John Cole calls Kevin Drum on a spectacularly obvious lie by omission.
In light of today’s Bush speech, we should all keep an eye out for situationally ironic performatives of the kind Drum tries to sneak past his readers.
If that is what he’s actually attempting to do, of course. Personally, I’m of the belief that all of Drum’s readers already know the truth but are willing to feign outrage anyway—so habituatlly committed are they to dissembling in the service of what they believe is the greater good. It’s all an elaborate ruse—a barely-concealed game of begging the question writ large, using an unfolding historical narrative as its canvas.
But then, I might be in the minority on that point.
****
Scott Lemieux of Lawyers, Guns and Money disagrees with my assessment:
It’s […] hilarious to see Goldstein accusing people of “begging the question,” given that, of course, his claim that people who criticize Bush’s claims that Iraq was a serious threat to give biological or nuclear weapons [it was nowhere close to acquiring] to terrorists [it had no working relationship with] must be arguing in bad faith is a rather definitive example of begging the question (I take no position, however, on whether this question-begging is”writ large.”) Goldstein’s projections of bad faith require the assumptions that 1)available intelligence unambiguously suggested that Iraq had this kind of weapons capacity (which is utterly false) and 2)The central claim of Bush’s speech, that Democratic politicians had access to the same intelligence to Bush (also utterly false.) Bush’s claims that Iraq presented a significant security threat were, in fact, highly contestable as of March 2003, and in fact many people did contest them in real time. Goldstein is welcome to disagree with this assessment, but to smear the patriotism of people who believe that Bush was not presenting the evidence accurately (a claim that, of course, been proven right in retrospect) is disgraceful.
[My emphasis]
Of course, my claim was never that “people who criticize Bush’s claims that Iraq was a serious threat to give biological or nuclear weapons to terrorists must be arguing in bad faith.” Instead, my claim is that those arguing now that the President purposely misrepresented the intelligence , knowing full well what the intelligence consensus was leading up to the war, are engaging in bad faith.
Gah!
Cole’s site makes my head hurt. I wasn’t aware “Balloon-Juice” was some kind of code calling for self-righteous lefties to descend on his posts.
Drum, lying?
I’m about as surprised as I would if I saw nudity when I walked into a Deja Vu.
This is the guy who tried to turn a count of the number of bodies recovered from Saddam’s mass graves into a total count of his victims.
The left just needs to ride off into the sunset in their black helicopters, once and for all.
Not surprising since Drum seems intent on redefining the word lie to mean whatever is most beneficial to their argument at any given point.
DRUM LIED, WINGNUTS CRY!
Drum took on Podheretz’s piece Bush’s supposed lies. Let me know what you all think.
I read Drum’s bit on Podheretz.
I would have like a “traditional” format for a frisking with specific quotes shown so I don’t have to try and remember the Podheretz bit. Thus I was worried that he was cherry-picking and ignoring (err…lying?) his points.
So it was unconvincing. Seemed to have two main points: One was that the nuke WMD point was hyped too much (thus I assume a lie).
This ignores the other WMD problems.
Also Drum’s point about not going all the way upto the start of the war (if true) is ok, but when did the congress vote go to war? If before then that point is moot.
And Two was that the dissenting information was not broadcast enough to the world (thus Bush lied by concealing that info). Example would be the drones or the tubes. I dunno, I seemed to remember lots of that info being debated.
This&That
Man, liberal democrats and their supporters make my head hurt.
The UN resolutions that Saddam violated required him to prove he did NOT have weapons of mass destruction. He did NOT live up to his end of the resolution. We went to war because he was flouting the resolutions.
The US did not have to prove that he had WMD. In fact, Bush’s 2003 SOTU said specifically that we couldn’t wait to find out because by the time we found out it would be too late.
Why does a genocidal dictator who has used WMD’s on his own people get the benefit of the doubt over the democratically elected President of the greatest country in the world?
Glenn’s right; we can question their patriotism now.
He sold me.
BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED! BUSH LIED!
Drum is full of it on his “hyping nuke threat” bullshit…
Check out this recent BBC story:
The US has revealed that it removed more than 1.7 metric tons of radioactive material from Iraq in a secret operation last month.
“This operation was a major achievement,” said US Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham in a statement.
He said it would keep “potentially dangerous nuclear materials out of the hands of terrorists”.
Along with 1.77 tons of enriched uranium, about 1,000 “highly radioactive sources” were also removed.
http://vodkapundit.com/archives/008267.php
Sadly, that BBC story is 16 months old. Some interesting observations on it over in the comments to Vodkapundit, though.
“Cherry picking” is the best way to sum it up. As Powell has stated, it would have taken days to display all of the information that they had at their disposal. It’s not all going to be correct.
That douche would reference a Smurf Pez dispenser if it told him what he wanted to hear.
“T”, FYI…as someone noted in the comments to vodkapundit’s post, the BBC article was dated in July, 2004.
As to his ‘rebuttal of the Podheretz piece’, it is self serving.
Smart people like Kevin no doubt. Unfortunately, the historical record is a bit clearer on this point as evidenced by the Hans Blix statements in January of 2003, to the UN:
Maybe Drum thinks Blix is an idiot?
Jeebus – so they buried it?
Anyway, it still shows that Drum is grossly misinformed (or a dishonest scumbag).
The vast preponderance of the evidence support’s the President’s case for war. As he stated today, one can reasonably argue against his strategy and execution. But based on the best available evidence at the time, one cannot argue that Saddam did not present a threat. Was there some contrary evidence, as Drum Notes? Yes, but not nearly enough to make Saddam’s case.
So what happened? Did Bush brilliantly manipulated the evidence dating back to 1998 and beyond, or did he have secret info that he didnlt reveal that would exculpate the prowar dems? Or did we simply bothc the intelligence?
Clearly, it is the latter. The Senate needs to grow up and do something about this imminent threat to national security.
Damn.
I liked the Kevin Drum of Calpundit. The Washington Monthly has slowly developed into his parallel-universe-Evil-Spock goatee, while the comments section there has always been a mindless sea of group polarization and snarky nothingness.
The “MARKETING THE WAR” post Jeff links to is a good example of a preconstructed storyline blinding someone to nuanced analysis, a reason I can’t take many anti-war Democrats (especially the “newly recruited) seriously, even though I take grave exception to the manner in which the post-war has been run. If, for example, Drum/reasonable Dems wanted to argue from the perspective that the Administration was myopic in the way they looked at and presented intelligence data, I think that’s a wholly inarguable point–especially considering the “no WMD stockpiles” reality we find ourselves in (I can also reasonably counter-argue that point by saying the Admin viewed the intelligence in a “post-9/11” context, an argument that has been made repeatedly but contorted by anti-war folk into “Saddam did 9/11″).
Here’s something I took particular exception to:
If both Kevin and Podhoretz “surely [know]” the evidence for Iraqi nukes was “always weak,” doesn’t that mitigate Kevin’s charge that the evidence wasn’t adequately presented and debated? For Kevin to even write that sentence means he believes–at least unconsciously–that information was reasonably debunked at the time, which is contradictory to the overall picture he wants to paint. Second, the “warnings of mushroom clouds” that Kevin alludes to were always used generally/metaphorically in answer to questions along the lines of “where is the smoking gun?”
Q: Why invade now? Where is the smoking gun?
A: We can’t wait until the smoking gun is a mushroom cloud.
It’s disingenuous IMO to point to that as an, “AHA! They said a nuclear attack was imminent and there’s the proof! Mushroom clouds! (they probably think mushroom clouds are from real mushrooms lol)” –but of course Chris Matthews f/e has done that for literally years now, even though as Kevin suggested above, the evidence for a reconstituted nuclear program was very weak; even Administration officials shied away from trying to affirm it outright (except Cheney, who was obnoxiously “lawyerly” in the way he addressed the issue).
I remember seeing a column in a local music/radical politic rag before the Iraq war in which the writer was attacking Bush for having too many reasons to invade Iraq, the writer’s point being Bush was intentionally trying to water down the debate by forcing the opposition to argue so many different points. He demanded the President just stick with one issue so we could have a meaningful dialogue. I remember thinking this is far and away one of the stupidest things I have ever read.
If I had realized the discourse was only going to go downhill from there I would have left alot more money for drugs in my personal budget.
You know what I’ve never seen? An anti-war leftist produce a published comment or email, a blog post, or any other type of evidence suggesting that they themselves believed Saddam DIDN’T have C-B-N weapons or materials BEFORE the war.
And why not? Because at the time they also believed, like virtually everyone else, that Saddam DID have those materials—you know, the ones that the United Nations had been claiming he had for years prior to the existence of a second Bush Administration—they just didn’t give a fuck that he had them.
:peter
Mary Mapes is continuing to whine and snivel in every media venue she can corner that it wasn’t her job to prove the fake memos were real…
We should be surprised that Dems toss up the “Bush Lied” meme inspite of all evidence to the contrary?
Dems “know the Truth” about Bush, reality be damned.
Peter, on a previous thread I asked a few trolls to give me a single quote from a western leader prior to the war questioning the fact that Saddam had WMDs.
They disappeared quicker than a fart in the wind.
Is that a veiled admission to using chemical weapons, there, TomB? Don’t think I didn’t catch the sumbliminal TOMB in your name FACIST BABY KILLER! You know where fart’s come from?? CHILI!!! Usually illegally imported by HALLIBURTON from MEXICO!!!!!one!!!1111eleven!!!!
Ohhhhhh the pain no one feels but meeeeeeeee.
tw: front-> ing?
If it does not fit on a Tee-Shirt then the lefties cannot comprehand it.
I don’t know, Kevin seems lack to both a point and much supportive evidence.
His assertions boil down to this: Bush didn’t advertise the evidence that suggested Saddam might not have WMD as strongly as he did the evidence that suggested he did. This is like complaining that the prosecution didn’t adequately present the defendant’s case. It was Saddam’s job to prove he didn’t have WMD by cooperating immediately, fully and proactively (no one has yet argued he fulfilled that). He was the person who controlled whether we went to war. When he failed to comply, we either went to war or admitted we were never going to enforce the inspections regime.
Remember also that in 1991 our intelligence on Iraq was also flawed—in the exact opposite direction. Saddam turned out to be much closer to nukes than thought at the time. That’s the kind of sitaution where if you make an error, you’d rather have it go the other way.
Rememeber, too, that Saddam did not re-admit inspectors until our troops deployed, support for sanctions was collapsing, and the Kay report did say there was a vast secret network of WMD labs being maintained. Does anyone think Saddam had reformed? If not, you must admit that if we hadn’t gone to war, Saddam would probably by now have restarted his WMD programs and be actively seeking the nuclear deterrent that would prevent us from ever removing him.
I’m beginning to think that high school civics courses should have a mandate to read “1984” and unedited news headlines/stories from 5-10 years in the past before graduation. You take an “F” if you think the press is consistent, reliable, principled, or unbiased.
Hitchens and indeed Bush have made this point before. It does not matter that Iraq was actually in possesion of functioning WMD. It is known fact that Saddam had the capability to produce WMD and the intent to reconstitute his WMD programs at anytime otherwise why was he not cooperating with the U.N inspectors.
WMD’s were not the sole argument for the war in Iraq. There was moral justification for the war based on Saddam’s human rights abuses alone. On top of this was the fact that Saddam was not abiding by the U.N. sanctions, and the fact that Saddam was aiding and supporting terrorist organizations. Saddam was openly hostile to the U.S. and had demonstrated that he was not afraid to attack his enemies or seek territorial expansion. The democrats truly are trying to rewrite history by making the president out as a liar . Bush did not deceive the public regarding Iraq’s possesion of WMD’s . As long as Saddam was unwilling to allow full inspections and compliance with the U.N sanctions, the only conclusion that could be made was that Saddam did have WMD’s or was trying to maintain the capability to produce them.
–John Prine
Jeff (since you asked), if you’re interested, I expanded a bit at Dean’s World.
I feel like we’re trapped in some hellish version of Groundhog Day. The libs and, in alarmingly increasing numbers, the Democrats do what they do best, ignore the historical record and make outlandish claims in an attempt to rewrite it. We point to the facts in evidence that dispute/disprove those claims. They swat the evidence away like it’s an annoying buzzing insect and resume making the same outlandish claims. We point to the facts……
Over and over and over and over.
Might as well face it: they may be trainable, but they’re simply not educable. If insanity truly is doing the same thing over and over always expecting a different result, then maybe we’re the ones who are crazy.
CLINTON LIED
RANGERS DIED
SAILORS DIED
SOMALIS DIED
SUDANESE DIED
RWANDANS DIED…
maybe off topic, but I get tired of looking at that No one died when… picket sign every week
Does anyone remember what a few ounces of anthrax did to this country and our economy? If you do, does the fact that Saddam refused to account for tons of that stuff scare the shit out of you? Of all the reasons to remove that rat bastard, that is the one that jumps to the front of the line for me.
What would a couple of pounds of that stuff, released from the top of some skyscraper in a large metropolitan city do? How easy do you think it would be to get a 5 lb bucket into the US from Canada or Mexico?
I’m telling you, anthrax in the hands of terrorists is one of the scariest thoughts around and Saddam couldn’t or wouldn’t account for tons of it.
Personally, I’m of the belief that all of Drum’s readers already know the truth but are willing to feign outrage anyway
You’re right, Jeff. And from now I’m questioning both their sincerity and their patrotism. Because the arguments about the “evidence” are a charade. From now on, I’m not engaging in any senseless discussions about who said what when. I’m focusing on how the Dems and the left believe, as an article of faith, that America is a flawed nation whose vision is no more valid than that of men who decapitate innocent civilians. We are at war and it’s come down to “whose side are you on?”
And I am questioning their patriotism. We’ve played that polite little game with them long enough, and as a result we are on the verge of replicating the fate of the idealistic intellectuals who get crushed by the brute force of the periodic societal madness embodied by things like the French and Russian Revolutions. Will to power and revenge are all the Dems and left are truly interested in.
From now on, someone says “Bush lied” to me, I respond with “Why do you hate America?” Because when the opposition party, MSM, and rogue CIA elements join in bringing down a President, it’s time to lock and load.
So, it’s not unlike a lot of the comments here. If you don’t like what someone has to say, you beat the shit out of them.
Unpatriotic, my ass.
Sine.Qua.Non
Why do YOU hate America?
(That does feel kind of good Salt Lick)
And why is your ass not patriotic?
Sine.Qua.Non.—Remember, patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. “You’re invisible now, you got no secrets to conceal.”
Where is the patriotism in lying about the run-up to war? That’s not dissent; it’s dishonesty.
Where is the patriotism in lying about the actions of our troops, in falsely accusing them of war crimes? That’s not dissent; it’s slander.
Why is it patriotic to question the motives of those who supported removing Saddam, but not to question the motives of those who wanted him left in power?
SO FUCKING RESPOND TO THE SUBSTANCE OF MY POST, JERKOFF!
*Then* I’ll beat the shit out of you.
Rhetorically, of course.
Don’t call my post out and then fail to follow through on honest and fruitful debate when you’re decrying the lack of the same.
My earlier post:
Let me spell out the significance of the emphasized numbers to you: that is 632 posts in 3 hours and 7 minutes. That is over 200 posts an hour, over 3 posts a minute. How can you claim to have anything remotely resembling rational discourse under these conditions.
This is an extreme example, but most to the leftie boards I have tried to engage have been the same thing, either roitous mobs or frenzied circle jerks, but nothing resembling intelligent dialogue. Hell Drum hardly ever posts on his own board.
And I have yet to see anyone who has a legitimate point and the ability to back it up get the shit beat out of them here. If you come on here spouting baseless allegations and nonsense and don’t have the skills to defend your points, well then yeah, you lose. But you will get a chance, that is the difference between this board and most.
WTF? I thought I owned Sine Qua Non as a blog name.
Charles, I’ll be happy to sell you “blogoSFERICS,” provided I retain the rights to all content published under that name prior to last December 17.
Hell, I’m having a hard time keeping up with the conversation at Althouse and it’s nowhere near that rate.
Salt Lick, you have a good point on the Left “hating America”, but I think they have:
Bush hate, Jew hate, Success hate.
With Bush, they hate America winning in Iraq; they hate Bush’s tax cuts (for the rich! even though after the tax cuts, the rich paid a higher percentage of income tax collected, facts don’t matter…); and they hate Christian/pro-lifers (who aren’t socialist pacifists).
But the media are the enemy, and the advertisers in the NYT/ CNN need to suffer boycotts from their misleading anti-Bush propaganda for the terrorists. Too bad Reps are bad at organizing boycotts.
Sine.Qua.Non.:
What the fuck is that? The lame, asshat version of “nenner-nenner-nenner?
    I fisked Drum’s post criticizing Podhoretz here. The title is Kevin Drum, Serial Liar, which I believe conveys the essence nicely.
THE HOUSE OF SAUD MUST BE DESTROYED!