More revisionist history

Here is Jim Hoagland in Sunday's Washington Post, arguing that the intelligence agencies are to blame for the false claims about Iraq's post-Gulf War I weapons capabilities:

Bush and Blair accepted and actually believed the flawed intelligence that their spy bosses and senior aides provided, and then inflated it in their public speeches. Credulity, not chicanery, would be the plea, your honor.

The trouble with this blame-the-CIA argument being advanced by Hoagland, Richard Perle and others is that it represents a 180-switch from the position they had vociferously argued for most of the previous two years. Josh Marshall (also here), Atrios, Daily Kos and Needlenose all provide some of the history to show that what is being said now contradicts what was being said -- loudly and often -- by these same people as recently as six months ago. (Atrios also links to this piece from Fareed Zakaria, showing how this echoes an earlier hawk/CIA conflict.)

Here's a rough chronology of the Hoagland/Perle argument:

Sept. 2002: The CIA is underrepresenting the threat posed by Iraq.

Oct. 2002: The CIA needs to stop claiming that the White House is overstating the threat posed by Iraq.

Early 2003: In the battle between the White House and the CIA, the White House is right and the CIA is wrong: Iraq poses a far more serious threat than the CIA will admit.

Late 2003: Everyone agreed all along about the nature of the threat posed by Iraq. There never was a battle over the intelligence between the CIA and the White House.

Early 2004: The CIA overrepresented the threat posed by Iraq, overwhelming the White House in the battle over the intelligence.

What do you suppose they'll try to tell us next?

Comments

[chsa]

Next?

"The Democrats are to blame for faulty intelligence because they want to dismantle the military."

[drieux just drieux]

Actually they have already run the 'blame the clinton regime' - that is tied into the whole bit about the Regime Change Law from 1998 - and how you evil Liberals were Persecuting the commander in chief while he was trying to keep america safe.

This of course is why we true insiders have always referred to the Iraqi Flying Saucer Technology, since we know more than anyone else, that the real concern is that If Saddam Hussein could have gained access to Flying Saucer Technology, then he would have done more damage than when the Iraqi Flying Saucers attacked on 09/11/2001.... if you know what we mean..

[Jeffrey Kramer]

What do you suppose they'll try to tell us next?

That the quest for an 'objective' account of events, abstractable from the particular interests of competing centers of power, is blatant logocentrism?

[Hank Essay]

Coming Next:

March 2004: It's all so complicated. Lets move on...

[oh]

What do you suppose they'll try to tell us next?

Unfortunately they won't admit that, presumably despite their best efforts, the CIA (along with other domestic and foreign intelligence agencies) is largely clueless in dealing with totalitarian societies, as illustrated by recent overestimates in Iraq and underestimates in Libya and North Korea.

Given this state of affairs it's hardly surprising that a lot of second-guessing goes on.

[Fred]

"Underestimates in Libya" -- I missed reading about this. Can you post me a link to something here?

Thanks.

[Jokes]

The CIA had an opening for an assassin. After all of the background checks, interviews, and testing were done there were three finalists - two men and one woman. For the final test, the CIA agents took one of the men to a large metal door and handed him a gun.

"We must know that you will follow your instructions, no matter what the circumstances. Inside this room you will find your wife sitting in a chair. You have to kill her." The first man said. "You cant be serious. I could never shoot my wife!"The agent replies, "Then you?re not the right man for this job."

The second man was given the same instructions. He took the gun and went into the room. All was quiet for about five minutes. Then the agent came out with tears in his eyes. "I tried, but I cant kill my wife." The agent replies, "You dont have what it takes. Take your wife and go home."

Finally, it was the womans turn. Only she was told to kill her husband. She took the gun and went into the room. Shots were heard, one shot after another. They heard screaming, crashing, banging on the walls. After a few minutes, all was quiet. The door opened slowly and there stood the woman. She wiped the sweat from her brow and said, "You guys didnt tell me the gun was loaded with blanks. So I had to beat him to death with the chair."