Foreign Policy Via Cliff Notes

Further proof today of Berg's Law of Liberal Iraq Commentary, the iron-clad law I defined last summer, and which has never been challenged:

No liberal commentator can simultaneously address more than one of the justifications for the liberation of Iraq. To do so would render their position untenable.

Jeff Fecke recaps a theme you're sure to be hearing from a lot of leftyblogs of widely varying degrees of literacy in the near future:

"Anyhoo, now that David Kay has said that there are no WMDs in Iraq and were no WMDs in Iraq, and now that the administration is sending big shots around the globe to say 'hey, we never said anything about WMDs!', and now that the best our Preznit can cite is Weapons-of-Mass-Destruction-Related-Program-Activites-Maltodextrin, I'd say the full story about WMDs has been told, and it is this:

THERE--WERE--NO--WEAPONS--OF--MASS--DESTRUCTION--IN--IRAQ

Except, Jeff - and by extension, all liberals whose view of foreign policy and defense and the War on Terror is equally myopic - you're doing to the issue exactly what liberal media outlets like Reuters and NPR did to the Kay interviews; taking the part that fits your predetermined conclusions and omitting the rest. That is the only way to look at this issue as a defeat for the President, if factual resolution of issues is what determines victory. And it confirms my law.

Remember - or if you get all your news from NPR or Atrios, read it for the first time - Kay also said that Hussein had retained all the information he needed to reconstitute WMDs again. Remember (or if you're a Democrat, learn it for the first time); applied physics is Nobel Prize material the first time it's done. After that, it's a blue collar job.

What's the difference between a drum of Sarin and a drum of insecticide? A CD with the instructions to make the Sarin and a little time.

Longer than it takes to say "Yummy Yellowcakes?" Metaphorically, no.

How long is acceptable?

Posted by Mitch at January 28, 2004 06:04 AM