May 14, 2004

Who knew?

Posted by Ted

[Removed. Upon reflection, I couldn’t back this up. I apologize.]

Posted on May 14, 2004 06:36 PM UTC
Comments

I think he is referring
to the attack on the Pentagon.

Posted by pritesh · May 14, 2004 06:46 PM

Could be.

Posted by Ted Barlow · May 14, 2004 06:57 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.

Posted by jdw · May 14, 2004 07:11 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.

Posted by asdf · May 14, 2004 07:18 PM

All right, you’ve got me in a contrite mood. Let me see who I can back up.

Posted by Ted Barlow · May 14, 2004 07:19 PM

Ted,

This post doesn’t seem to be up to your standards. Why don’t you remove it?

Rgds,
Tombo

Posted by tombo · May 14, 2004 07:22 PM

Damn, I’m too late. What did it say?

Posted by Motoko Kusanagi · May 14, 2004 07:30 PM
Victor Davis Hanson said:
“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.

Posted by Ted Barlow · May 14, 2004 07:40 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?

Posted by jdw · May 14, 2004 07:48 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.

Posted by Instawatcher · May 14, 2004 08:30 PM

Hey, Ted, this might make you feel better.

Posted by asdf · May 14, 2004 08:39 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?

Posted by tombo · May 14, 2004 09:24 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.

Posted by Extradite the Neocons · May 14, 2004 09:55 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).

Posted by Extradite the Neocons · May 14, 2004 10:00 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.

Posted by tombo · May 14, 2004 11:10 PM

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…

Posted by Brett Bellmore · May 15, 2004 12:19 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…

Posted by Jozef · May 15, 2004 08:55 AM

“…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.

Posted by Barry · May 15, 2004 01:42 PM

CT,

Tombo is not up to the usual standards of your commenters. Why don’t you remove him/her?

Yours,
Me

Posted by Foo mcBar · May 16, 2004 03:39 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

Posted by tombo · May 16, 2004 06:53 AM

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.

Posted by vernaculo · May 16, 2004 08:04 PM
Followups

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.