Victor Davis Hanson:

...in the post-Plame, post-Scheuer, post-Tenet era is that no one believes much what the CIA says any more about the Middle East; no one believes that a wire-photo from there is genuine or its caption accurate; and no one necessarily believes anything in once respected magazines, whether the Periscope section of Newsweek or anything published in The New Republic. The common gripe is that the administration lied to the public about WMD in Iraq; but what is lost is that once revered institutions proved disingenuous in their accusations and unreliable in their performance.

I remain appalled that Bush gave Tenet a Medal of Freedom. Just one more sign of his misjudgment.

I remain appalled that Bush gave Tenet a Medal of Freedom.

There is a very simple explanation. Bush gave Tenet a medal for telling him what he wanted to hear.

And there is a simple explanation for "" continued drivel: you're full of $hit.

On the other hand, Nouri al-Maliki is not going to get a medal from Bush, even though in November Bush described him this way: "Anyway, he's the right guy for Iraq, and we're going to help him, and it's in our interest to help him, for the sake of peace."

Today the relationship between the president of the United States and the "right guy for Iraq" is going in a different direction. Last week, Bush said, "If the government doesn't respond to the demands of the people, they will replace the government." Maliki's response to that was, "Those who make such statements are bothered by our visit to Syria. We will pay no attention. We care for our people and our constitution and can find friends elsewhere."

Yeah, he can find friends elsewhere. In fact he already did, decades ago. Maliki joined an Iranian-backed jihad group in Iraq in the 1960s. After Saddam Hussein sentenced him to death, he spent many years in exile in both Tehran and Damascus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nouri_al-Maliki

When Bush said in November that Maliki is the "right guy for Iraq", that had absolutely no relation to Maliki's biography. I know the explanation here is that Bush is "naive" when he says things like this. I would hope not! If Bush was merely lying when he endorsed Maliki, all he has to do is admit it and move on. A white lie now and then is not the end of the world; just about every politician does it. But if Bush actually believed what he said, then it would mean that he's crazy and both he and Maliki should be impeached.

Wow, after the news last week, people still reference Wikipedia as if it is factual?

Sorry, that's a non-sequitor on a non-sequitor.

Leland, the point of Wikipedia is that you can look at the bibliographies of its own articles to see whether they say the same thing. In this case, they certainly do. In fact you can read the biography of Maliki that Maliki himself posted to the web:

http://www.iraqigovernment.org/Content/Biography/English/government.htm

It's consistent with Wikipedia. Or, even better, here is an explanation from the National Review:

The "victory" President Bush talks about in Iraq involves successfully propping up a Shiite-dominated government led by Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. An Islamic fundamentalist, Maliki, in his 23 years of exile from Saddam’s Iraq, ran the "jihad office" for the radical Dawa party in Damascus — a party with deep, historic ties to Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, and which is suspected of complicity in the 1983 bombing of the United States embassy in Kuwait.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzJhZjRkY2NiZGI5ZDIxMTRiMzI0MTBlYzM4YWY2ZDA=

Maybe if the National Review says it too, that Bush's "victory" is fake and pernicious, people here will have some chance of listening.

A white lie now and then is not the end of the world; just about every politician does it.

Maybe, but if Bush did that, you'd excoriate him even worse than you do now. What defines a "white lie" anyway? The color of a stain on a dress maybe?

Anonymous is desperate to justify politicians lying, since it seems to be much more prevalent for politicians on one side of the aisle (and one side of the political spectrum, which tends to believe that the ends justify the means, and "fake but accurate" is an acceptable standard).

If Bush did that, you'd excoriate him even worse than you do now

There is no need to hypothesize. The idea that Maliki is the "right guy for Iraq" was a lie all along, the only question if Bush believes it. As I said, it would be much worse if he does believe it. It doesn't look like he does, though.

What defines a "white lie" anyway?

The idea is that sometimes you don't have much choice but to bend the truth. Lying is never pretty, but sometimes it at least serves a purpose. For instance, we should speak well of the people who died on that bridge in Minnesota, even if not all of them truly were saints and overachievers.

But I agree in this case that Bush praising Maliki is not all that white, because it's largely Bush praising himself.

The idea that Maliki is the "right guy for Iraq" was a lie all along, the only question if Bush believes it.

In other words, as most Democrats displayed in the 1990s, you don't understand the meaning of the word "lie." Or perhaps you just disingenuously pretend not to.

The idea that Maliki is the "right guy for Iraq" is neither true nor false. It is an opinion, and one on which people can differ. If George Bush doesn't really believe this, then he is lying, but it's possible that what he means is that he thinks he's the best we can get, for now, and doesn't want to undermine him.

Are you really that dense Mr Coward? In the annals of history is Bushs endorsement of Maliki the only one that has ever turned out to, possibly, be in error? Has no other president in US history expressed confidence in some leader, only to later be disappointed? A better question would be has any President in US history NOT been disappointed in some other world leader he thought better of at one time.

As for Maliki being a member of a jihad group in the 1960's, so what? What sort of 1960's style jihad activities was he involved in? I don't recall any suicide bombings from that era, nor airliners flown in buildings. If he was involved in any "jihad" activities could it be they were only directed at Saddam, Al-Bakr or Qassim? Or are you going to assume "jihad" in the 1960's means indiscriminate killings as it has come to mean in 2007?

" ",

I left you a couple values type questions on the "Shh... it's a secret" thread.

It might help clarify for me your thoughts on the US and our common future.

Regards,

------------

WRT Tenet / President Bush:

President Bush wanted to "change the tone" in Washington. He made conciliatory moves, including keeping Tenet on as CIA chief. Negotiating with Senator Kennedy was (I assert) another example of this. Once the WTC was rubble, President Bush had a choice -- fire Tenet immediately, or let him try to fix the shortcomings. It seems clear to me that President Bush is much more the "let the person try to remedy the mistakes".

Perhaps the President does this to a fault -- keeping people longer than is wise. I don't think we can make an accurate judgment until the Bush Presidency documents are declassified (2034?).

Until then, we can all hopefully acknowledge that George Tenet deserves heaps of scorn for his self-serving attempts to avoid responsibility for his failures.

(Please note that this contrasts with then President Carter's treatment of then CIA chief George HW Bush. Just imagine -- if Carter had kept Bush 41, there might not have BEEN a Bush 41, or a Bush 43. The mind boggles. Well, my mind, anyway...)

One of Bush's main failings has been his unwillingness to fire the people in charge of poorly performing institutions. He should have fired Tenet and Mueller, he should have replaced some generals years ago, etc., etc.

As for Maliki being a member of a jihad group in the 1960's, so what?

No, Cecil, Maliki was a member of the jihad group Dawa from the 1960s until 2003. That same group is now the Dawa Party and it is still Maliki's party.

In particular, Maliki was in Dawa, in exile in Damascus, when Dawa bombed the US Embassy in Kuwait in 1983. In fact, it was a suicide bombing. The only bright spot is that Maliki didn't run Dawa at the time, he was just a front man.

So it's not that Maliki "turned out to be" a problem. The endorsement was bogus the whole time. Maliki was named as a compromise between Moktada al-Sadr and other pro-Iranian Shiite Islamists. Sadr is the real power-broker in this story. It was plain-as-day bad news, but the White House felt compelled to take it with a smile.

The idea that Maliki is the "right guy for Iraq" is neither true nor false. It is an opinion...

It is still a lie to issue an opinion that contradicts what you privately believe. If you offer the opinion that a stock is on the up-and-up, when privately you are selling it short, then that's not only a lie, it's often an actionable lie. It can even be perjury to misrepresent your opinions in court. If you are asked under oath, "Is this your opinion? Has your opinion changed in the last year?", then you had better answer truthfully if the questioner has evidence of your real opinion.

Now, I don't have proof in hand that Bush was lying when he offered his opinion that Maliki is the "right guy for Iraq". I don't have proof because I don't really know how deeply he's fooling himself. But as I said, you should hope that he's lying, just as much as if he had said that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the right guy for Iran. And frankly, Bush doesn't look like quite that big of a fool.

and one on which people can differ.

Yeah, sure, but it's not a question of opinion on which enlightened Westerners are going to differ. Is Sharia the right code of law for Iraq? Is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the right guy for Iran? Should men drive truck bombs into American embassies? These are all matters of opinion, and yes, people can differ. Just not reasonable people. Whether Maliki is the right guy for Iraq is the same sort of question.

I don't see what the problem is with the CIA's reputation. First, its reputation has long been tainted, in part because failure is more obvious than success. Second, recall that the greatest failures of the past few years have been because the Bush administration bypassed the CIA and other intelligence agencies in the prelude to the invasion of Iraq.

I assume the attacks on the CIA will die down when there's no longer a Bush administration to protect. We'll then see which accusations against the CIA remain.

As I see it, Tenet probably got the medal as consolation for being the scapegoat for prewar intelligence.

It is still a lie to issue an opinion that contradicts what you privately believe.

That's the stupidist thing you've ever typed here. An opinion is not neccesarily supported by facts. Therefore, to contradict an opinion is not a lie. Brett Favre, QB, Green Bay Packers is of the opinion that his team is the most talented he has had in years. Privately he knows they're not going to make the playoffs. They won the Superbowl years ago with a team 'less talented' than they have now. Is he lying? No, he is trying to help his team get better.

...Second, recall that the greatest failures of the past few years have been because the Bush administration bypassed the CIA and other intelligence agencies in the prelude to the invasion of Iraq.

I assume the attacks on the CIA will die down when there's no longer a Bush administration to protect. We'll then see which accusations against the CIA remain.

You've got it backwards. The CIA has made error after error in its supposedly-expert predictions for years and years: WMD, we were going to run out of oil, the USSR was stable, etc. Now that a president has finally tried, belatedly, when public evidence of the CIA's incompetence is undeniable, to make some small reforms and impose a bit of accountability on the Agency's disgracefully partisan bureaucracy, he gets criticized for breaking the laws of nature.

Where Bush is really culpable is for failing to fire the entire top management of the CIA after 9/11.

Brett Favre, QB, Green Bay Packers is of the opinion that his team is the most talented he has had in years. Privately he knows they're not going to make the playoffs.

There you go. Privately Bush surely knows that the Iraqi government is full of jihadis, including the guy at the top, Nouri al-Maliki. But when he says that Maliki is a "good man", as he did last night, that's not lying. He's just rallying the team.

At least you and I aren't disputing the facts.

Therein lies the problem. The facts are rather plain and we can agree on many of them, but when you point to an opinion and call it a lie, its just wrong. You agreed to my example, where I pointed out that what you personally believe plays a big part in your opinions, but is not the sole source of those opinions. When you bring emotions and feelings into an opinion, even if its a pipe dream, its not a lie. The type of lying you're referring to is the direct contradiction of recorded fact..."I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Hmmm, I misread Victor Hanson's post. He instead points the credibility failure of a number of institutions, listing the CIA and big media as two examples. My apologies.