasion; in the fearful reticence of many Iraqis to talk; and the fact that a lot of stuff probably remains hidden, or lost in the 50 square miles of ammo dumps around the country.
(FYI – for the non-military folks here – you don’t just go around kicking loose artillery shells to see if an oily yellow liquid drips out. That’s a good way to test the effectiveness of your GI Bill life insurance policy. Testing warheads and the like is a slow, painstaking process, and 50 square miles of depot will take a long time to sift through. Moreover, as the Kay report notes, the Iraqi medium and long rang missile program was developed far beyond what was earlier thought. Hello Tony Blair and 45 minutes…)
As this Village Voice article indicates, even assuming Saddam destroyed all his weapons stocks, shut down his WMD programs, and destroyed the accumulated information on WMDs, his failure to report this to the UN (which would have lifted the sanctions and stopped all efforts at inspection) is inexplicable.
So, if you are of the camp that believes that we had no reason to go to war with Iraq, your belief must therefore be premised on the notion that we should tolerate inexplicable (i.e. irrational) behavior from incredibly violent, nasty dictators with a demonstrated history of WMD involvment. After all, that’s what we got from Saddam.
One wonders what policy a President Dean or Kerry would propose toward North Korea – whose insane dictator fits the same mold. For what it’s worth, I don’t think ‘jaw-jaw’ works very well with the hermit kingdom…

Advertisements

5 comments

  1. Ted Miller

    The Johnny Cochran OJ defense is in operation. The accuser (Pres Bush) is being attacked and we will forget that the Kay report (interim) has more than enough violations of all the various UN resolutions to justify using military means to overthrow him.
    Dr. Kay was just on CNN. He was indignant that comments were being made only about what he hadn’t found thus far and no attention was paid to what he DID find.

  2. Mithras

    Are you sure you’re not a left-winger who puts up this stuff in order to discredit right-wingers? Because if not, your post proves you can’t read.
    In Marshall’s post, he says: “What were the two specific big questions that this fight was over? The state of the Iraqi WMD programs and the potential fall-out from toppling and occupying an Arab state.” You characterize the post “a piece on how the Bush case for war was built on Saddam’s nuclear weapons program.” But that is not the “fight” Marhsall is talking about. The beginning of his post makes it clear: “I agree: the war between the White House and the CIA is the big story.” Get it?

  3. erp

    You may be a little late to the game.
    Josh Marshall is an unrepentent Clintonista whose facts and opinion can be safely ignored.
    With so many honest blogs to read and so little time, why waste any of it on that certified creep?

  4. Fables of the reconstruction

    Ignorance is Strength Part 27

    Sasha Castel allows a true genius who calls himself Al Maviva post this drivel on her blog: Is it just me, or is Josh Marshall either too dumb, partisan, or sloppy, to be considered reliable? Here’s a piece on how