The Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes is perhaps best known for arguing incessantly for the last several years that Saddam Hussein’s regime was directly connected to al Qaeda. It earned him a reputation for being a bit of a far-right oddball, but his constant and aggressive advocacy, resisting reality at every turn, made Hayes a favorite of Dick Cheney, who offered the conservative writer unprecedented access for a flattering new book.
Yesterday, Hayes was invited onto Meet the Press to help plug the book and to discuss the declassified National Intelligence Estimate.
RUSSERT: Steve Hayes, in your new book, “Cheney: The Untold Story of America’s Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President,” you write this. “Some people think if we” walk — “just walk away from Iraq everything will be fine, that it’s the optional war, that you don’t have to be here, that it’s possible to retreat behind our oceans and be safe and secure; withdrawal from Iraq doesn’t damage our interest in this wider conflict. And that may be in part because they don’t believe there’s a wider conflict. I know different. It’s so clear to me. I have trouble understanding why” it’s “unclear to everybody else.” That same certitude that David Brook uses to describe the president, you’re using to describe the vice president.
HAYES: Yeah, it’s very interesting. I think one of the things we saw this week, and this, this speaks directly to what the vice president told me, is with this — the release of this NIE we saw a shift in thinking. I think for a long time administration critics had begun to make the argument that really this al-Qaeda threat is overblown, that they misled us into the war in Iraq, they’re misleading us about the seriousness of the threat from al-Qaeda. And I think what the NIE does, even though in some ways it’s, it’s very critical of the administration, is it strengthens the basic case that the administration has been making that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat.
I have no idea what Hayes is talking about. Or, more precisely, Hayes has no idea what he’s talking about.
Where are these mysterious White House “critics” who’ve been arguing that the al Qaeda threat is “overblown”? Seriously, name some prominent Bush detractors who have argued this, in Hayes’ words, “for a long time.” I’m relatively clued into Democratic talking points and I can’t recall any Democrat or left-leaning political figure ever making this argument in any forum, in any context. Hayes appears to have simply made it up in the hopes of making the NIE appear more favorable for his White House allies.
Which segues to the other problem: the NIE doesn’t strengthen the Bush’s gang’s “basic case” at all.
The White House has said, repeatedly, that thanks to the president’s leadership, we’ve destroyed al Qaeda’s leadership and have the terrorist network on the run. The NIE, in stark contrast, shows the opposite and vindicates what White House critics have been arguing for years. While the president’s policies have been failing in Iraq, al Qaeda is rebuilding, recruiting, and refilling its coffers — in large part because of the president’s failed policies in Iraq.
And yet there was Hayes, on national television, making an argument that was clearly false, predicated on straw men and imaginary progress.
For that matter, Yglesias notes the context in which we heard all of this nonsense.
That said, is Hayes more insane or less insane than Tim Russert, who decided that Bob Woodward, David Brooks, and Steve Hayes would be a good balanced panel to discuss the news? What kind of stupid stuff do I need to write before I get to go on Meet The Press to promote my book?
That’s an entirely reasonable question. Indeed, is there anyone who believes Hayes hurt his chances of being invited back onto Meet the Press by making absurd and demonstrably false arguments? Of course not; conservatives are not only allowed to dominate these “roundtable” discussions, they’re also rewarded by repeat appearances, no matter how shamelessly they mislead the television audience.
The mind reels.