|
Monday, November 10, 2003
Fish in a barrelJosh Marshall defends himself just fine against Andrew Sullivan's nonsense about the word "imminent," but I have one thing to add. Sullivan steers off course when he writes:
"The strongest argument of the anti-war crowd is that we now know that the WMD threat from Saddam was much less than almost everyone (including most of them) believed. They're right - at least from the evidence so far. But that doesn't resolve the question of what we should have done before the war, when we had limited knowledge and information. Josh implies we should have risked it, and kept Saddam in power, with fingers crossed."
No, no, no. The damning point is that Bush had good intelligence, but chose not to use it. Marshall and I were reluctant hawks before the war for separate reasons: He thought Saddam was a nuclear threat, I worried about Al Qaeda. It seems we both had bad intel, what with our low security clearances and all. Bush didn't.
posted by Michael Scott Moore |
9:28 AM
| 
