Slate Regular Makes Particularly Stupid "Bush Lied" Argument
We're annoyed on multiple levels by this Clinton-era / we should engage Iran / we should look like we're trying to reason with Iranian lunatics because that will make us seem smart to Europe article from Slate's Fred Kaplan.
The line "even Iran's former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani... has criticized the current regime's harsh anti-Western stance" kind of got us going. It's notthat mentioning Rafsanjani actually added anything to the article - there are other even hard-line clerics who have criticized Ahmadinejad. But there's something ritualistic about the phenomenon of sophisticated lefty journalists desperately and stupidly determined to say something nice about Rafsanjani.
Improbably more ritualistic, however, is this little chant:
The other nations involved in this showdown - England, France, Germany, Russia, and China - would rather not impose sanctions. Their economic interests favor continued open trade with Iran... To turn this picture around - to elevate security interests above economic interests—requires deliberate action. To do so under the pressure of George W. Bush - in the wake of his false warnings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and that subsequent disastrous war - also requires political courage.
With due respect, isn't it England (actually Britain, but who cares) that continues to insist - more firmly than the Bush Administration - that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa? And, with due respect, isn't it Russia that continues to insist - more firmly than the Bush Administration - that Iraq was involved in international terrorism targeting the United States? So why exactly would "false warnings" about Iraq decrease President Bush's credibility in their eyes?
It wouldn't and it doesn't. But isn't it fun to drop the phrase into even the most tangentially related contexts? What? It's going to rain tomorrow? Must be President Bush's false warnings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
UPDATE: Also, French intelligence.
The line "even Iran's former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani... has criticized the current regime's harsh anti-Western stance" kind of got us going. It's notthat mentioning Rafsanjani actually added anything to the article - there are other even hard-line clerics who have criticized Ahmadinejad. But there's something ritualistic about the phenomenon of sophisticated lefty journalists desperately and stupidly determined to say something nice about Rafsanjani.
Improbably more ritualistic, however, is this little chant:
The other nations involved in this showdown - England, France, Germany, Russia, and China - would rather not impose sanctions. Their economic interests favor continued open trade with Iran... To turn this picture around - to elevate security interests above economic interests—requires deliberate action. To do so under the pressure of George W. Bush - in the wake of his false warnings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and that subsequent disastrous war - also requires political courage.
With due respect, isn't it England (actually Britain, but who cares) that continues to insist - more firmly than the Bush Administration - that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa? And, with due respect, isn't it Russia that continues to insist - more firmly than the Bush Administration - that Iraq was involved in international terrorism targeting the United States? So why exactly would "false warnings" about Iraq decrease President Bush's credibility in their eyes?
It wouldn't and it doesn't. But isn't it fun to drop the phrase into even the most tangentially related contexts? What? It's going to rain tomorrow? Must be President Bush's false warnings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
UPDATE: Also, French intelligence.
