Thursday, October 07, 2004
Dick Cheney and The Worst Argument in the World
Well, we just got Dick Cheney's take on the Duelfer report -- the report that officially re-confirmed that Saddam Hussein didn't have WMD's or even active WMD programs since the early nineties -- and it's quite something. Cheney focused on the alleged corruption in the UN "Fuel for Food" program discussed in the report, said the report documented that Saddam Hussein had successfully "bought off foreign governments", that Hussein was going to use his bought friends to get the sanctions lifted, and that he would then resume his weapons programs in a brave new sanctions-free Iraq. ... so, you know, we absolutely positively had to invade Iraq in the spring of 2003 or there would have been a mushroom cloud in DC by the summer -- I mean with those bought off friends and all. Yes, this is best justification the vice-president can come up with for a war that killed over a thousand Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis; it would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
I think Cheney's argument might even be worse than my old pick for the prize of Worst Political Argument in the World which had been a tie between the fly-paper argument of Andrew Sullivan et al and Wolfowitz's related the-attacks-show-we're-succeeding line.
I think Cheney's argument might even be worse than my old pick for the prize of Worst Political Argument in the World which had been a tie between the fly-paper argument of Andrew Sullivan et al and Wolfowitz's related the-attacks-show-we're-succeeding line.
