a berlin blog
|
a berlin blog |
|
|
Thursday, March 25, 2004 Clarke AgonistesDaniel Drezner has a sober-minded summary of the Richard Clarke uproar. Conrad at the Gweilo Diaries adds a remark or two, though I wish he would learn to spell. The basic line is that Clarke makes a strong and credible critic; but the Bush administration can and should fight back by wearing out the argument that a war on terrorism is a war, dammit, not a criminal investigation, and that the larger project is to re-make the Middle East, starting with failed states like Iraq.This argument sounds weaker every day. I agree the war on terrorism is a war; I also know dictators, poverty, and madrassahs breed terrorists. But Clarke's most damaging point is that Iraq was the wrong war. Saddam had almost nothing to do with September 11, even less than I thought last year: He was just the easiest dictator for Bush to nab. That, um, falls short of great statesmanship. After Afghanistan, we should have moved on to the ugly problem of Saudi Arabia. It's a symptom of everything the White House tries to hide that one of its proud achievements since 2001 is that "Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are now [our] allies in the war on terror." Oh? If more people read about Pakistani and Saudi involvement in September 11, I think Stephen Hadley, second in command at the NSC, would not be so glib about the alliance on national TV. posted by Michael Scott Moore | 4:48 PM | |
|
|
 Too Much of Nothing, a novel  Politics and Prose  about our editor 
The Underground Grammarian  current Berlin blog page  |
