Cohen, Blind with Log, Identifies Speck

Richard Cohen's column in today's Washington Post begins with the phrase, "In one of the most intellectually incoherent major speeches ever delivered by a minor president."

He then proceeds to offer one of the most intellectually incoherent major columns every written by a minor columnist.

We note the following points of incoherence:

• Admitting that all the major intelligence services thought that Iraq had WMD, he nevertheless blames the President for calling for action on the basis of the information he had from his intelligence services. Somehow the Senate is not responsible on this count, as they didn't get the "raw intelligence data." Apparently, our Presidents are to have the omniscience to do their own, infallible analysis of intelligence, independent of what their paid, professional analysts are telling them. Result, per Cohen: the President "mangled" the facts to sell the Iraq War.
• Yet the issue is not the facts, which Cohen says can be "endlessly" debated (a typical refuge for those whose positions are not supported by the facts). It is the "mindset" of the administration, something that Cohen apparently has access to. N.B. that Cohen can't deal with facts but can read minds.
• He accuses Bush of linking Saddam to 9/11, a point that has repeatedly alleged and consistently shown to be the opposite of what Bush actually said. But this false allegation proves that Bush didn't care about the facts.
• He further states that Bush links together all acts of terrorism indiscriminately, "neglecting that they are specific to their regions and have nothing to do with al Qaeda." Well, Mr. Cohen, they're all acts by people who express solidarity in the same ideology and the same cause. If you think that they aren't linked on that basis, well, we pity you. A link can be other than "done by the very same individual" or "planned in direct collusion."
• Cohen makes one coherent point, if we read between the lines: our intelligence could have been better before the war, and we'd like to have assurances that it's better now. But in the end, he doesn't write that no one can have confidence in the CIA and other agencies. He writes, "At the moment, no one can have confidence in the Bush administration." The CIA, some of whose entrenched senior officers have been plausibly blamed for trying to shift blame to the administration for their own failings, is not an issue of concern.
• Overall Cohen repeats what administration opponents have done since the campaign of 2004: argue that if any statement by anyone in the administration prior to the war can now be questioned by any means, the case for the war is invalidated.

You'd expect better of the leading newspaper of the nation's capital than this pastiche of accusations and non sequiturs. You'd also think that Cohen would have read Hitchens and thought twice about repeating this nonsense yet again. But that's the mood of the moment. Bush's "record" low poll numbers (only records for him, and not at all exceptional since the advent of opinion polling) are like blood in the water for the sharks of the left. Rational political discourse that might actually advance the cause--by spurring more rapid reform of the intelligences services, for example--has been superseded by piling on the accusations of mendacity and incompetence.

Again, we assert that what ails this country is not primarily the failings of the administration but the failings of the party out of power to do its job in providing thoughtful alternatives. There's no debate, just accusations. It's hard to think when the other side just yells.