1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

...and the Times itself buried the story on page 11

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by basso, May 19, 2004.

Tags:
  1. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,388
    Likes Received:
    9,305
    William Safire in the NYTimes. i'd say some of the defeatists he speaks of post here.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/o...&en=a211530413883567&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

    --
    Sarin? What Sarin?
    By WILLIAM SAFIRE
    Published: May 19, 2004

    You probably missed the news because it didn't get much play, but a small, crude weapon of mass destruction may have been used by Saddam's terrorists in Iraq this week.

    The apparent weapon was sarin gas, a highly toxic nerve agent that causes victims to choke to death. Developed by the Nazis, it has been used in the past by terrorists in Japan to kill a dozen subway riders and panic thousands, and by Saddam Hussein, who produced tons of it to kill Iraqi Kurds.

    Rigged as an "improvised explosive device," or roadside bomb, the 155-millimeter howitzer shell was accidentally detonated by a U.S. ordnance team. Two men were treated for what an Army spokesman called "minor exposure" to the nerve gas.

    You never saw such a rush to dismiss this as not news. U.N. weapons inspectors whose reputations rest on denial of Saddam's W.M.D. pooh-poohed the report. "It doesn't strike me as a big deal," said David Kay.

    "Sarin Bomb Is Likely a Leftover From the 80's" was USA Today's Page 10 brushoff; maybe the terrorists didn't know their shell was loaded with sarin. Besides, say our lionized apostles of defeat, a poison-gas bomb does not a "stockpile" make. Even the Defense Department, on the defensive, strained not to appear alarmist, saying confirmation was needed for the field tests.

    In this rush to misjudgment, we can see an example of the "Four Noes" that have become the defeatists' platform.

    The first "no" is no stockpiles of W.M.D., used to justify the war, were found. With the qualifier "so far" left out, the absence of evidence is taken to be evidence of absence. In weeks or years to come — when the pendulum has swung, and it becomes newsworthy to show how cut-and-runners in 2004 were mistaken — logic suggests we will see a rash of articles and blockbuster books to that end.

    These may well reveal the successful concealment of W.M.D., as well as prewar shipments thereof to Syria and plans for production and missile delivery, by Saddam's Special Republican Guard and fedayeen, as part of his planned guerrilla war — the grandmother of all battles. The present story line of "Saddam was stupid, fooled by his generals" would then be replaced by "Saddam was shrewder than we thought."

    This will be especially true for bacteriological weapons, which are small and easier to hide. In a sovereign and free Iraq, when germ-warfare scientists are fearful of being tried as prewar criminals, their impetus will be to sing — and point to caches of anthrax and other mass killers.

    Defeatism's second "no" is no connection was made between Saddam and Al Qaeda or any of its terrorist affiliates. This is asserted as revealed truth with great fervor, despite an extensive listing of communications and meetings between Iraqi officials and terrorists submitted to Congress months ago.

    Most damning is the rise to terror's top rank of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who escaped Afghanistan to receive medical treatment in Baghdad. He joined Ansar al-Islam, a Qaeda offshoot whose presence in Iraq to murder Kurds at Saddam's behest was noted in this space in the weeks after 9/11. His activity in Iraq was cited by President Bush six months before our invasion. Osama's disciple Zarqawi is now thought to be the televised beheader of a captive American.

    The third "no" is no human-rights high ground can be claimed by us regarding Saddam's torture chambers because we mistreated Iraqi prisoners. This equates sleep deprivation with life deprivation, illegal individual humiliation with official mass murder. We flagellate ourselves for mistreatment by a few of our guards, who will be punished; he delightedly oversaw the shoveling of 300,000 innocent Iraqis into unmarked graves. Iraqis know the difference.

    The fourth "no" is no Arab nation is culturally ready for political freedom and our attempt to impose democracy in Iraq is arrogant Wilsonian idealism.

    In coming years, this will be blasted by revisionist reportage as an ignoble ethnic-racist slur. Iraqis will gain the power, with our help, to put down the terrorists and find their own brand of political equilibrium.

    Will today's defeatists then admit they were wrong? That's a fifth "no."__
     
    #1 basso, May 19, 2004
  2. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,852
    Likes Received:
    41,354
    Basso, I hope you and Bill's abhorrence of defeatism and pollyannaishness will last into January when President Kerry assumes the reins.

    Somehow I think your blind faith in Lakdhar Brahimini may not last past the first week in November.

    By the way, I would love to dredge up some of Safire's pre-war columns, comedy and high comedy. What's not so comedic is that the Axis of Neocon actually believed their own press -- and hundreds of americans and thousands of Iraqis have died because of it.

    PS, was Wesley Clark just a "stalking horse" for Hilary 04? THat was my favorite Safire column of last year.
     
    #2 SamFisher, May 19, 2004
    Last edited: May 19, 2004
  3. mc mark

    mc mark Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 1999
    Messages:
    26,195
    Likes Received:
    471
    Josh's take on Safire's piece


    FREQUENTLY, WHEN I read a column by Bill Safire, I have to think to myself: who was the editor on this piece? And what must he or she have thought when they were editing this stuff? Read the man's column for Wednesday's paper and it has about as much coherence and rationality as one of your more loopy C-Span ranters just before Brian Lamb mercifully hits the button and sends him off into telephonic oblivion.

    This piece is such a clotted mix of discredited ridiculousness, slurs, false claims of racism, disinformation and lies that it's hard to know where to start.

    But allow me a few examples.

    First, there's Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Safire is still claiming that back before the invasion Zarqawi's group was working not just within Iraq's international borders but at the behest of Saddam Hussein. In other words, Safire is still relying on the say-so of the folks who peddled the most discredited of pre-war intel mumbojumbo. Apparently he hasn't gotten the word. The line is still open to Chalabi, who finally got cut off by the Pentagon this week and Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Doug Feith, the guy who put the FU in FUBAR.

    (Remember how Zarqawi was supposed to have had his leg amputated in Baghdad before the war? Notice how he now seems to have two legs?)

    Then there's the about-to-be-found caches of biological weapons. For a few months after the war, Safire and similar folks claimed that we weren't finding the goods because scientists were still afraid Saddam might make a come back -- after all, he and other high-value targets were still on the loose. Never a very probable theory -- and one pretty well disproved by the deaths of Saddam's sons and Saddam's eventual capture.

    Now Safire has a new theory. "In a sovereign and free Iraq, when germ-warfare scientists are fearful of being tried as prewar criminals, their impetus will be to sing — and point to caches of anthrax and other mass killers."

    To use a much-overused line, you can't make this stuff up. It transcends self-parody.

    Conservatives hunting for media-bias in the Times often pick on its more liberal columnists. In fact, if there's bias to be found, it's in Safire. Only lack of interest and respect for conservative opinion can fully explain Safire's continued presence on the page.

    -- Josh Marshall
     
    #3 mc mark, May 19, 2004
  4. No Worries

    No Worries Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 1999
    Messages:
    32,879
    Likes Received:
    20,661
    Saddam's terrorists in Iraq

    What a mastermind!!! Saddam is making a complete and total mockery of the phrase "in the custody of the United States military".
     
    #4 No Worries, May 19, 2004
  5. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,852
    Likes Received:
    41,354
    Basso, whhat is wrong with Generals Abazaid and Sanchez?

    Is General Abazaid a "defeatist"?:confused: I guess he is, provided that the definiition of defeatist means: "not a delusional naif"

     
    #5 SamFisher, May 19, 2004
  6. basso

    basso Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2002
    Messages:
    33,388
    Likes Received:
    9,305
    doesn't look like it applies, but then, perhaps you didn't read WS' oped, so you wouldn't realize that.
     
    #6 basso, May 19, 2004
  7. SamFisher

    SamFisher Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    61,852
    Likes Received:
    41,354
    I read it this morning and nearly spit out my coffee.

    The only thing I see with regards to reality on the ground and the way to redeem Iraq from being the bloody, anarchic lawless hellhole it has become on our watch is this detailed analysis of nationbuilding in Iraq:

    ipse dixit! I hope Lakdhar is reading this!
     
    #7 SamFisher, May 19, 2004
    Last edited: May 19, 2004
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)

Share This Page