Comments on: I do not understand blogger triumphalism

By: JP

JP — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 16:08:07 +0000

Nope, sorry. The point of an ad hominem is to distract people from the substance of your opponent’s argument. I’m not addressing the substance of Reynolds’ argument – that may be general topic of this thread, but it was not my particular concern. My point was expressly about Reynolds’ character. I did not make it to distract people from his argument. (To the contrary, it was if anything a fact that was proven by his argument.) And I was right. Glenn Reynolds doctored a quote to make it sound like it was saying the opposite of what it really said. That is a lie, and he is a liar.

By: Dave F

Dave F — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:39:10 +0000

I think instapundit is popular not so much for Reynolds’s views as his daily link fest to interesting stuff. As for jp: cometh the hour, cometh the ad hominem.

By: JP

JP — Wed, 14 Jan 2004 05:55:43 +0000

I cannot believe what a filthy liar Glenn Reynolds is. It makes me want to vomit. Velkro, I’m assuming your last comment was in jest.

By: velkro

velkro — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:39:40 +0000

Ted, There’s a reason Professor Reynolds get 70,000 hits a day, and it’s not because of a lack of confidence in him. He’s the best; period!

By: Thomas

Thomas — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:52:52 +0000

jroth, I’m not sure what to make of your response. I never claimed that ‘smart sanctions’ equal “aggressive war.” But ‘smart sanctions’ were proposed by the administration prior to 9/11, which suggests some problems with O’Neil’s claim that the administration was hell-bent on war with Iraq. Were ‘smart sanctions’ consistent with the policy of regime change? I don’t think they’re inconsistent, but they suggest the administration wasn’t preparing an imminent attack.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:49:51 +0000

Looks like I was right: "People are trying to make the case that I said the president was planning war with Iraq early in the administration. Actually, it was a continuation of work that was going on in the Clinton administration, with the notion that there needed to be regime change," he said. link

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 18:11:55 +0000

I obviously haven’t read the book yet, but some questions leap to mind. Preface, this is why I hate book summaries which don’t provide quotes for the most interesting contentions. “Mr O’Neill was also quoted in the book as saying the President was determined to find a reason to go to war and he was surprised nobody on the National Security Council questioned why Iraq should be invaded.” What is the context? Did they discuss Iraq, mention that there were standard plans for invasion (see UK example above), address the fact that regime change was the official policy of the Clinton administration, decide to continue it, and discuss how it might best be implemented? In that discussion was it mentioned that invasion might be necessary or there would be no regime change? I suspect the above is very close to what actually happened, and it would fit the non-quote that we have. That would be just taking Iraq seriously enough to seriously discuss it. BTW, the idea that Iraq would quite probably have to be invaded in order to effect regime change isn’t really that surprising is it? If Bush was seriously considering it (with alliances) before, and then 9-11 turned up the heat and made him decide to go on without allies, that isn’t so shocking now is it? If Clinton had a meeting that where they discussed nationalizing health care and then discussed political strategies for making it happen, that wouldn’t have been surprising. (Maybe he should have done that more if he really wanted to change health care.) If there had been some flu pandemic that year with thousands dying despite an available but not widely distributed vaccine, it might have spurred him to act more quickly. It might have encouraged him to act more forcefully. And it would not be shocking to find out that he had some plans EVEN BEFORE THE FLU PANDEMIC. Saddam has been a problem to the US for 15 years, and for the whole world much longer. It isn’t at all surprising that Bush was discussing doing something about Saddam even before 9-11. Would it have happened without UN approval before 9-11? I suspect not. But we will never know.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 14:00:32 +0000

Gary, you’re being precious here. If the SSI publishes a report, with a foreword by its director, then “The SSI thinks …” is a reasonable precis. Note that the SSI is not the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the US Government.

By: Gary Farber

Gary Farber — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:28:37 +0000

“You see, Iraq = terrorism. Oh, sure, the War College’s Strategic Studies Institute might not think so. But do they have a blog? Didn’t think so.” No, they have a web-site, which I’m afraid you didn’t look at. Unfortunately, the facts: differ significantly from your characterization here, Ted. The War College and the Strategic Studies Institute specifically says no such thing. That paper, however correct or incorrect, is by Dr. Jeffrey Record: “The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.” I don’t disagree with any of your other points in your post, but might I murmur that it’s best not to assume and suggest bad faith on the part of people presenting quotations, particularly when the quotations are clearly obtained via third parties, and the quotations or references prove to be misleading? It might simply turn out—though it needn’t—that the very busy writer/pundit/blogger simply was careless about passing along a third-party-obtained quote that supported their prejudices and case, and they didn’t bother to check an original source on the quote. Mightn’t it? (I do like the suggestion from a commenter above that the reason O’Neill helped Ron Suskind with his book (it’s not O’Neill’s book, as I’ve , while supplying some must-read references) is to make money, and “get loaded.” Obviously a commenter well-familiar with the career of the former head of Alcoa, a wee neighborhood firm.)

By: ahem

ahem — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:34:08 +0000

The US had, after all, a policy in favor of ‘regime change’ as a matter of law, a policy that predated the Bush administration. Yeah, and if you look at that law, you'll note the final clause:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act.

Section 4(a)(2) refers to the cost of equipping and training designated 'Iraqi democratic opposition organizations', to the sum total of $97m, roughly 0.1% of the projected total spent on the war and its aftermath. And one suspects that much of what has been allocated already under those provisions went into Ahmed Chalabi's back pocket. So, if you can pluck a policy of full-scale military action out of that bill, you may need to sit a basic reading test.

By: Matthew

Matthew — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:29:25 +0000

Ted, you are right but I have a feeling you and Tom (Tomorrow) are already victim of the spin on this story. Endless debates about the nation-building intentions of W just blur the fact that the counter-terrorism frenzy post-9/11 was redirected to the old linchpin foe, Iraq.

By: ahem

ahem — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:19:58 +0000

just another jerk who is going to get loaded by writing a bush lied book and selling to the left. Or not, as the case may be.

Loyalty is perhaps the most prized quality in the White House. In the book, O'Neill suggests a very dark understanding of what happens to those who don't show it. "These people are nasty and they have a long memory," he tells Suskind. But he also believes that by speaking out even in the face of inevitable White House wrath, he can demonstrate loyalty to something he prizes: the truth. "Loyalty to a person and whatever they say or do, that's the opposite of real loyalty, which is loyalty based on inquiry, and telling someone what you really think and feel—your best estimation of the truth instead of what they want to hear." That goal is worth the price of retribution, O'Neill says. Plus, as he told Suskind, "I'm an old guy, and I'm rich. And there's nothing they can do to hurt me."

Since O'Neill has an estimated worth of around $100 million thanks to his business career, he doesn't need the money; and even if he were getting paid for contributing to Suskind's book, it wouldn't be near enough compensation for having Karl Rove's hounds set upon you. (See: Wilson, J. & Plame, V.)

By: will

will — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:28:01 +0000

FWIW, according to the BBC: “Mr O’Neill does not stand to earn money from the book, which is about him, not by him.”

By: will

will — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 04:27:51 +0000

FWIW, according to the BBC: “Mr O’Neill does not stand to earn money from the book, which is about him, not by him.”

By: JRoth

JRoth — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 03:44:53 +0000

“Just another jerk?” No, jason, you’re just another jerk. Paul O’Neill is a highly respected CEO who was working in the Federal government when Bush was avoiding Vietnam. O’Neill had several flaws as a Treasury Secretary, one of which was inadvertantly blurting out the truth, as he saw it. Meanwhile, thomas is claiming that “smart sanctions” are indistinguishable from “aggressive war.” Is this the best and brightest of Bush defenders? Are these the people who insist that the Web is right-leaning because the right has the best arguments? You boot-lickers are pathetic. If Bush kicked your dog, you’d defend him. PS - O’Neill is already loaded, you idiot. He’s incredibly wealthy.