Archives for 2004

Pandagon, 22 December 2003–

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the very heart of the matter. There is no evidence that Saddam was involved in September 11th. There is, however, evidence of him being a bad guy. And so supporters of the Iraqi war are never going to honestly disavow the connection between the two separate events, because in the muddleheaded Noonan-view of the world, all events are connected in a sort of neoconservative karma. September 11th was bad, and Saddam was bad, therefore the former justifies dealing with the latter. It requires a level of abstraction that is in itself actually simpler than what Matthews is putting forward.

Pandagon, 28 January 2004:

The case “rested on multiple pillars”…but WMD was the central pillar. Of the reasons cited, two come back to the WMD justification (the WMD problem becoming unmanageable, and the lack of trust for Hussein in the long run), and two come back to al-Qaeda ties that are also nonexistent. Truly masterful.

Pandagon, 9 February 2004:

Does anybody remember when the Iraq/al-Qaeda ties were first being alleged by nuts such as Laurie Mylroie and relatively respectable folks like the President of the United States of America? Anyone remember how the almost uniform response from the doubters was that there was no real Iraq/al-Qaeda connection now, but the second you invade the country, there’s going to be a lot more collusion, if not outright recruitment?

Pandagon, 9 February 2004:

The problem, at this point, isn’t that the document or sources don’t seem credible. It’s that we don’t seem credible. After being breathlessly told that we’ve found weapons, terrorist links and chemical munitions again and again, just to have them quickly drop off the news as they are proved to be other things (a comic book, a pigeon and a fruit roll-up, respectively), I have little initial trust in huge finds like this. The idea that a 17-page strategic document being sent to Al-Qaeda simply fell into our hands is a bit of a stretch, and given our past history with these sorts of finds, I just can’t muster up the necessary trust to wholeheartedly believe it.

Pandagon, 7 March 2004:

And considering that most of the import of the Zarqawi memo was the realization that al-Qaeda might not even be involved in Iraq now, lending a whole new dynamic to the operation, I can understand why reporters might overlook the memo saying that America wouldn’t leave.

*** Last link removed- I errantly used an Ezra post, which, in all fairness, does not show an inconsistency when the previous posts were all from Jesse. Regardless, Jesse was and still is wrong that there were no ties. Period. ****

For extra fun, Jesse yesterday:

Cheney and the 9/11 Commission directly contradict each other in terms of their plain meaning. Cheney wants you to think that Iraq and al-Qaeda worked together. The Commission says they didn’t. Cheney is wrong, and the debate over the nature of his wrongness is nowhere near the level of disingenuousness and, yes, dishonesty inherent in the argument that nonproductive and noncollaborative Iraq/al-Qaeda contacts constitute a war-level reaction.

There’s no sensical way to say the debate over how someone’s being out of accord with reality is as much of a problem as the people being out of accord with reality themselves. The Commission says the contacts were there, but point out, factually, that they went no further. Cheney is using the exact same information to make the exact opposite (and dishonest) point. But, you see, the problem’s not there.

Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, 911 Commissioners:

THOMAS KEAN, 9/11 COMMISSION CHAIRMAN: Well, that’s what our staff has found. Now, it doesn’t mean there weren’t al Qaeda connections with Iraq over the years. They’re somewhat shadowy, but I think they were there. But with 9/11, no, our staff has found no evidence of that.

MATTHEWS: Mr. Hamilton, so many polls have been taken that shows the American people, almost three-quarters of the people, believe there was a connection. How do we rectify that? Is your commission going to clarify that to the extent that people won’t still be singing country music that says

Shifting GoalpostsPost + Comments (29)

reader reminds me that I wrote in this blog on February 29 that Bush’s support for the FMA was a “deal-breaker” for me. Those are the exact words of my subsequent Advocate piece. I don’t blame Jonah for missing it. But it’s unfair to say I have in any way deceived anyone. I went through a period of turmoil after Bush’s endorsement of the FMA and wasn’t sure whom I could support. But on reflection, the FMA made it impossible for me to endorse Bush. There was no “extremely significant silence.” Just outrage and a period of reflection.

So you are not going to endorse him. Fine. Does this mean you are goingto vote for Kerry? Come out and tell me, or I am dismissing all ofthis as shameless self-promotion.

Coy AndyPost + Comments (13)