Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying

Last week Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi led a congressional delegation to the Middle East. The delegation visited Israel, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, Syria and Saudi Arabia. However, it was the delegation’s trip to Syria that drew the ire of the White House and other fantasists. Chief among the critics were the Washington Post Editorial board and Mr. Fantasy himself, Dick Cheney. Mr. Fantasy called the Speaker’s trip "bad behavior" - perhaps akin to invading the wrong country for the wrong reasons, something Mr. Fantasy knows a great deal about.

The Speaker was accompanied on the trip by a bipartisan group of lawmakers. They were representatives David Hobson of Ohio, Tom Lantos of California, Henry Waxman of California, Nick Rahall of West Virginia, Louise Slaughter of New York, and Keith Ellison of Minnesota. A few days earlier, a Republican delegation from congress, including Frank Wolf of Virginia (my congressman), visited Syria. The Speaker’s office released the following statement regarding the Syria leg on her return from the Middle East trip:

In the interest of our national security and the stability of the region, the delegation strongly urged President Assad to control Syria’s border with Iraq to stop the flow of foreign fighters who are a threat to U.S. troops and to the Iraqi people.  Syria must also stop supporting terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah, and must end any interference in Lebanon’s internal affairs. 

We emphasized to President Assad that peace with Israel is essential to a U.S.-Syria relationship. We conveyed to him Prime Minister’s Olmert’s overture for peace talks when Syria openly takes steps to stop supporting terrorism.

President Assad declared that he is ready to resume the peace process and enter into negotiations.  The test will be whether Syria ceases its support for terrorism, engages in a productive and realistic effort to resolve its differences and live in peace with the State of Israel, and acts to stop the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. 

We requested Assad’s help in freeing missing and kidnapped Israeli soldiers including: Gilad Shalit; Ehud Goldwasser; Eldad Regev; Guy Hever; Zachary Baumel; Tzvi Feldman; Yehuda Katz; and Ron Arad.  And we requested the return of the remains of Eli Cohen for burial in Israel. 

In Damascus, we met with opposition leaders and representatives of families of dissidents.  We conveyed our strong interest in the cases of Iraqi Democracy Activists Anwar al-Bunni; Aref Dalila; Kamal al-Labwani; Mahmoud Issa; Michael Kilo; and Omar Abdullah.

In response to her trip, the Washington Post editorial board penned a juvenile screed entitled "Pratfall in Damascus" taking issue with her delivery of a message from Israel to Syria. They also attacked her for talking to Syria:

Ms. Pelosi was criticized by President Bush for visiting Damascus at a time when the administration — rightly or wrongly — has frozen high-level contacts with Syria. Mr. Bush said that thanks to the speaker’s freelancing Mr. Assad was getting mixed messages from the United States. Ms. Pelosi responded by pointing out that Republican congressmen had visited Syria without drawing presidential censure. That’s true enough — but those other congressmen didn’t try to introduce a new U.S. diplomatic initiative in the Middle East. "We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.

Never mind that that statement is ludicrous: As any diplomat with knowledge of the region could have told Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Assad is a corrupt thug whose overriding priority at the moment is not peace with Israel but heading off U.N. charges that he orchestrated the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq al-Hariri. The really striking development here is the attempt by a Democratic congressional leader to substitute her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president.

The Washington Post’s contention that Speaker Pelosi was substituting "her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president" is false on its face - there is a long history of congressional delegations traveling overseas to visit trouble spots all over the globe. A quick survey of trips by members of congress and congressional leaders should shame the Washington Post editorial board into reality.

The trip to Syria was not about the Israel-Syria relationship - regardless of what Mr. Fantasy and his merry band of fantasists claim. The main reason to go to Syria is Iraq. Like it or not, Iraq’s future is crucially important to Syria. Syria has genuine interests in a resolution to the Iraq crisis. Syria has 1 million reasons to expect a seat at the table when it comes to Iraq - those 1 million reasons are the Iraqi refugees that Syria currently hosts.

Here is the bottom line: Iraq is more of a national security problem to Syria than it is to the United States.

Syria has acted as a safety valve for Iraq and a safe haven for Iraqis fleeing Iraq. While America’s allies, including Egypt and Jordan, turned their backs on fleeing Iraqis, Syria welcomed them until its economy reached a breaking point. In doing this, Syria has received no help from the United States:

Syria, the last Arab country welcoming large numbers of Iraqi refugees, is now all but closing the gates and leaving 40,000 Iraqis who flee their country each month with almost no place to go.

The new rules _ imposed without any official announcement _ also strike fear of deportation into the 1 million Iraqis already here. The worsening humanitarian crisis has resulted in calls for action by members of the U.S. Congress and a plea from the United Nations for more countries to help out.

"It’s not fair that the burden is not being shared effectively. A very limited number of countries is paying a very heavy price," Antonio Guterres, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, said on a recent tour of the Mideast.

Syria kept its doors open even after others, including Jordan and Egypt with 700,000 and 130,000 Iraqi refugees respectively, said they could take no more. But the strain on its small, state-controlled economy apparently has become too great.

Until last week, Iraqis could come to Syria without a visa and stay for up to six months. At that point, they could drive to any border, leave briefly and re-enter immediately and stay for another six months _ meaning they essentially were allowed to stay indefinitely.

Syria is at a breaking point. Syria has been the prime mover in preventing an unfolding tragedy from turning into a full-bore humanitarian nightmare. The Iraqi refugee problem, which the Bush Administration has largely ignored, is perhaps the single most destabilizing element of the Iraq war. It is a problem the Bush Administration unleashed and has left to the neighboring Arab states. Far from exporting stability, Mr. Bush’s fiasco in Iraq has been exporting instability.

Now, we can keep hurling insults at Syria like children in a school-yard, or we can bring them to the table to address a problem where the United States and Syria has common cause. The 1 million Iraqi refugees in Syria are real - by refusing to talk to Syria, Mr. Bush has turned his back on the refugees he created. Perhaps if he and Mr. Fantasy felt so strongly about not talking to Syria (with whom, by the way, we have diplomatic relations), they should have considered sealing off the Iraq-Syria border so no refugees could flee across to Syria. It seems to me, having exported the problem to Syria, Mr. Bush and Mr. Fantasy are obligated to engage Syria at least on humanitarian grounds. Until that dialogue begins, stability in the Middle East and the resolution of the Iraq problem cannot begin to take shape.

I hope that Speaker Pelosi’s visit and that of my congressman, Frank Wolf, and others will open the door to much needed dialogue between the world’s remaining superpower and one of Iraq’s key neighbors. These trips have become especially important in light of the inexplicable failure of the Bush Administration to practice anything resembling foreign policy. The road to peace in Iraq does indeed go through Damascas. Assad is not a boyscout, but neither are the Saudis or the Iraqis. Finding a way to leverage common goals while at the same time pressing conflicting interests is the essence of diplomacy.

It is well past time for mature leadership at the White House. People are dying. Play time is over.

Four years ago tomorrow, George W Bush, the president of the United States of America launched the world into an unnecessary war that has cost 3218 American dead, over 23,000 American injured, anywhere from 59,000 to 650,000 Iraqi dead, over $379 billion in direct costs to the American taxpayer, a civil war that has destroyed the Iraqi nation, a conflict that has destabilized the region, a quagmire that has energized religious extremists, and a blunder that has damaged American diplomacy and diminished American credibility for decades to come.

The delusion began with these words:

My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.

On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support — from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.

…

We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.

…

Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities. [Emphasis added by me.]

For Mr. Bush, it was always about fighting them there so we do not have to fight them here. Today the delusion persists.

One of the great enablers of this fatal delusion has been the Washington Post editorial page. The Washington Post is my hometown newspaper. It is the paper of Woodward and Bernstein - a paper that inspired a generation of investigative reporters. The editorial board does not carry on that tradition.

Today the Washington Post editorial page continues to delude itself:

The easy way out is to blame President Bush, Vice President Cheney or former defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld: The decision was right, the execution wrong. There’s no question that the execution was disastrous. Having rolled the dice on what everyone understood to be an enormous gamble, Mr. Bush and his team followed up with breathtaking and infuriating arrogance, ignorance and insouciance. Read Post reporter Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s account of the first year of occupation, "Imperial Life in the Emerald City," and weep at the tales of White House operatives sending political hacks to overhaul Baghdad’s stock exchange and tinker with its traffic rules as a deadly insurgency gathered strength.

…

Clearly we were insufficiently skeptical of intelligence reports. It would almost be comforting if Mr. Bush had "lied the nation into war," as is frequently charged. The best postwar journalism instead suggests that the president and his administration exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified but fundamentally believed — as did the CIA — the catastrophically wrong case that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented to the United Nations.

…

Unquestionably, for example, the experience has shown the risks of preemptive war. Yet it remains true in an era of ruthless, suicidal terrorists and easily smuggled weapons of unimaginable destructive power that not acting also can be dangerous. The risks of war with North Korea or Iran are evident; but the cost of leaving nuclear weapons in the hands of a Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or a Kim Jong Il may not become evident until the price has been paid. And while Iraq illustrates the importance of challenging intelligence estimates, there will also be risks in waiting for certainty that may never be achievable.

…

It’s tempting to say that if it was wrong to go in, it must be wrong to stay in. But how Iraq evolves will fundamentally shape the region and deeply affect U.S. security. Walking away is likely to make a bad situation worse. A patient, sustained U.S. commitment, with gradually diminishing military forces, could still help Iraq to move in the right direction.

The Washington Post editorial page bends over backwards not to blame Mr. Bush for the war. The editorial says that Mr. Bush and his administration "exaggerated, cherry-picked and simplified" the intelligence on Iraq, yet since they "believed" it, they should not be blamed for the war. The Bush administration mixed and served the kool-aid, but since they also drank it, they are blameless for mixing it and serving it. Then there is this curious formulation in the editorial: the administration "fundamentally believed — as did the CIA — the catastrophically wrong case that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell presented to the United Nations" Am I to understand from this nugget that Mr. Powell’s presentation at the UN convinced Mr. Bush to go to war? This is an astonishing example of the self-delusion at the Washington Post editorial board. Mr. Powell was used to serve the kool-aid to the American people - that very same kool-aid had already been prepared by the Bush administration, specifically the office of the Vice President.

The editorial board cannot bring itself to admit that the decision to attack Iraq was wrong. It hides behind the "execution" argument still. In doing so, it keeps the door open for its cheerleading us into another war - this time with Iran.

Make no mistake, in 2002 and 2003, the media helped the Bush administration sell the Iraq War to the American people. The Washington Post editorial board, with its drums beating loudly, helped mislead this country into the quagmire of Iraq. Even today, this editorial board blames everyone else except Mr. Bush and itself.

The editorial board perpetuates the argument that the continued occupation of Iraq "could still help Iraq to move in the right direction". What is the "right direction" and how do we get there? It is long past time to simply parrot the "stay the course" talking point. I want to hear why it makes more sense to stay than to leave. Why will "walking away" make "a bad situation worse"?

Until and unless the Bush administration and the kool-aid drinkers at places like the Washington Post editorial board can explain to the American people why a continued presence in Iraq is better than the alternative, withdrawal must be seen as the default course of action. Let’s start the discussion at withdrawal, and let us demand of the delusional crowd why their delusions must be taken seriously.

Let us not allow them to cut and run from making their case to the American people.

I am concerned about Deborah Howell. While other bloggers are attacking her for spinning herself into delirium trying to defend The Washington Post Editorial Board, I on the other hand can see past the confusion and feel her pain. I have acquired this skill of sniffing out illness from miles away by watching Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. Using Dr. Frist’s scientific technique I am able to deduce that Deborah Howell is insane.

Not possible you say? How can I make such a diagnosis without actually examining the patient you say? Well fear not I give you the following bizarre statements by this clearly disoriented ombudsman as proof of my diagnosis:

• "The Post editorially has supported the war, and the purpose of the editorial — headlined "A Good Leak" — was to support that leak as necessary to show that the president had reason to believe that Iraq was seeking uranium." (I have no idea what this sentence means.)
• "First, it’s important to remember that the articles and the editorial are looking back at June and July of 2003, seeking to add historical context to what we knew then. And we know a lot more now about the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq than we knew then." (Should everyone write about the past as if all facts that have come out since then are irrelevant? For example, should historians who write books about medieval Europe claim the earth is indeed flat since that was the view at the time?
• "The editorial board makes policy, and it is not my job to second-guess it." (What does an ombudsman do exactly?)
• "Editorials and news stories have different purposes. News stories are to inform; editorials are to influence." (Should editorials try to influence by repeating statements that they know to be false? Isn’t that called lying?)
• "Editorial Page Editor Fred Hiatt said it is unlikely that the story would have influenced the editorial." (Clearly I need to also diagnose Fred Hiatt.)
• "The "supported" in the editorial refers to Wilson’s report that there was a trade meeting between officials of Iraq and Niger. Though news accounts have said there was no talk of uranium, the meeting was seen as corroboration that the Iraqis were seeking uranium, because that’s mostly what Niger has to export." (Is Deborah Howell a WMD expert? She said that she should not second-guess the editorial board. But is it in her mandate to defend the editorial board?)
• "Hiatt pointed to a British intelligence report that he said lent credence to the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium and to the report of the bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, which was critical of Wilson." (Huh? Is that the same British intelligence report that led to the 16 words in the State of The Union speech? Is the whole debate not about this? Isn’t this circular logic? I allege falsely that man has bitten dog, Deborah Howell says that man has indeed bitten dog because I have alleged man has bitten dog. Clearly the work of an insane person.)
• "Gellman and Linzer relied on later reports from commissions appointed by President Bush — the Silberman-Robb WMD commission and the Iraq Survey Group — and on their own reporting over three years from intelligence sources. Gellman said the commission and the ISG found no evidence that Iraq sought uranium abroad after 1991." (Oh the horror. Someone actually using facts to do reporting. Howell clearly thinks Hiatt is not bound by facts? Does she think Hiatt is bound by the laws of physics?)
• "It would have been helpful if the editorial had put statements about Wilson in more context — especially the controversy over his trip and what he said." (Wow, you think that might have been helpful, Debbie?)
• "Reporting about national security and intelligence gathering is always fraught with fraught; it is a subject I will write about again." (I look forward to your writings. In the meantime, I will send the medication via mail. Stay indoors and don’t operate any heavy machinery. Good luck, unfortunate ombudsman. God speed!)

So, you see that clearly she is insane. So, Jane Hamsher, stop picking on this woman. She deserves our sympathy not our scorn. It is incumbent upon all of us to protect the most vulnerable of our citizens. Shame Jane, shame on you for subjecting this woman to your acid pen. The damage you do to her in this weakened state may be irreversible.

 Next week, I have some free time between lunch and mid-day snack to do a diagnosis of Fred Hiatt. Stay tuned.