« Weblog Awards | Main | Just a Reminder / Nur zur Erinnerung »

Comments

Great, informative post! Keep up the good work.

Und Spiegel Online hat mit dem ehemaligen Finanzminister O'Neill auch schon den nächsten Kronzeugen für die Unfähigkeit Bushs aufgetan (die scheinen nach der Weihnachtspause aber auch wieder voll aufmunitioniert zu haben und in ihrem virtuellen Anti-Bush-Wahlkampf Howard Dean noch überbieten zu wollen. Übrigens bemerkenswert, daß man von Dean hier noch ziemlich wenig liest, und seine Fehltritte fast gar nicht erwähnt wird...) Hmm, ich mag mich irren, aber daß Leute, die sich in relativem Unfrieden trennen, gern mal nachtreten, ist meines Wissens nichts Neues. Nur daß z. B. die Lafontaine-Kommentare über die Schrödersche Politik bei Spiegel Online selten so weit oben stehen in der Nachrichtenhierarchie (obwohl sie nicht weniger scharf oder häufig sind), und daß man sich Überschriften wie 'Breitseite gegen Schröder' und Kommentare wie 'Weder inhaltlich noch formal lässt er ein gutes Haar an Schröders Führungskompetenz.' in diesen Fällen bei Spiegel weniger vorstellen kann. Während es natürlich bei Blair wieder skandalisiert wurde, wenn Cook / Short ihn kritisierten. Aber natürlich längst nicht mit derselben Häme wie bei Bush, dem dummen, skrupellosen Cowboy. Wie hieß es doch kürzlich so schön: 'Amerika, Dich haßt es besser.'
Und bald lesen wir dann über die Ergebnisse der Beobachtungen der unabhängigen Experten Howard Dean, Noam Chomsky und Michael Moore. Ups, die letzten beiden gelten hier ja schon als unparteiische Wissenschaftler / DOKUMENTARfilmer...

And what is with the facts? I mean, all you were able to point out was that the authors don't like Bush and his friends. Okay. Welcome among millions others.
But have you anything able to enlighten us about the contents of what they write and about how wrong they are? Are you able to argue against their facts and not just their ideology?
The rest is pure semantics and completely irrelevant (in best 7of9 voice) for more than a sidenote.

Lili, the difficulty is that none of it is "facts". All is conclusory opinion and speculation, particularly about motive. The most one can do, then, is point out such dissonances as Cirincione's claim, pre-war, that the risk of attack with WMD is a reason for not going in, and his claim, post-war, that we were purposely misled.

You see, the "conventional wisdom", as held by everyone fron UNMOVIC on through every intel agency, was the same: there were WMD (and so, a risk of attack with WMD). This "wisdom" may represent a grave failure of intelligence, but it cannot represent a lie.

One fact that I find very persuasive is a recent poll, which showed that 68% of Americans supported the Iraq war in one year ago and still support it today. Iraq war supporters do not exclusively belong to a radical fringe of sinister "neo-conservatives" within the White House.
By the way, it seems to me that Mr. Cirincione glosses over several important facts himself.
1. America was attacked by terrorists on 9/11, costing 3,000 lives.
2. President Clinton pre-emptively attacked Saddam in 1998 due to his belief in the existence of WMD in Iraq. Did Clinton belong to a "radical fringe"?
3. We are learning everyday more about the links between Saddam and al-Quaeda.

After all, who do you think is attacking American soldiers in Iraq? It's al-Quaeda and affiliated organizations, not some authentic "resistance" inspired by Sophie Scholl.

David is right to expose the bias of Mr. Cirincione. It's the same kind of palaver you hear from Paul Krugman's mouth, who is also very short on facts.

On a final note, here's the different between fact and theory:

Fact: America and Europe are safer with the capture of Iraq.

Theory: The Saudis warned Bush of 9/11, and he let it happen, so that he had a reason to invade Iraq.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28