Two things wrong with this Andrew Sullivan post, Paul.
1. He does the deceptive slide between Iraq and Al Qaeda, as if the ties between Iraq and other ME groups that were not linked to 9-11 are sufficient grounds for an invasion of Iraq. So, familiar tactic, those ties become ties to terror become ties to Al Qaeda, without substantiating the jump. It's more than a little like Wolfowitz' attempt to substitute "weapons of mass terror" for "weapons of mass destruction". That sort of rhetorical device works, as, much to my surprise, Peggy Noonan argues in this morning's Wall Street Journal, if the evidence supporting it is on the table. If it's not, it tends to undermine the rest of the argument.
2. Sullivan's objections to attacks on Bush is, also, a bit much. Bush dishes it out, regularly; it's only a part of the political strategizing that he be prepared to receive it. And he's been given a huge pass by much of the press. Compare this with what happened to Clinton. |
