Daniel Forbes: Judy Miller's Partisan Baggage (Another Angle)

YahooNews/Huff.Post ^ | 8-3-05 | Daniel Forbes

[Fedora]

"There is now no incentive for Hussein to comply with the inspectors or to refrain from using weapons of mass destruction to defend himself if the United States comes after him."

Thanks. So Wilson was indeed using Saddam's possession of WMD as an antiwar talking point at that time. Apparently this was reversed after Bush's SOTU when the new antiwar talking point became Saddam's non-possession of WMD. Consistency is evidently no barrier to propaganda for Joseph Wilson: for Wilson the end justifies the means, and the facts will be made to conform to the end. But, according to him, Bush is the Orwellian one who manipulates intelligence to generate a prearranged outcome. I believe Dr. Freud would call that projection. Maybe Joseph Wilson should change his last name to Goebbels.

[lugsoul]

And what makes that a 'good possibility?'

[Sam Hill]

The author is a pro-doper. He's probably a paid stooge of George Soros.

Salon Directory
http://dir.salon.com/topics/daniel_forbes/

[gusopol3]

but there's a good chance they won't

[GoLightly]

Chance was on first. ;o)

[AmishDude]

I only read three paragraphs and my head hurts. That was one of the most incoherant things I have read in a long time.

[Lancey Howard]

Thanks. So Wilson was indeed using Saddam's possession of WMD as an antiwar talking point at that time. Apparently this was reversed after Bush's SOTU when the new antiwar talking point became Saddam's non-possession of WMD.

"Antiwar", huh?
Did you see this op ed from Wilson, published Oct. 13, 2002 in the San Jose Mercury News?:

sss

(excerpt)

"You could argue—and some liberals have—that deterrence alone could work again now, and that neither war nor tough inspections are needed. But effective deterrence requires that world leaders issue ultimatums backed by the credible threat of force, which they have not been willing to do so far."

[Lancey Howard]

Thanks. So Wilson was indeed using Saddam's possession of WMD as an antiwar talking point at that time. Apparently this was reversed after Bush's SOTU when the new antiwar talking point became Saddam's non-possession of WMD.

"Antiwar", huh?
Did you see this op ed from Wilson, published Oct. 13, 2002 in the San Jose Mercury News?:

How Saddam Thinks

(excerpt)

"You could argue—and some liberals have—that deterrence alone could work again now, and that neither war nor tough inspections are needed. But effective deterrence requires that world leaders issue ultimatums backed by the credible threat of force, which they have not been willing to do so far."

[Fedora]

I did see that, but didn't recall that particular line; thanks for the quotation. I also remember that before Wilson wrote that, he had joined Marc Ginsberg's Alliance for American Leadership and at Ginsberg's arrangement was going around the talk show circuit representing the opposition to Iraq intervention. Very curious.

[Fedora]

As I'm rereading the whole article now, this part is also interesting:

An aggressive U.N.-sanctioned campaign to disarm Iraq—bolstered by a militarily supported inspection process—would combine the best of the U.S. and U.N. approaches, a robust disarmament policy with the international legitimacy the United States seeks. Secretary of State Colin Powell is pushing the Security Council to adopt such an approach.

But he will have to overcome French and Russian concerns that other harsh demands in the U.S.–British draft resolution leave Saddam little room to save face and avoid war.

One of the strongest arguments for a militarily supported inspection plan is that it doesn’t threaten Saddam with extinction, a threat that could push him to fight back with the very weapons we’re seeking to destroy. If disarmament is the goal, Saddam can be made to understand that only his arsenal is at stake, not his survival.

[STARWISE]

Concerns about Sadaam saving face ... DIPlomacy . .. sheesh.