TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
03.08.2008
More on Anthrax and Iraq

I want to add a personal note to Dayo’s post about anthrax and Iraq. I, too, recommend reading Glenn Greenwald's speculations.

On the eve of the U.S. invasion of Iraq--I think it was a month or two before--I attended a two-day CIA conference in Wilmington that brought together CIA officials, foreign policy experts and journalists. On the morning of the second day, one of the policy experts pulled me aside and told me that the night before over drinks, some CIA people had told him that they believed Iraq was behind the anthrax attacks. He was taken aback, and so was I, because we presumed they had access to information that might demonstrate this. I don’t who they were; I also don’t believe that the CIA itself was officially engaged in spreading rumors of this kind--most of CIA officialdom was very skeptical of the invasion--but I think it is possible that there was a network people who were promoting a theory about anthrax that helped make the case for war. They may have been unwittingly spreading mis-information that emanated from the perpetrator. Or they may have been winging it irresponsibly. It’s not clear, but I join those who believe that some kind of congressional investigation is in order. There are too many echoes of Niger and uranium.

--John B. Judis

Posted: Sunday, August 03, 2008 10:42 PM with 6 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

Bulbman1066 said:

Saddam Hussein was basically OK.  He was anti-American and anti-Semitic, wasn't he?   That almost by definition makes him “progressive”.  So of course the capitalists and the Jews spread lies about him.

That's the way John Judis and those of his ilk see things.  The totalitarian left has moved seamlessly from anti-anti-communism to anti-anti Islamo-fascism.

August 4, 2008 1:09 AM

raylward said:

Do I have this right.  The CIA believed Iraq was behind the anthrax attacks but opposed military engagement in Iraq.  If that's right, it's the CIA that needs a Congressional investigation.

August 4, 2008 7:26 AM

kevincollins said:

Small error in the text:

"I don’t who they were;" should have  "know" between the "don't" and "who".

August 4, 2008 2:57 PM

bigfish said:

Um...Bulbman, I see nowhere in Judis's piece where he says Hussein is okey-dokey.  He is merely trying to set the record straight.  Saying that Hussein didn't have anything to do with the anthrax scare isn't defending Hussein as a good guy.

An analogy.  Suppose I say that Fidel Castro was responsible for the South's Jim Crow laws.  You say "Hold on a minute.  There's no evidence to support that at all."  I then say "You're defending Fidel Castro!"  Doesn't make much sense, does it?

August 4, 2008 3:04 PM

Bulbman1066 said:

Saddam Hussein wasn't responsible for the anthrax scare.  I didn't think so at the time, and I shared that opinion with the FBI, which thought that it was a domestic job.

Reasonable people could and can differ on whether the invasion of Iraq was a good idea.  (At the time most people, including most of the Democratic leaders in Congress, thought that was it justified.)  But there was plenty of material in the public record to support the invasion.   By offering a purely speculative theory that some sort of cabal was trying to spread rumors against Saddam Judis is substituting conspiracy theory for serious analysis of the threat to peace and security posed by Saddam’s regime.

This is all too typical of the way the left talks about the war in Iraq.   Bush lied about the threat.  Bush was just trying to steal the Iraqis’ oil; Bush was in the pocket of neocons seeking to protect Israel.   It’s analysis by bumper sticker.  By claiming that there was no genuine case against Saddam leftists are implying that he was, yes, OK.

Under Bill Clinton Congress passed a law calling for regime change in Iraq.   House and Senate Democrats made statements as belligerent as any Bush has made.   But when the going got tough the Democrats turned against the war and starting blaming Bush.   Instead of calling for a change in strategy they advocated what would have amounted to surrender to Al Qaeda.

Being against the invasion of Iraq was not unpatriotic.  What was and is unpatriotic is the failure to support Coalition troops once they were irrevocably committed.  

August 4, 2008 4:29 PM

gwolfjr said:

I read Greenwald's piece, and I had sort of a hard time with it.  It certainly seems that ABC went way overboard with speculation, and that they ought to come clean, like the NYT did about their own reporting of incorrect material.  But Greenwald also seems to go overboard himself.  He says the claims ABC originally reported turned out to "completely" and "unquestionably" "false", a "complete invention."  I did follow a few of his links (certainly not all, but a few important ones) and what seems to have happened is that there *were* early tests showing some kind of additive.  Apparently these tests were subsequently (maybe immediately) refuted, but that doesn't sound like "a complete invention" -- by ABC or by its sources.  

I must say as well that Greenwald's claim that "After 9/11 itself, the anthrax attacks were probably the most consequential event of the Bush presidency" does not do a lot to support his judgment.  

August 4, 2008 4:37 PM