Go to previous post:
Among the comments

Go to Electrolite's front page.

Go to next post:
If the creek don’t rise,

Our Admirable Sponsors

January 15, 2003

More fun with Don Rumsfeld: From CNN:
“The fact that the inspectors have not yet come up with new evidence of Iraq’s WMD program could be evidence, in and of itself, of Iraq’s noncooperation,” Rumsfeld said.
Writes our friend Jim Macdonald, Navy veteran: “I wonder if Rumsfeld would like the same standard of proof be applied to him and the kiddie porn on his personal computer.” [10:44 PM]
Welcome to Electrolite's comments section.
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.

Comments on More fun with Don Rumsfeld::

Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: January 16, 2003, 11:09 AM:

Joe McCarthy lives, and he inhabits the body of Donald Rumsfeld.

Weep, America.

Patrick Nielsen Hayden ::: (view all by) ::: January 16, 2003, 11:14 AM:

Oh, nonsense. Joseph McCarthy and Donald Rumsfeld are extremely different individuals.

One of our many bad habits on the Left is using Joseph McCarthy as an all-purpose comparison for things and people we don't like. It doesn't make us or anybody else smarter.

Thomas Nephew ::: (view all by) ::: January 16, 2003, 12:15 PM:

As Slate's roundup today* points out, Rumsfeld's point was not as stupid as it sounds:

"Rummy's argument, which he makes here [http:/etc], is that Iraq has failed to account for chemical and biological weapons that inspectors found in the 1990s, and that it's not the inspectors' job to uncover those weapons; it's
Saddam's. The LAT gets this across: "U.S. BANKS ON IRAQI OMISSIONS."

* (1/16/03, in case the link changes)

Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: January 16, 2003, 02:45 PM:

I'm sorry, but that is NOT nonsense. Yes, they're very different individuals, of course. I was being poetic, apparently at the cost of clarity.

I was comparing the logic used. "Is there any evidence that he's NOT a Communist?" Don't those seem similar (and more than that, relevantly similar) to you?

No knee-jerk Joe McCarthy comparison here, thank you very much. This is quite specific, and I think accurate.

Actually, now that I think about it, his logic is more like classic Witchhunters (I mean the ones who actually hunted witches): their tests convicted anyone who survived. That's a good deal worse than McCarthy's logic, actually, even thought Rumsfeld isn't necessarily as bad a person as McCarthy.

I guess since he "knows" they have WMD, anything that happens has to show that they're either noncompliant or noncooperative. It's only out here among us ignorant (by which I mean "not privy to secret intelligence documents that allegedly show Iraq has WMD") louts that it looks like he's just trying to beg the question.

Even Cotton Mather was against spectral evidence.

Myke ::: (view all by) ::: January 16, 2003, 05:20 PM:

And as of today's news, the evidence is no longer spectral.


Xopher ::: (view all by) ::: January 16, 2003, 05:40 PM:

Real evidence, of course, is real evidence.

Let's see what happens.

Hoo. This is bad. I hope the Iraqis are telling the truth about it, unlikely as it seems.

Bernie H ::: (view all by) ::: January 17, 2003, 10:11 AM:

Donald Rumsfeld discovers Catch 22:


In colorful cartoon format!

(As if CNN itself is not already a cartoon...)

Kathryn Cramer ::: (view all by) ::: January 17, 2003, 12:15 PM:

Who is the scarier individual? Ashcroft or Rumsfeld? A hard call.

Bill Pavuk ::: (view all by) ::: January 21, 2003, 02:19 PM:

Speaking of the inspectors and Iraq, has anyone heard or seen anything from Scott Ritter recently? For a short time last year, the media was giving him (an actual expert of weapons inspections - been there, done that)all sorts of time to relate some wonderful insights. But lately, it seems his thoughtful dissent is no longer welcome.

Dana ::: (view all by) ::: January 22, 2003, 03:27 PM:

Oh, that's eerie. My boyfriend said the same thing (the kiddie porn comparison). Wonder if he reads MacDonald? If not... wow.