Crackpot Watch

It's hard in many ways to express exactly how deeply crackpottery has bored into America's discourse over national security. Take, for example, Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy. The good news is that most of the stuff they publish isn't nearly as crazy as the column calling for the nuclear destruction of Iraq followed by Bush installing himself as a military dictator. That said, a good deal of it isn't that much less unhinged. Caroline Glick, for example, wrote yesterday not merely that she disagrees with Mohammed ElBarredei's approach to non-proliferation policy, but that he has deliberately "used his power to facilitate the proliferation of nuclear energy for military purposes." Her key piece of evidence for this claim was a breathtaking bit of up-is-downism:

Take Iraq for example. Right up to the US-British invasion of Iraq in March 2003, ElBaradei consistently maintained that he either couldn't tell if Iraq was or was not pursuing nuclear weapons, or that he could see no evidence that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear weapons. Indeed, just before the war, in an effort to scuttle US-British efforts to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution approving the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime, ElBaradei reported to the Security Council that Iraq had abandoned its nuclear weapons program.

Needless to say, the reason ElBarredei shifted over time from "it's uncertain" to "there's no evidence" to "there's no program" is that there was no program, as became clear the more the IAEA learned about the situation in Iraq. This appeared not on some random person's website, but in a daily newspaper, The Jerusalem Post, written by the senior fellow for Middle East affairs of a think tank that boasts an endorsement from the Vice President of the United States.

Comments

This is a perfect example of the "deluded faction" in action. Scary and dangerous. The mainstreaming of the extreme.

John Rogers of Kung Fu Monkey has a great post about the crazification factor of American politics. 27% of the American voting public is certifiably crazy. Chew on the consequences of that.
Poli Sci Departments need to adjust. Rational choice theory is out. Crazification theory is in.
http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2007/01/repost-crazification-factor.html

Posted by Northern Observer | August 29, 2007 11:05 AM

did you quote C Glick fairly? i think she's nuts, but her column continues after your quote to claim that Iraq had weapons (which she alleges ElBaradei knew about), but that it was dismantled and taken to Syria.

Of course, she provides no evidence for this, but isn't it necessary to cite why that's wrong before calling her unhinged? Again, I think she is in fact unhinged, but I'd like her claims more thoroughly refuted before calling her on it.

Posted by josh | August 29, 2007 11:25 AM

Re Dick Cheney's comment about the think tank
"I continue to follow the Center's products with interest. Their quality and timeliness is remarkable."
-------
That can be taken two different ways. hee hee

Posted by Don Williams | August 29, 2007 11:28 AM

did you quote C Glick fairly? i think she's nuts, but her column continues after your quote to claim that Iraq had weapons (which she alleges ElBaradei knew about), but that it was dismantled and taken to Syria.

I understand your complaint, a thorough debunking would be a good thing. The reason I see against it is because, from the outset, she is being disingenuous(possibly she is just a poor writer). She complains of ElBaradei saying there was no program, then back-tracking and saying some materials had been moved to Syria. The question at the time were 1) does Saddam have an active nuclear weapon program and 2) if so, how far along is it. The question was not whether or not he had certain dual-use technologies/materials(which he could have been using for their non-nuclear weapon developing use) or whether or not he HAD sought nuclear weapons, but whether or not he was actively developing them at the time(terrible sentence right there). She is indicting him based on answers to different questions. You are doing much the same thing by saying "Iraq had weapons" in the above quote. No one can honestly claim Iraq had nuclear weapons...dual-use technology and blueprints are not weapons. She is trying to muddle the debate by shifting terminology and pretending people are talking about things they are not. It is dishonest, and to thus try and do a thorough debunking are a waste of time.

Posted by Rambuncle | August 29, 2007 12:19 PM

With these radicalized Republicans its all about whose side are you on. For them it goes without saying that the U.S. is always right and the only question is whether you are doing what we want you to do or not.

Reality is a tertiary concern at best. Actually, what's the word for something that is your 3000th concern? That's the word I'm looking for.

Posted by Junius Brutus | August 29, 2007 12:28 PM

Glick is not known for her sanity.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | August 29, 2007 12:32 PM

You have to figure a good chunk of the bomb iran crowd are incensed that a "mohammed" is leading the investigation on Iran's nuclear program.

Posted by Nima | August 29, 2007 1:02 PM

Again, I think she is in fact unhinged, but I'd like her claims more thoroughly refuted before calling her on it.

While we're at it, let's also demand a more thorough refutation of the theory that space monkeys spirited the WMDs off to Mars. Unless you can prove that it didn't happen, you shouldn't mock.

Posted by Steve | August 29, 2007 1:06 PM

I agree with Brian Ulrich; I find Glick to be unhinged even compared to a number of other unhinged hawks.

My favourite quote from the article to which Matt links:
"Today Baradei and his IAEA are in open conflict with the US."

She's not to be outdone by those who say that Iran is already at war with the US, is she?

(As an aside, my all-time favourite Glick quote comes from another Jerusalem Post article, published in August of last year and objecting to the deployment of international forces to Lebanon (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?apage=1&cid=1154525803697&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull),
wherein the author condemns:
"the surrender of Israel's right to defend itself to some UN mandated multinational force made up of French dhimmis and Indonesian jihadists.")

Posted by Khaled | August 29, 2007 1:10 PM

I don’t see this sort of commentary by Glick as “crackpottery”.

Rather, it is part of a systematic and deliberate effort by the neocons to undermine the credibility of any agency or institution that stands in the way of their imperial designs in the Midddle East and elsewhere.

Look at the way they fulminate against, not only the IAEA, but also the UN, the International Court, even the French.

Posted by Justin X | August 29, 2007 3:21 PM

I don’t see this sort of commentary by Glick as “crackpottery”.
Rather, it is part of a systematic and deliberate effort by the neocons to undermine the credibility of any agency or institution that stands in the way of their imperial designs in the Midddle East and elsewhere.

I don't the neocon imperian plan and Glick being a crackpot as mutually exclusive.

Posted by M. Duss | August 29, 2007 3:26 PM

Try that again: I don't see the neocon imperian plan and Glick being a crackpot as mutually exclusive.

I've been reading her stuff for years, and the woman is a stark raving nutjob.

Posted by M. Duss | August 29, 2007 3:28 PM