Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal (2004)

His alternaweekly column wasn't called "Hill of Beans" for nothing.

Caldwell veers back-and-forth between honorable conservatism and right-wing nitwittery.

broadly speaking, war-enablers, desperate to recapture the political advantage, are willing to say essentially anything at this point....

Brad, expect a lot more of this stuff from the alleged 'grown-ups' on the right, as the election draws near. Given a choice between a Republican, no matter now incompetant, arrogant, foolish and corrupt, and a Democrat, these guys will take the Republican every time.

The Mohammed Atta / Saddam link in Czechia is still beng flogged too.

"more thematic than concrete"? What the hell is that? Osama is evil, Saddam is evil, therefore they are linked?

--"more thematic than concrete"? What the hell is that?--

It means, "Bush lied about their being a link."

The "advanced medical treatment" was supposed to have been a leg amputation. But it was news last month that captured Ansar al-Islam members had said that Zarqawi has two legs. (Sorry, I have the link, but won't look it up.) I understand that, if Zarqawi beheading Berg, he's active in doing so (I haven't watched it and won't), too. So, I wonder whether this "trip to Baghad for advanced medical treatment" is moving into the same category as the "mobile weapons labs" and "aluminum tubes for centrifuges" category: urban legend. We went to war for "The Mexican Pet."

We have also ascribed to Saddam a vast, finely-tuned security state when it seems entirely more likely that it was an oppressive state filled with all manner of corruption. Free passage and medical care for Zarqawi might have been more contingent on a fake identity and hard currency for bribes.

The FT needs to do better than this. It's not the Washington Times, after all.

FT is definitely not WT, but Caldwell is worse.
He writes for Weekly Standard and National Review; doesn't he? And I think he is Bob Novak's proud son-in-law.

The FT needs to do better than this. It's not the Washington Times, after all.

FT is definitely not WT, but Caldwell is worse.
He writes for Weekly Standard and National Review; doesn't he? And I think he is Bob Novak's proud son-in-law.

The other point is: Pentagon/CIA apparently had 2 or 3 chances to get Zarkawi before the war, but Bush WH vetoed it because they were afraid that their rationale for the war would go away.
(NBC news and Salon, via Kevin Drum and Josh Marshall)

And as for the claim that al-Zarqawi should remind us why we're in Iraq, we should also recall that according to NBC, the White House had three opportunities to destroy his camps before the war, but decided not to because "[T]he administration feared [that] destroying the terrorist camp in Iraq could undercut its case for war against Saddam." (Quoted in Slate, http://slate.msn.com/id/2100549/ ; I've lost the original NBC link.)

Ehn, give 'em a break just this once. FT is usually exceptional (Baker, Stephens, etc.). If NYT can let Bill Safire rehash discredited reports from the Weekly Standard, I'm willing to let the occasional Caldwell stinkbomb slide through.

Someone needs to write a letter to the editor, FT,
pointing out 1) Zirqawi's operations were based in northern no fly zone, and 2) NBC report that the WH willingly let 3 chances to get him pass for the sake of its war agenda.

I too note that the advanced medical treatment was supposed to be a leg amputation (advanced compared to Mr Caldwell's world view perhaps). The claim that Zarqawi carried out the decapitation contradicts the claim that Zarqawi's leg was amputated in Baghdad or elsewhere. I haven't seen the film but they guy with the knife in stills has two legs.

What evidence is there that Zarqawi received medical care in Baghdad ? So far, I have heard of none. I suspect that this information came from Curveball's brother Sleazeball.

By the way, in "Plan of Attack" p 140 Woodward writes of CIA operatives working on anti Saddam Hussein covert operations "Tim's first though in the second week of July 2002 ... drive from Turkey into Iraq ... Winning permission from the Turks had required a half lie. The teams were esentially for counterterrorism, the CIA told the Turks, intending to focus on the threat from Ansar al Islam"
Then on p 141 "Tim's core mission was to begin to devlop an operational base for covert action to overthrow Saddam" The Turks however were watching until p 142 "Several weeks into the ordeal, the Turks got a call from their boss, ... Everubpdu pit ! So the minders left and Tim and hist team could start working on regime change"

I don't think that if the bothersome Turks hand't gotten that call, Nicholas Berg would still be alive.

If this is the fake Patrick Sullivan who put up that comment above: knock it off! The Internet is enough of a hall of mirrors already without that sort of cute (and shameful) deliberate deception.

As a British reader of the FT, I find Caldwell illuminating, in the same way as the Daily Telegraph is. What he writes is not true. But to know that it might be taken for true in Washington teaches something that cannot otherwise be learned so vividly.

If Zarqawi was operating in an area not under Saddam's control, it may illustrate another point, one somebody here can hopefully clear up for me.

After '98, the no-fly zones and other measures reportedly had kicked Saddam effectively out of 2/3rds of Iraq--1/3rd in the south, and 1/3 in the Kurdish north, including the areas Zarqawi was operating in. This meant Saddam controlled mostly a central 1/3rd of Iraq before we invaded. How different was this area from the infamous "Sunni Triangle"? After the war, the hawks were saying "don't worry about this insurgency - it's all confined to the 'Sunni Triangle.'" But if the Sunni Triangle isn't all that different from the 1/3rd of Iraq Saddam controlled before the invasion, doesn't that mean that the only area of Iraq that was pissed at us was the only area we really liberated?

Can anyone clear this up? Thanks!

Online Casino Bonus

Non omne quod licet honestum est - Not everything that is permitted is honest. (Corpus Iuris Civilis)

Verba volant, (littera) scripta manet - Words fly away, the written (letter) remains

Non sequitur - It does not follow

Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur - Nobody should be punished for his thoughts

Tam diu minime visu! - Long time, no see!