I think her argument that the administration predicted an easy post-war comes down to this interview with the vice-president, Dick Cheney:
MR. RUSSERT: If your analysis is not correct, and we’re not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Well, I don’t think it’s likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I’ve talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The president and I have met with them, various groups and individuals, people who have devoted their lives from the outside to trying to change things inside Iraq. And like Kanan Makiya who’s a professor at Brandeis, but an Iraqi, he’s written great books about the subject, knows the country intimately, and is a part of the democratic opposition and resistance. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but what they want to the get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that.
Now, if we get into a significant battle in Baghdad, I think it would be under circumstances in which the security forces around Saddam Hussein, the special Republican Guard, and the special security organization, several thousand strong, that in effect are the close-in defenders of the regime, they might, in fact, try to put up such a struggle. I think the regular army will not. My guess is even significant elements of the Republican Guard are likely as well to want to avoid conflict with the U.S. forces, and are likely to step aside.
Notice that this is all about the war itself, not the post-war, which was clearly the context for Dowd’s comments. Notice also that Cheney was right about almost all of this. Russert’s question was about the fear that we would be bogged down in Baghdad, unable to topple Saddam, and losing what was predicted as several thousand troops. None of that happened. Both the regular army and the Republican Guard melted away. We were greeted as liberators in many parts of Iraq, especially the Shiite South and Kurdish North. Now add to this all the statements I have cited where the president specifically and categorically warned about the difficulties of post-war occupation, and Dowd’s claim that the administration said the whole post-war would be “easy” seems to me to be, er, unfounded.
MAXIMA CULPA: Jack Shafer reports on my challenging Stephen Glass on what appears to be his bogus contrition last Friday. Everyone deserves a second chance. But Glass hasn’t even done the bare minimum to win back trust. Donating the proceeds of his first novel, which exploited his perfidy for profit, would be a start.
BONUS MODO-BASHING ITEM! You’re all aware of Ms Dowd’s take on the current administration’s policy toward Saddam: it’s all a function of their testosterone/delusions of grandeur/stupidity/mobsterism/small penises/imperial dreams … well, you know the score by now. Yesterday, this was her analysis:
Mr. Rumsfeld thought the war could showcase his transformation of the military to be leaner and more agile. Paul Wolfowitz thought the war could showcase his transformation of Iraq into a democracy. Dick Cheney thought the war could showcase his transformation of America into a dominatrix superpower. Karl Rove thought the war could showcase his transformation of W. into conquering hero. And Mr. Bush thought the war could showcase his transformation from family black sheep into historic white hat.
None of it could conceivably be because they actually viewed Saddam as a threat, or even because Saddam was a threat, could it? So it’s helpful to remember Dowd’s response to the threat of WMDs from Saddam when Clinton was in power. Here’s a column written six years ago this month. Guess what her concern was? That the Clinton administration was too weak to deal with a strongman like Saddam! A trip down memory lane:
Suddenly there are fears about Iraqi crop dusters spraying death on the Mall, about the nation’s capital being another Nagasaki… Having covered President Bush’s efforts to demonize the Iraqis, I understood the motive behind Secretary Cohen’s alarmist performance art. We are talking about a world-class monster who strangles people with his bare hands, gasses entire villages, assassinates members of his family and uses babies as shields. Wondering if the Clinton crowd has the spine for its first big crisis is giving me a bad case of the jits. The suspicion lingers about these alumni of make-love-not-war that they are not entirely comfortable with things military … Even with George Bush’s sometimes scattered style and Colin Powell’s inhibition about the use of force, the Bush-Baker-Cheney-Powell-Schwarzkopf team still gave the impression of command … I want Madeleine Albright, the most virile of the lot, to stop wearing picture hats around the Mideast. Saddam Hussein is not threatening Ascot. I fret that toothy Tony Blair is no Iron Lady.
And on and on. All this reveals is that it’s a little futile attempting to criticize Maureen Dowd. She’ll write anything that comes into her head at the moment. There’s no argument, no thread of consistency that I can glean from one moment to the next. If the Clintonites are in power, they’re wimps in the face of Saddam’s threat; if the Bushies are in power, they’re testosterone-crazed imperialists, hyping Saddam’s threat. We should confront/appease Saddam right now/never, because the threat is real/bogus, imminent/non-existent and we have to do something/hang loose before all hell lets loose/or I get off deadline. But my favorite part of the column is the opener:
I was peaceably eating my penne at lunch the other day when my friend, another reporter, told me he thought Washington was in imminent danger of being gassed, germed, VX’ed or anthraxed.
Yes, imminent! Bush may never have said it. Rummy may never have believed it. But Ms Dowd wrote it six years ago – and now blames the Bushies for allegedly agreeing with her.
The Dish 