That’s Another
Outraged Moderate got hold of Steven Cambone’s handwritten notes of his meeting with Donald Rumsfeld from the afternoon of September 11, 2001. The notes confirm CBS News’ report of September 4, 2002 that, at that meeting, Rumsfeld was already thinking of using the atrocities as an excuse to go to war with Iraq. It’s important to stress: Rumsfeld is not wondering if Iraq did it; he’s wondering if it can look enough like Iraq did it to pin the blame there.
It can’t be stressed enough: the Pentagon was aflame; there was smoke pouring from a hole in the Pennsylvania fields and the World Trade Center complex was belching its ghastly cloud, and already our rulers were thinking not, who is to blame? but what can we get away with? What will the still-bubbling fat of the murdered serve to cook?
In any event, mark this down as one more instance where the most dire MSM(TM) reporting on the Administration’s war policy gets confirmed in time.
Comment by fred —
February 25, 2006 @ 5:43 pm
Dude, Saddam should have been taken out in 1991. Or at any time afterwards. He was shooting missles at our (US and Brit) airplanes all the time.
You don’t let a rattlesnake live next door just because he hasn’t yet bitten your kid.
Comment by Jim Henley —
February 25, 2006 @ 6:13 pm
fred, are you being satirical?
Comment by Frank —
February 25, 2006 @ 6:23 pm
Jim- I read your blog every day. This isn’t why I read it: ”What will the still-bubbling fat of the murdered serve to cook?”, but it would be a good enough reason to if I needed another. Thanks
Comment by ken —
February 25, 2006 @ 8:29 pm
What right, other than might, did those US and British warplanes have to fly over Iraqi airspace?
You are all upset that Saddam occasionally took a potshot at warplanes violating his country’s airspace?
Comment by rea —
February 25, 2006 @ 8:36 pm
”He was shooting missles at our (US and Brit) airplanes all the time”
You might take note that he never managed to hit one.
If your kid is bitten by a rabid bat in your attic, you don’t ignore the bat and use the incident as an excuse to go try to exterminate the fangless, senile rattlesnake down the street . . .
Pingback by a crank’s progress » a pungent phrase —
February 25, 2006 @ 9:41 pm
[...] 2/25/2006 a pungent phrase Filed under: observations — paul @ 6:40 pm That’s Another § Unqualified Offerings: [A]t that meeting [on the afternoon of 9/11 [...]
Comment by Naten Mackall (Negusnagast —
February 25, 2006 @ 9:43 pm
Hi Jim just holla back. I’ve always thought you were a pretty cool guy but dammn. Can you say White man’s burden. I knew waaaay back in December of 2001 that Bush his cronies of clusterf&*$% were bad news and then some. What gets to me and although I never forget where you stood and stand is this: There was no doing it ”right” you of course defend you and yours no doubt but to imply that if only we had done it my way: like a surgeon and not like slashy Mc Slasher things would be better because of the ”sympathy and fear after the fall of Afganistan that we enjoyed” guess what bub I don’t think fear and sympathy is something that should be enjoyed amongst us humans not if we want to stay of the light. It’s Feb2006 and you warmongers won’t let it go. It’s like a drug and I say go Cold turkey. I still like you Mr. Henley but sometimes your jingo shows. Be not afraid and by the same token try not to make others afraid of you that’s how things get blown the hell up. Cases in point Iraq ,Afganistan, Pakistan, England, Spain, Jordan,and even us. Peace man and I do mean peace.
Comment by Gary Farber —
February 25, 2006 @ 10:48 pm
”In any event, mark this down as one more instance where the most dire MSM(TM) reporting on the Administration’s war policy gets confirmed in time.”
I’ve seen several blogs trumpeting this ”news” and I’m once again puzzled at why something that was quite well reported years ago, and confirmed over and over again over the years, is said to be news and again ”confirmed.” What’s up with that? Since when was there any doubt?
These notes have been reported in book after book, in hundreds of articles after articles, for years. They’re in the bleeding 9/11 Commission Report. Did something think they were all lying?
”gets confirmed in time.”
Dude, it was endlessly confirmed years ago.
I don’t get it.
Comment by Gary Farber —
February 25, 2006 @ 10:51 pm
”Comment by Naten Mackall”
Who is this guy talking to, or about? Obviously not Jim. Did he write his comment on the wrong blog tab, or something?
”It’s Feb2006 and you warmongers won’t let it go. It’s like a drug and I say go Cold turkey. I still like you Mr. Henley but sometimes your jingo shows.”
Okay, just great drugs, I guess. Can I have some?
Comment by Gary Farber —
February 25, 2006 @ 11:00 pm
Just to be clear.
Comment by Jim Henley —
February 25, 2006 @ 11:54 pm
Gary, I think Naten is arguing that since I supported military intervention in Afghanistan, however hesitantly, the ”warmonger” label fits. You could call this either a foolish purity on his part or a rigorous consistency. Eric the .5B, who hangs out here sometimes, is famously scornful of Afghanistan doves, but I’m not. I think on balance they were wrong, but not absurdly so. And the same ”salami-slicing” arguments that I’ve applied to Iraq hawks can be applied to someone like me. So can, given that Osama and Zawahiri still run free, my arguments that you can’t support the war you’d *like* to fight if it’s foreseeably not the war you’re going to get.
Comment by Nell —
February 26, 2006 @ 10:47 am
Gary, at first I shared your reaction to the widespread treatment of the ’sweep it all up’ notes as something new. But lately I’ve been noticing all over the place (not just among former Bush supporters, though most notably there) facts long known taking on new vividness as people abandon certain assumptions or lose the willingness to give the benefit of doubt.
It points to a whole complex psychological ’figure and ground’ phenomenon. I don’t pretend to understand it fully, but I’m impressed with its strength.