Safire: I DO BELIEVE I DO BELIEVE I DO BELIEVE

with apologies to the Cowardly Lion:

I DO BELIEVE I DO BELIEVE I DO BELIEVE I DO BELIEVE I DO BELIEVE I DO BELIEVE I DO BELIEVE I DO BELIEVE I DO BELIEVE I DO BELIEVE I DO BELIEVE

Bill BELIEVES in WMD. Take a look, if you can, at today's, uh, column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/19/opinion/19SAFI.html

"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."

Uh, BILL... don't you BELIEVE that Saddam would have USED those weapons if he had them rather and run and hide in a spider hole?

And, uh, BILL, do you really BELIEVE that the Coward-in-Chief, a perpetual candidate for perpetual power would actually send soldiers into a situation where hundreds or thousands would be left dead in the sands of Iraq? That's something Rove could never, ever spin into victory.

Bush knew there was no such danger. He wouldn't have invaded if there was.

Oh, and BILL... the insurgents are not "Saddam's terrorists" and people who expose the lies of this phoney 'war' are not "defeatists". They're realists.

when I made my AM trip to TPM.

i always like it when Josh agrees with me! ;-)

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.

The party's over.

Since when are people trying to fight off people INVADING THEIR COUNTRY labeled "terrorists"? I dunno, in my book, doesn't that make them normal Iraqis who just don't like someone coming into their country and killing off their friends and family indiscriminantly?

Or is this just more evidence of labeling ALL dissentors as terrorists? :shrug:

these days.

this column is WAY over the top. be sure to check out Josh Marshall's comments too. (link in an earlier post)

I do believe in spooks
I do believe in spooks
I do I do I do I do I do I do I DO!


:evilgrin:

or I was going to have him clapping loud enough to bring the Tinkerbell of WMDs back to life....

;-)

Touche !!

:evilgrin:

or, nobody was interested....