_P.S. If you, like Daniel Drezner, George Will, David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, Tom Friedman, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Max Boot, Peter Beinart, and Republican Senators Lindsey Graham, John Warner, and John McCain, William F. Buckley,, the Army Times, the Economist, Jacob Levy, Ralph Peters, and (allegedly) the terrorists, think that Rumsfeld should resign…_
You should probably put “(allegedly)” next to Sullivan, Kristol, Kagan, McCain, Graham, and Brooks, too. And quite possibly some others.
Don’t worry, Ted. I specifically recall an OBL fatwa about the potential destabilizing effects of a nuclear arms race between the United States and China.
“And have we no shame in recognizing that should some congressional critics and Washington harpies get their way, Americans will accomplish what bin Laden’s suicide bombers could not on September 11: remove America’s finest Secretary of Defense in a half century?“
I thought, what a dumb thing to say; the terrorist attacks weren’t about Rumsfeld. Pritesh pointed out that he probably was referring to the fact that one of Sept. 11 planes hit the Pentagon. Which is a fair point.
I still don’t like his attempt to equate the Sept. 11 attacks with legitimate bipartisan calls for Rumsfeld to step down. But I couldn’t stand behind my post, so I removed it. Sorry.
_But I couldn’t stand behind my post, so I removed it. Sorry._
On behalf of the world, apology accepted. But you do realize that “Are you saying that a few misattributions are worse than what SADDAM HUSSEIN was doing?” would’ve been an acceptable defense, don’t you?
I dunno, Ted. The 9/11 hijackers weren’t originally aiming for the Pentagon, I thought. Besides, even if the pentagon attack is what he’s referring to, it’s still quite haughty to frame legitimate criticisms of a civilian government official as the same thing as trying to kill him.
Speakign of apologies, it would be, to coin a phrase, not “unhelpful” if more Americans were willingly to accept that no one has all the answers in this dreadful time but that all of us have an overriding strong interest in winning this war and helping the Iraqis to create a reasonably normal, reasonably representative polity in Iraq.
To my mind the only American now who can overcome the grand divide and focus us all on the key outcome described above is the man who launched our war to overthrow Saddam in 1998: Bill Clinton.
A strong and eloquent speech to that effect would help to take the edge off of the debate and also, I think, induce some greater humility on both sides. What does Clinton have to lose by doing so?
What does Clinton have to lose by doing so?
His grip on reality, since he did nothing of the kind (outside the anticipatory fantasies of the signatories of the ’97 PNAC letter to him, that is).
1998: “regime change in Iraq is the offical policy of the United States” — pushed through Congress by Clinton
1999: Clinton orders unilateral, pre-emptive attack on Baghdad, beginning four days of round the clock carpet bombing of that city. Clinton justifies this to the nation by saying that “Saddam is determined to get WMD and if he gets them, I guarantee you he will use them.”
Also in 1999, Richard Clarke and other top Clinton admin officials identify Saddam’s agents as behind the spread of chemical weapons to AQ operatives in east Africa. Clinton orders attacks upon a pharmaceutical factory in east Africa.
Hey, thanks, Tombo; I get SO tired of people refering to that plant Clinton had bombed as a “asprin factory”; Like the only consequences were some headaches…
“…beginning four days of round the clock carpet bombing of that city…”
1) It wasn’t carpet bombing.
2) There’s rather large gap between four days of bombing and invading/conquering the country. Which should be very, very clear by now. Heck, it’s clear by now that there’s an uncomfortably large gap between much more bombing + putting in over 100K troops, and conquering a country.
“There’s rather large gap between four days of bombing and invading/conquering the country”
Indeed there is. Those four days of round-the-clock bombings killed hundreds of Iraqi civilians and left in power a mass murderer who went on to slaughter many thousands–at least 100,000, by most reasonable estimates– more of his civilians in the four years that passed until the invasion put an end to the slaughterhouse.
Again, to make it clearer for you: Clinton committed the US to overthrowing Saddam. Bush made good on Clinton’s commitment.
What is that called when the subject rather than confront its own pathology externalizes its symptoms and clings with increasing fervor to complex explanantions of partially understood exterior phenomena as though they were all that mattered?
Desperation is so unaesthetic, Tombo. Get help. And in the meantime, cultivate an air of silence and contemplation, even if you have to fake it.
{ 21 comments }
pritesh 05.14.04 at 6:46 pm
I think he is referring
to the attack on the Pentagon.
Ted Barlow 05.14.04 at 6:57 pm
Could be.
jdw 05.14.04 at 7:11 pm
_P.S. If you, like Daniel Drezner, George Will, David Brooks, Andrew Sullivan, Tom Friedman, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Max Boot, Peter Beinart, and Republican Senators Lindsey Graham, John Warner, and John McCain, William F. Buckley,, the Army Times, the Economist, Jacob Levy, Ralph Peters, and (allegedly) the terrorists, think that Rumsfeld should resign…_
You should probably put “(allegedly)” next to Sullivan, Kristol, Kagan, McCain, Graham, and Brooks, too. And quite possibly some others.
Seriously, this is dishonest.
asdf 05.14.04 at 7:18 pm
Don’t worry, Ted. I specifically recall an OBL fatwa about the potential destabilizing effects of a nuclear arms race between the United States and China.
Ted Barlow 05.14.04 at 7:19 pm
All right, you’ve got me in a contrite mood. Let me see who I can back up.
tombo 05.14.04 at 7:22 pm
Ted,
This post doesn’t seem to be up to your standards. Why don’t you remove it?
Rgds,
Tombo
Motoko Kusanagi 05.14.04 at 7:30 pm
Damn, I’m too late. What did it say?
Ted Barlow 05.14.04 at 7:40 pm
Victor Davis Hanson said:
I thought, what a dumb thing to say; the terrorist attacks weren’t about Rumsfeld. Pritesh pointed out that he probably was referring to the fact that one of Sept. 11 planes hit the Pentagon. Which is a fair point.
I still don’t like his attempt to equate the Sept. 11 attacks with legitimate bipartisan calls for Rumsfeld to step down. But I couldn’t stand behind my post, so I removed it. Sorry.
jdw 05.14.04 at 7:48 pm
_But I couldn’t stand behind my post, so I removed it. Sorry._
On behalf of the world, apology accepted. But you do realize that “Are you saying that a few misattributions are worse than what SADDAM HUSSEIN was doing?” would’ve been an acceptable defense, don’t you?
Instawatcher 05.14.04 at 8:30 pm
I dunno, Ted. The 9/11 hijackers weren’t originally aiming for the Pentagon, I thought. Besides, even if the pentagon attack is what he’s referring to, it’s still quite haughty to frame legitimate criticisms of a civilian government official as the same thing as trying to kill him.
asdf 05.14.04 at 8:39 pm
Hey, Ted, this might make you feel better.
tombo 05.14.04 at 9:24 pm
Speakign of apologies, it would be, to coin a phrase, not “unhelpful” if more Americans were willingly to accept that no one has all the answers in this dreadful time but that all of us have an overriding strong interest in winning this war and helping the Iraqis to create a reasonably normal, reasonably representative polity in Iraq.
To my mind the only American now who can overcome the grand divide and focus us all on the key outcome described above is the man who launched our war to overthrow Saddam in 1998: Bill Clinton.
A strong and eloquent speech to that effect would help to take the edge off of the debate and also, I think, induce some greater humility on both sides. What does Clinton have to lose by doing so?
Extradite the Neocons 05.14.04 at 9:55 pm
But I couldn’t stand behind my post, so I removed it. Sorry.
Crikey, a somewhat unwarranted inference! What could be worse?!?
Oh, that’s right: 9/11.
Carry on.
Extradite the Neocons 05.14.04 at 10:00 pm
What does Clinton have to lose by doing so?
His grip on reality, since he did nothing of the kind (outside the anticipatory fantasies of the signatories of the ’97 PNAC letter to him, that is).
tombo 05.14.04 at 11:10 pm
1998: “regime change in Iraq is the offical policy of the United States” — pushed through Congress by Clinton
1999: Clinton orders unilateral, pre-emptive attack on Baghdad, beginning four days of round the clock carpet bombing of that city. Clinton justifies this to the nation by saying that “Saddam is determined to get WMD and if he gets them, I guarantee you he will use them.”
Also in 1999, Richard Clarke and other top Clinton admin officials identify Saddam’s agents as behind the spread of chemical weapons to AQ operatives in east Africa. Clinton orders attacks upon a pharmaceutical factory in east Africa.
Brett Bellmore 05.15.04 at 12:19 am
Hey, thanks, Tombo; I get SO tired of people refering to that plant Clinton had bombed as a “asprin factory”; Like the only consequences were some headaches…
Jozef 05.15.04 at 8:55 am
Anyway…
When will we learn that we’re not going to end the mess in Legislatures by getting bad guys? There are always new bad guys to take their place…
Barry 05.15.04 at 1:42 pm
“…beginning four days of round the clock carpet bombing of that city…”
1) It wasn’t carpet bombing.
2) There’s rather large gap between four days of bombing and invading/conquering the country. Which should be very, very clear by now. Heck, it’s clear by now that there’s an uncomfortably large gap between much more bombing + putting in over 100K troops, and conquering a country.
Foo mcBar 05.16.04 at 3:39 am
CT,
Tombo is not up to the usual standards of your commenters. Why don’t you remove him/her?
Yours,
Me
tombo 05.16.04 at 6:53 am
“There’s rather large gap between four days of bombing and invading/conquering the country”
Indeed there is. Those four days of round-the-clock bombings killed hundreds of Iraqi civilians and left in power a mass murderer who went on to slaughter many thousands–at least 100,000, by most reasonable estimates– more of his civilians in the four years that passed until the invasion put an end to the slaughterhouse.
Again, to make it clearer for you: Clinton committed the US to overthrowing Saddam. Bush made good on Clinton’s commitment.
Rgds,
Tombo
vernaculo 05.16.04 at 8:04 pm
What is that called when the subject rather than confront its own pathology externalizes its symptoms and clings with increasing fervor to complex explanantions of partially understood exterior phenomena as though they were all that mattered?
Desperation is so unaesthetic, Tombo. Get help. And in the meantime, cultivate an air of silence and contemplation, even if you have to fake it.
Comments on this entry are closed.