Derbyshire Award Nominee

This can't go over well with his colleagues on the Corner:

Second-lamest line (I am working here from Cheney's appearance on MTP yesterday): the one about how SH was so involved in terrorism, because he was paying money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. This is deeply unconvincing. Any secular-Arab dictator looking to do a little triangulation with the religious elements in his population & neighborhood would have done the same. And these folk were blowing themselves up in Israel, not the U.S.A. I don't approve of suicide bombers, in Israel or anywhere else, but to advance this as evidence that SH was hunkered down in conference with people planning attacks on the U.S.A. is, again, lame.

It's worth saying that, pre-war at least, this business about the suicide bombers was a kind of double-pronged ridiculously. On the one hand, we were supposed to believe that Saddam's bucks for martyrs was indication of a looming Baath/Qaeda terror threat against the United States. On the other hand, we were supposed to believe that Saddam's financial support was the key driver of Palestinian terrorism and that Palestinian terrorism was, in turn, the sole driver of the Arab-Israeli conflict. No more Saddam, and the whole problem would just go away. The road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad. Absurd. Just absolutely ignorant and absurd. And yet this kind of thinking has been the official basis of national policy for five years and will continue to be for years to come.

Comments

Protesting that Cheney's rationale is absurd is a bit absurd: he knows they're absurd. His words are merely meant to sound vaguely plausible and are waaay beyond perfuctory. He wouldn't address us at all if it were possible.

We're deep in a cross between Goya's "Sleep of Reason Breeds Monsters" and a Mafia style gov't.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 11, 2006 11:53 AM

No more Saddam, and the whole problem would just go away.

Jeez, talk about a straw man.

The road to Jerusalem runs through Baghdad.

Do you not understand the idea of "necessary but not sufficient"?

Posted by Al | September 11, 2006 12:02 PM

"Do you not understand the idea of "necessary but not sufficient"?"

Apparently better than you, given the essential triviality of Saddam's role in Palenstian terrorism. And by the way, what reason is there to believe that installing an Islamic quasi-state in Iraq will be a net negative for Palesnitian terrorism.

Posted by Scott Lemieux | September 11, 2006 1:07 PM

And by the way, what reason is there to believe that installing an Islamic quasi-state in Iraq will be a net negative for Palesnitian terrorism.

What reason is there to believe that an Islamic quasi-state has been installed in Iraq?

Posted by Al | September 11, 2006 1:24 PM

What reason is there to believe that an Islamic quasi-state has been installed in Iraq?

What reason is there to believe that Lemieux was referencing an already accomplished fact?

Hey, we can play the Idiots' Game all day! I call, "I know you are, but what am I, infinity plus one, no touchbacks," so I'm pretty much immunized from all future attacks.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 11, 2006 3:00 PM

One thing that Al is quite good at is challenging an unproven assertion while rhetorically implying hte opposite is the case, even when the opposite is practically indefensible.

For instance, here, it's not clear what form of state or failed state will emerge in Iraq. Al's response, though, is only material to the question at hand if he believes that the present and expected state of Iraq will be one with a major, positive impact on the Israel/Palestine conflict. That's a genuinely risible notion at this point, and so Al's smart enough not to state it, but argue on smaller, more defensible grounds while rhetorically implying the larger, more important, practically indefensible case.

Posted by DivGuy | September 11, 2006 3:20 PM

I should say that the above is also why I kinda like Al - his arguments, in and of themselves, are pretty darn good.

Posted by DivGuy | September 11, 2006 3:22 PM

"What reason is there to believe that an Islamic quasi-state has been installed in Iraq?"

I'd start with the facts that the Iraqi government is dominated by Islamists and does not have sufficient capacity to be called a "state" in any meaningful sense at all...

Posted by Scott Lemieux | September 11, 2006 3:46 PM

One thing that Al is quite good at is challenging an unproven assertion while rhetorically implying hte opposite is the case, even when the opposite is practically indefensible.

funny... i see it as attempting to win an argument by nipping at soft secondary points until the original thread is lost in pedantic bickering.

Posted by cleek | September 11, 2006 4:19 PM

I should say that the above is also why I kinda like Al - his arguments, in and of themselves, are pretty darn good.

Yes, he's an interesting character. He's a pure sociopath, but one with talents any authoritarian would immediately spot and make use of. For instance, if he'd been born in Iraq, Saddam would surely have snapped him right up to help run his propaganda ministry. People like Saddam can always find enough moronic cannon fodder, but people with the skillz and utter amorality of Al don't come along every day.

Posted by grh | September 11, 2006 4:23 PM

Cleek is right. Hijacking is his game, not winning arguments. About 10% of his comments are sort of interesting, but on the whole his virtues are tenacity and diligence.

I still believe that he's paid (not necessarily very much). He's sincere in his winger beliefs, I'm sure, but the automatic way he responds to everything, even if he doesn't have anything to say, leads me to believe that he's paid by the word or by the post. If he were posting for himself he'd have a little self-respect. I used to try to parody him, and it was hard because there's really no depth to which he will not sink.

I've suggested many times that he be banned. Without his presence, the rest of us might have an interesting discussion. With him here, no. (Hi, Scott! Hi, Tim!)

Ask him to do his little impression of George Soros as a vampire sucking the lifeblood of the third world. He's retired it recently, but it's a hoot. He didn't mention the poisoning wells part.

Posted by John Emerson | September 11, 2006 4:58 PM

Al's comments on basketball are brilliant and worth having to put up with his political propaganda.

Posted by MQ | September 11, 2006 7:52 PM

Derbyshire's kind of interesting. He is basically a sociopath and he's perfectly open about being a bigot, but he's very smart and he has a bit too much pride to regurgiate absurd lies.

Posted by Pithlord | September 11, 2006 11:30 PM

I should say that the above is also why I kinda like Al - his arguments, in and of themselves, are pretty darn good.

Actually this is why I kinda hate Al. He's a very intelligent guy, who doesn't have to be a liar. He chooses to be one.

Also, his basketball comments are generally pretty stupid.

Posted by JP | September 12, 2006 11:03 AM

The quality of comments are linked to their author's willingness to acknowledge their source. We're not yet to the stage where unpopular opinions can get you dead. Merely mocked. The Als (right and left) of this world are obviously embarrassed by their own opinions.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | September 12, 2006 11:24 AM

But we are at the stage where unpopular opinions can get you fired. So pseudonymity makes sense for some of us.

Posted by Pithlord | September 12, 2006 2:55 PM