digamma.net - notes

Arthur Silber nails an annoying right-wing argument:

Sullivan relies on a fundamental false alternative, which hawks always do. Either we wage the war on terrorism the way he wants to, and the way the Bush Administration wants to – or we’re “complacent,” we “withdraw,” and, apparently, do nothing. No, Mr. Sullivan, that is not the choice, although the hawks refuse to admit any other alternatives into their worldview. Many people, like me, are saying: Yes, fight the war on terrorism, defeat the bastards – just not this way.

The really sad thing is that right-wingers get hit with this fallacy ALL THE TIME in the economic sphere. “So if we shouldn’t [impose regulation X], what’s your solution? Just let anyone do anything they want?” As Silber notes, the policies conservative and libertarian hawks insist are doomed to fail at home are the same policies they can’t get enough of abroad.

I hate to pick on NRO excessively, because they really do produce some good stuff. But today’s content is just mind-boggling. You’ve got….

• Kathryn Jean Lopez’s bizarre comment on Americans who believe Saddam Hussein played a role in 9/11.


• After Bush’s speech, “K-Lo” notes: Surprising he didn’t talk about 9/11 Iraq connections, just as a reminder, during this week, especially.
  Um, Ms. Lopez? THAT’S BECAUSE THERE AREN’T ANY!


• Ramesh Ponnuru, reacting on media coverage of Iraq: I was on a show with a liberal pundit who said it would be “hard to imagine” how things could be worse there. Hard to imagine? How about if the child prisons were brought back? Would that be worse?
  Child prisons? That one was debunked more than two months ago.


• Rich Lowry says Bush’s speech “heralded a shift away from WMD in making the case for the war on Iraq to the three P’s: politics, prestige, and preemption.” No. The time for a shift in making the case was WHEN THEY WERE MAKING THE CASE. That was a year ago. If the Bush Administration deceived us then, they can’t change that fact now.

The conservative side of the blogosphere is fond of citing Jane’s Law to mock the left: “The devotees of the party in power are smug and arrogant. The devotees of the party out of power are insane.” I suspect that the increasing desperation we’re seeing from right-wingers is related to the increasing questions about Iraq and the rise of the 2004 Democrats.

Whatever it is, NRO needs to get their act together, or they’re going to end up like Free Republic.

I haven’t been this pissed off by a blog post since JonKatz wrote for Slashdot.

AMERICANS GET THE WAR ON TERROR [Kathryn Jean Lopez]
even if the Washington Post thinks they’re just MidEast-phobic: 70 percent believe Saddam Hussein was tied to 9/11.
Posted at 07:45 PM

That’s it. That’s the whole god damn post.

70% of Americans think Saddam Hussein had a role in 9/11. Just to clarify, this belief is supported by NO evidence whatsoever. As the WaPo article says, “the Bush administration and congressional investigators say they have no evidence of this". There is more evidence for the existence of the Loch Ness monster than there is that Saddam Hussein played a role in 9/11. And how does Ms. Lopez describe this mass delusion?

“Americans get the war on terror". And if you think, based on ALL available information, that Saddam Hussein played no role whatsoever in the 9/11 attacks?

Well you, my friend, just don’t “get” the war on terror.

I tip my hat to Tom Tomorrow, who essentially wrote this post (look at the lower left panel) for Ms. Lopez more than a year ago.