Yesterday, while snuffling through her head cold, my friend Judith was complaining on the phone about the depressing choice facing her in the upcoming US presidential elections, even (especially) as an ex-pat American. We know that every last vote counts. Like a lot of us 'Bloggish types, she wants a leader who will push for sound economic management and a robust response to global terror. Sadly, Tony Blair is not an option. Looking at Bush and Kerry I can understand her difficulty in making a choice. Oliver Kamm can't.
I don't always agree with Oliver Kamm, but I usually like the way he reasons and writes. His site is serious and unshowy, but it has made a big impact in its short time online. This post of his from Friday appeared in the Times. In it, he argues that liberals should support Bush. It's not very good. I'm not saying that just because I disagree with it. Kamm offers insufficient evidence to condemn Kerry in the way he wants to and the weakness of his prosecution is betrayed by hype and bluster. Laban Tall enthuses, I think rightly, about Stephen K's God Save the Queen, but, puzzlingly, also recommends Kamm's thin essay. Tall writes:
“As usual, Oliver is Olympian, measured, full of historical references, lovely style. If that guy went to a State school I'll eat my copy of 'Adventures of Aeneas'.”
Call me a narg, but I prefer political arguments to rest on facts as well as allusions and rhetoric. I suspect that Laban Tall is correct, though, and Oliver Kamm has never seen the inside of a comprehensive. In his boosting of Bush, Kamm's presentation is what you could call “coached for Oxbridge entrance”: if you haven't swotted up sufficiently to answer a given question, hide behind imperious phrase-making. It's appropriate that, in his latest post, (as well as resorting to the clichés “lost by a landslide”, “crushing defeat”, and “the applause … was long and loud”) Kamm criticizes Lindsey German for “a massive non sequitur“. Kamm's case against Kerry contains non sequiturs that would embarrass even a schoolboy bluffer:
“Liberal internationalism envisages an order founded on constitutional democratic principles. It stands, as Woodrow Wilson declared in 1917, “for the rights of nations great and small and the privilege of men everywhere to choose their way of life and of obedience”. It advocates maintaining peace through collective security and non-discriminatory trade.
“John Kerry is no inheritor of this tradition. His foreign policy reveals a conservative pessimism about the limits of political action (a stance that will be familiar to Michael Portillo from his service in a Government that declined to confront Serb aggression against Bosnia). Kerry's distaste for American exceptionalism runs deep. Lawrence Kaplan recently recorded in the American political journal The New Republic that when, in 1997, President Clinton described the United States as the “indispensable nation”, Kerry retorted, “Why are we adopting such an arrogant, obnoxious tone?””
If the quote is accurate and misses no important context then the remark Kamm cites provides no support for Kamm's assertion whatsoever. Kerry explicitly criticized the way Clinton sounded, not the truth of what Clinton said. In fact, Kerry asked (and asks) a perfectly reasonable question: “The World knows that we carry a big stick; why do we not speak softly?”
In this war, intelligence is our best weapon and the goodwill of bystanders is worth the pretence of modesty. Bush's, surely unintentional, use of the word “crusade” in referring to the War on Terror, for example, cost us dearly. Cruise missiles are expensive, but (public) tact is cheap. Here is Kamm's preferred candidate for 2004, George W. Bush, in debate with Gore in 2000:
“They ought to look at us as a country that understands freedom where it doesn't matter who you are or where you're from that you can succeed. I don't think they ought to look at us with envy. It really depends upon how [our] nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. Our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that's why we've got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. We're a freedom-loving nation. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're humble nation, they'll respect us.”
Here is a picture of a parakeet. Whoops—this non sequitur thing is catching.
If we look at the other half of Kamm's summary of Wilsonianism, Kerry, so far, has said foolish things about free trade, but Bush has made more foolish, and more damaging, decisions.
Time for some more Kamm (or perhaps that should be “some more hysteria”):
“No more facile remark has been uttered about the Iraq war than John Kerry's lament that it diverted the focus of the War on Terror. Overthrowing Baathist totalitarianism was a humanitarian cause, but it also buttressed Western security. Recent academic research suggests that—contrary to numerous confident episcopal assertions—the “root cause” of terrorism is not poverty but political repression.”
At the very least, this is hyperbole. Off the top of my head, I can think of half-a-dozen more facile remarks that have been “uttered” about the Iraq war. Even Kamm can manage two:
“By some margin the most facile argument of the anti-war campaigners—I heard it, unsurprisingly, from Shirley Williams, Liberal Democrat leader in the House of Lords—was that containment of Saddam worked, as containment of the Soviet Union had worked, and that we should continue to rely upon it.”
“…facile analogy (Iraq is the new Vietnam etc.) comes naturally to those who wish to beat up on the President without engaging in the tiresome business of critical inquiry.”
That tiresome business of critical inquiry has proved a little too tiresome this time, but, as my legally minded sister would put it, perhaps Kamm knows something we don't about what the “root cause” fallacy has to do with the price of cheese. (I'd blame the second jump in logic I quote on bad subbing if I hadn't taken it directly from Kamm's own Webpages.) Here is Kerry, quoted in a negative article in the Weekly Standard, which at least has the patience and decency to give his words in full—and counter them with some substance:
“I don't fault George Bush for doing too much in the war on terror, as some do. I believe that he's done too little and done some things that he didn't have to. When the focus of the war on terror was appropriately in Afghanistan and on breaking al Qaeda, President Bush shifted his focus to Iraq and to Saddam Hussein. He pushed away our allies at a time when we needed them the most. He hasn't pursued a strategy to win the hearts and minds of people around the world, and win the war of ideas against the radical ideology of Osama bin Laden.”
Nothing there to justify Kamm's detour into sociology, just a boringly sensible complaint about resource allocation, international relations, and propaganda.
The danger of lost focus has always struck me as being one of the most powerful arguments against the war in Iraq. The war has stretched the US and UK military; it has been enormously unpopular with otherwise (foolishly) indifferent powers; it has put stockpiles of previously hidden weaponry into circulation.
All of these results are less important than the consequent improvement in the lives of the Iraqis, but all of them were predictable and predicted, and all of them are bad for western security in a struggle in which reserves of strength, access to information, and continued disarmament of our enemies should be priorities. Bush was right to fight, but the results were always going to be a problem for those—like me, like Kerry—who believe fundamentalist terrorism to be the biggest current threat to global security.
I used to think that Oliver Kamm's 'Blog had only one real weakness: it intermittently indulged superstition. Why does such a sharp mind blunt itself picking apart the weavings of the Pope and other celebrities of the world of revelation-over-reason? (It's his 'Blog and his mind—he can write about what he wants to.) Why is its lively skepticism flattened by “pricing mechanisms”? (This is more pseudoscience than pure faith—the word “mechanism” a mark of physics envy.) Why does it sell and re-sell a WMD argument for war with Saddam, as speculative and superfluous as a coursebook in Dianetics, both before and after the war? (I supported our intervention on more substantial grounds.) Recently, Kamm's establishment seems to be suffering from a new problem: the proprietor hasn't been paying enough attention to the quality of his material.
A recent post from the relatively obscure God Save The Queen contains the same quote about American exceptionalism, appears in the same discreet colours and fonts, but is both more interesting and persuasive. In a couple of places it's funny too. I'll be visiting Oliver Kamm from time to time because it's a damned fine 'Blog, but I'm going to be following the the newcomer more closely from now on.
[…] settled down into a reasonably good natured discussion about my being an irritated fan and the difficulty of inferring foreign policy intentions from campaign rhetoric. Over on the c […]
[…] on their excellent work with Britney and to Oliver Kamm on making a better case for Bush (this time) and on re-making the best case for the second war on Saddam, namely that the first one was s […]
As you know, I love your blog, so it’s a shame that my first comment hereon is to be “Bollocks!”
First, you’re being exceedingly literal-minded about Kerry’s use of the word “tone” — more so, I suspect, than Kerry would be. I’ll let that one pass, because everyone could argue about it all day without getting anywhere, but remember that a lot of politics is about what you don’t say. When Clinton calls America “the indispensible nation” and Kerry critices the statement (on any grounds), Kerry is making it clear that he disagrees with the facts of what Clinton has said. If he agreed, he would say that he agreed.
“Overthrowing Baathist totalitarianism was a humanitarian cause, but it also buttressed Western security. Recent academic research suggests that—contrary to numerous confident episcopal assertions—the “root cause” of terrorism is not poverty but political repression.”
I see no non-sequitur there. Terrorism threatens Western security. Terrorism is caused by political repression. Overthrowing a tyrant therefore reduces terrorism and therefore increases Western security. Where’s this logic jump you mention?
Third, mentioning anything Bush said in 2000 is pretty much immaterial, as Kamm has said before that Bush was a fairly useless candidate and a fairly useless president prior to 9/11, and Bush himself has made it clear that his post-9/11 policies are totally unrelated to his pre-9/11 policies.
Since Kerry has taken care to take both sides of pretty much every argument at different times, there is surely always a Kerry quote available to contradict anything anyone ever says, Kerry included. He certainly does fault George Bush for doing too much in the War on Terror, whatever he may have said in that quote. In this speech, he made it clear he would replace the War with diplomatic schmoozing. He also famously said that the War is a law-enforcement issue and that he’d replace anti-terrorist military action with policing.
And, finally, we all know what Kamm meant when he said “the most facile”. Of course you can trawl people’s writing whenever they use a superlative to see whether they’ve ever used it before and whether their use of it is logically consistent, but it’s hardly an argument.
Cheers.
When Clinton calls America “the indispensible nation” and Kerry critices the statement (on any grounds), Kerry is making it clear that he disagrees with the facts of what Clinton has said.
No.
Trivially: if you say “Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man” and I say “I wouldn’t put it quite like that” we are not necessarily in disagreement about Mr Moore.
I see no non-sequitur there. Terrorism threatens Western security. Terrorism is caused by political repression.
Kerry agrees with you:
Americans deserve a principled diplomacy…backed by undoubted military might… A bold progressive internationalism that focuses not just on the immediate and imminent, but insidious dangers that can mount over the next years and decade, dangers that span the spectrum from the denial of democracy, to destructive weapons…”
The question in hand was not whether or not our fighting the Iraq war has struck a blow against terrorism, but whether or not the prosecution of that war has interfered with our ability to strike blows against terror elsewhere. Kamm did not answer the latter question by addressing the former.
Third, mentioning anything Bush said in 2000 is pretty much immaterial, as Kamm has said before that Bush was a fairly useless candidate and a fairly useless president prior to 9/11, and Bush himself has made it clear that his post-9/11 policies are totally unrelated to his pre-9/11 policies.
Since Kerry has taken care to take both sides of pretty much every argument at different times, there is surely always a Kerry quote available to contradict anything anyone ever says, Kerry included.
Exactly. My point is not that we should support Kerry, but that Kamm’s criticism of Kerry is weak. It is weak at least in part because we have insufficient information to form a judgement. Kamm does not provide us with any more, but does not hesitate to tell us what conclusions we should draw. Complaining about Kerry's inconsistency is a different matter.
And, finally, we all know what Kamm meant when he said “the most facile”. Of course you can trawl people’s writing whenever they use a superlative to see whether they’ve ever used it before and whether their use of it is logically consistent, but it’s hardly an argument.
It’s exactly the sort of abuse of language Kamm has rightly attacked himself repeatedly and it is exactly the sort of argument used by Eve Garrard in her deserved criticism of Amnesty, for example. Mine is a jokey ‘Blog, but Kamm’s is not. If you are going to be serious about grave matters, you can’t pick and choose when people should take you at your word.
“Trivially: if you say “Michael Moore is a big fat stupid white man” and I say “I wouldn’t put it quite like that” we are not necessarily in disagreement about Mr Moore.”
I absolutely agree. But we’re not politicians. Politicians are constantly aware of the impression their words give, and they choose their stances carefully. It’s like the way that when a diplomat says “We had a very constructive discussion,” what he really means is “We hate each other and achieved nothing.” When a politician attacks a statement made by another politician, he is sending the message to his listeners that he is on the other side of the argument. I agree that it would be brilliant if they spoke like normal people and meant what they really said (one of the reasons I like Dubya), but they generally don’t.
“Kerry agrees with you”
On some days, yeah, I’m sure he does. But that’s beside the point. All I was saying was that I see no non-sequitur in the Kamm paragraph you quoted. You can disagree with Oliver about what he’s saying, of course — I often do — but that paragraph is clear and succinct and doesn’t contain the giant leap of logic that you claim it does. The sentences are related to each other. The last bit contradicts (in Kamm’s opinion) the first bit. No non-sequitur.
“It is weak at least in part because we have insufficient information to form a judgement. Kamm does not provide us with any more, but does not hesitate to tell us what conclusions we should draw.”
Hmm. Yeah, you’re right that Kamm’s piece should really contain more Kerry quotes. I don’t read The Times, so don’t know, but I would hazard a guess that the piece might well have appeared as part of a Kerry spread, so more context could have been in other articles next to Kamm’s. Possibly.
“It’s exactly the sort of abuse of language Kamm has rightly attacked himself repeatedly”
Fair enough. I think that’s one of those things I tend to disagree with Kamm about — I don’t want to see language stultified by logic and think figues of speech are perfectly OK — but, yeah, it’s his petard, so hoist away.
Not bollocks, then. Perhaps just the one bollock.
If you thought blogs were getting a bit boring over the summer….
Read this and then look forward to the response….
Kamm supported Gore in 2000 and now claims he was wrong to have done so. After three years of Kerry he may well say the same of his intemperate diatribe and cliches about Kerry.
As usual Kamm has little to declare other than his own genius. His own reckoning of his intellect is vastly exaggerated, but that is a fault not rare in armchair pundits so it is a shame that a leading newspaper should allow his sloppy op/eds pagespace.
Damian,
If I inverted your remark that “Kamm offers insufficient evidence to condemn Kerry in the way he wants to” I would arrive at “Counsell offers insufficient evidence to praise Kerry in the way he wants to” – notably, in light of your remark that “Bush was right to fight, but the results were always going to be a problem for those—like me, like Kerry—who believe fundamentalist terrorism to be the biggest current threat to global security.”
Of course I don’t mistrust your self-assessment, but on what grounds do you find a likemindedness in Kerry? The extended quotation of Kerry you took from the Weekly Standard certainly does not suggest the sentiment which you ascribe to him.
The burden of your piece, clearly, is to expose what in your view is weak in Kamm – not make the case for Kerry. But in my mind it’s very much an open question whether Kerry views Islamism as a unique threat requiring tragic choices between bad and worse, or a conflict wherein key decisions ought to be mortgaged to the raison d’Etat of nominal “allies” – sorry, wherein “diplomacy” ought to be paramount.
If I inverted your remark that “Kamm offers insufficient evidence to condemn Kerry in the way he wants to” I would arrive at “Counsell offers insufficient evidence to praise Kerry in the way he wants to”
If you inverted my remark it would be irrelevant to a piece that begins with my agreeing that the choice between Bush and Kerry is a difficult one—hardly an endorsement for Kerry. You can read here the admission I made some hours before your comment that there is indeed insufficient evidence for me to praise Kerry in public. I wrote it because a pro-Kerry correspondent was interested, not because my earlier post required it.
Of course I don’t mistrust your self-assessment, but on what grounds do you find a likemindedness in Kerry?
I don't—except insofar as he views fundamentalist terror as the greatest threat to western security.
The extended quotation of Kerry you took from the Weekly Standard certainly does not suggest the sentiment which you ascribe to him.
I agree. It doesn't. On his campaign's “Foreign Policy” page under the title “Priorities”, the headings are, in order: “Promoting American Security in the 21st Century”, “Securing Afghanistan” and “Winning the Peace in Iraq”. That seems reasonable to me. Also, as this unfortunate headline implies, Kerry prioritizes intelligence. I, and my better informed American friends have pushed and pushed this line since long before it was fashionable to do so and continue to do so now that it is in a sense, too late. I mention these as relevant facts, not by way of promoting Kerry as the next Commander-in-Chief. If you can quote him more recently dismissing fundamentalist terrorism as a lesser concern then I will no longer find that likemindedness.
The burden of your piece, clearly, is to expose what in your view is weak in Kamm – not make the case for Kerry. But in my mind it’s very much an open question whether Kerry views Islamism as a unique threat requiring tragic choices between bad and worse, or a conflict wherein key decisions ought to be mortgaged to the raison d’Etat of nominal “allies” – sorry, wherein “diplomacy” ought to be paramount.
It is also a deeply important question to which no one outside Kerry's circle knows the answer at the moment, I suspect. I happen to believe that Kerry will not—or, perhaps, would not in office be allowed to—“mortgage” important decisions to the interests of other nations.
Because I don't have enough data to support that belief solidly, because the Kerry administration would likely be defined by events (as Bush's was) and by his appointees to “the great offices of state”, and because I have a professional fondness for scientific approaches, I'm not going to deliver a pompous lecture claiming to know things I don't, drawing conclusions I can't, and then tell others how to act on those conclusions. I do gags here usually.
Damian,
You seem to have misunderstood my first point of criticism, which redounded to your reply to it, as well as your second rejoinder; you partially quoted me, but left out the phrase which qualified what I was asserting – namely, “… [Kerry believes] fundamentalist terrorism to be the biggest current threat to global security.” That point is the one of which I’m not convinced – with or without the evidence you have cited. Or put differently, I’m not convinced of Kerry’s moral seriousness when it comes to the threat.
Why? Because of his stand vis-a-vis Iraq. Though in my view it’s a mistaken position, it’s perfectly possible to be tough as nails against Islamism and view the invasion of Iraq as a distraction from the pressing business at hand. But Kerry, having done his part to “authorize” the invasion, centers his criticism on the undue alienation of allies.
But that’s preposterous. Anyone acquainted with the history of the game of chess played with and over Iraq in the UNSC in the ’90’s would have to believe that the chance of getting Russia, France, and China “on board” for a possible invasion of Iraq would have a probability somewhere between slim and none. This is all depressingly documented by an eye-witness, Richard Butler (former head of UNSCOM), in his book The Greatest Threat: Iraq, Weapons of Mass Destruction, and the Crisis of Global Security, originally published in 2000.
Kerry’s allusions to the allegedly good old days when the U.S. stood in good standing with the outside world is apparently in reference to the climate of relations during Clinton’s eight years. But Clinton and Co. couldn’t get anywhere with the UNSC over Iraq – a fact that led to “Operation Desert Fox” being a mere few days’ worth of bombing; and almost certainly took a “unilateral” invasion of Iraq off the table.
This whole business of “failed diplomacy” is a red herring; to the extent that it has any plausibility, it cuts just as much the other way – why aren’t those who stubbornly refused to be convinced by the plain facts of Iraq’s perpetual instransigence to blame?!
Hence, that Kerry’s point of critical focus is diplomacy – rather than steeling us for tough, possibly lonely days ahead – is, to say the least, not especially comforting to me; and I wonder how he can meaningfully be taken to will ends if he lacks the cajones to will the means.
I think Kamm makes a very good case for a “liberal” (in the modern sense) to support Bush over Kerry. It is done in a quirky style but he does make his point rather well. It is obviously something that he has spent time thinking about. With the greatest respect, Pootergeek, this post of yours is pedantic.
I’m not convinced of Kerry’s moral seriousness when it comes to the threat.
Why? Because of his stand vis-a-vis Iraq. Though in my view it’s a mistaken position, it’s perfectly possible to be tough as nails against Islamism and view the invasion of Iraq as a distraction from the pressing business at hand. But Kerry, having done his part to “authorize” the invasion, centers his criticism on the undue alienation of allies.
Now this is the kind of thoughtful criticism of Kerry that might have lifted Kamm's article above the level of name-calling. It depends, however, on whether you believe that Kerry's criticism represents a sincere concern for the United States' standing in the World or a sincere concern for distancing himself from Bush and winning votes. It's nearly impossible to pick up any signals about this through the noise of the campaign trail.
As you rightly say, there was next to no chance that, given their involvement in Iraq, the members of the Security Council would have come round to supporting a second resolution. (This, by the way, is another problem with certain WMD arguments.) Whatever he has said since, Kerry voted against an alternative resolution to Bush’s. That alternative resolution would have required Security Council approval before authorizing the President to go to war. So, insofar as we can pin him down on anything, we can say that your implication that Kerry wanted us to get Russia, China and France “on board” does not apply to his actions, at least.
Both before and after the beginning of full military action, members of Bush's administration alienated other nations (including the United Kingdom) quite unnecessarily. To the extent that his words at the stump mean anything, and in the context of his voting record, Kerry is quite right to criticize Bush for this. Ironically, Kamm's justified attack on Bush's diplomatic failures is one of the stronger parts of his essay.
This whole business of “failed diplomacy” is a red herring; to the extent that it has any plausibility, it cuts just as much the other way – why aren’t those who stubbornly refused to be convinced by the plain facts of Iraq’s perpetual instransigence to blame?!
Hence, that Kerry’s point of critical focus is diplomacy – rather than steeling us for tough, possibly lonely days ahead – is, to say the least, not especially comforting to me
Is Kerry's “critical point of focus” diplomacy? Or, given that he supported “lonely” unilateral US action, and formally rejected any requirement for UN approval, is it just his critical point of difference with Bush?
Again, I really don't know the answers to these questions. I wish it was possible to have a calm (no pun intended), non-partisan discussion about them. Thank you for contributing to what might turn into one.
Andrew,
Consider me an irritated fan of Kamm's. It's like marking the dissertation of a student who is obviously more talented in some area of study than you'll ever be, all the while smiling and nodding, and then coming across a passage full of howlers.
I agree that Kamm gives the impression of having thought hard about the questions, but advocacy is about getting your thoughts out of your own head and into other people's. When it addresses directly the question of why liberals should vote for Bush and not for Kerry, Kamm's post, like your comment, consists largely of unsupported opinion. I welcome your opinion (and others) even if you aren't here to persuade. Kamm's essay, however, sets out to but does not persuade this liberal (and others) that George W. Bush is worthy of our support. The instances of showy language and broken logic don't help.
The lapses in the piece are all the more annoying for the interesting thoughts around them. It lurches from insights obviously gained through serious reflection to silly polemic. Reading it, I could almost picture Kamm in his locked laboratory wrestling with his other self. Pointing out that an otherwise often superb commentator has failed in his implied aim is not pedantry; it's quality control.
Sorry Damian, you have a few superficial points, but your own fallacy is attributing conviction to anything that comes out of Kerry’s mouth (or any other politician’s, but his so much more so than others). The man does not have any opinions of his own, he merely asseses what he believes his current audience’s opinions are and gives them what he thinks they want to hear. I disagreed with Kamm as well, but in his claim that Bush caused all of the current trans-atlantic animosity. Bush could not have courted the old worlders more, he went to the UN hat-in-hand and got an unanimous resolution……which several nations promptly reneged upon when the check was due. They never intended to follow through in the first place, which goes deep into the feeling of dishonesty and betrayal really pushing it on this end. We didn’t ask anyone else to do any heavy lifting other than Britain, and we got nothing but greif over it from those who weren’t going to participate in the least regardless, and back-alley oil payments are now the obvious motive. We – and Bush – got the shit end of the propaganda stick on the whole issue. As for terrorism increasing……other than Madrid it hasn’t been increasing anywhere but in the Middle East itself. That was kinda one of the major reasons you were supposed to be able to figure out for yourself – put the fight on their home-front not ours – but which couldn’t be voiced in public because skittish allied arab govts (Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, etc.) would have to publically distance themselves from us instead of tacitly helping rid the neighborhood of the local bully (see SY’s new “50 worst neighbors” program). You talk of the delicacy of public discourse, but fail to realise that diverting attention from the REAL motivators for the Iraq War was exactly that sort of delicacy, the whole thing could not have been pulled off without allied arab help. But it’s a common mistake, we westerners typically think we know it all, and take what gets pundited and reported on faith far too much. The WMD issue only got pounded because it would be detrimental to Bush if it was pounded often enough, regardless of the accuracy of the charge. You yourself refer to the fact that they are now “on the market”, yet a paragraph later say the rationale was “superfluous”. Which is it?
“The WMD issue only got pounded because it would be detrimental to Bush if it was pounded often enough, regardless of the accuracy of the charge. You yourself refer to the fact that they are now “on the market”, yet a paragraph later say the rationale was “superfluous”. Which is it?”
The weapons I referred to as being “on the market” are not WMD. Unfortunately, the article I linked to is now subscriber-only, but here is a quote:
A million AKs is chump change, an AK can be had for 50 bucks anywhere from sub-saharan Africa to Pakistan. I own one myself. They don’t have a million hands to put AKs into, so anything above a certain number and the quantity is meaningless. The ambient black market supply, without Saddam’s arms, was well above that threshold (thank you very much CCCP, and I really mean that. I truly love my Romanian clone). They are getting a small-arms discount, annoying but hardly a strategic windfall. The anti-air missiles are of a little more concern, of course, but their is quite a broad-based agreement that what WMD Saddam DID have ended up in the Bekaa Valley, he had plenty of time to play hide and seek in any event. I think the Jordanians would be in whole-hearted disagreement that “there weren’t any”, seeing as they waylaid a considerable amount of VX crossing the Syrian border. But look on the bright side, it could have been crossing the English Channel instead. But the perpetrators were a bit too tied up with local concerns to bother doing that, which again was one of the major reasons for the war.
Stand Back Chaps
It’s a truth universally acknowledged that a relatively new blogger needs attention if his blog is to attract readers. How does he get it though…
[…] Regular readers here know that I had little time for the argument that “we” should invade Iraq because Saddam Hussein had a strategic arsenal trained on Hoxton hidden under his various country homes. It’s been said that I’ve been quite rude about people who signed up too confidently for certain types of WMD-related bollocks, but not as rude as I have been about the ricotta-brained tossers who talk about Saddam Hussein being tragically misunderstood, while their organically-grown twins, Muji and Monsoon, run around laying waste to the Early Learning Centre. Instead, I cleaved to (what will one day be known as) the Berlinski position, that is I didn’t care if George W. Bush wanted to overthrow the Ba’athists because he didn’t like the cut of their uniforms, as long as he did it as soon as possible. […]