William Kristol, in a
Weekly Standard piece, has joined the fray. Regarding the Vanity Fair article, Kristol says "distorting an on-the-record interview with a Bush administration official in order to create a quasi-conspiratorial narrative of deceit and deception at the highest levels of the U.S. government is a disgrace."
I don't buy Kristol's analysis of Sam Tanenhaus' Vanity Fair piece. I'll tackle just one particular, and leave the rest as an exercise for the reader. Kristol says ...
For that matter, the notion that the Bush administration really, really, in its heart of hearts, had other, preferred reasons for taking out Saddam Hussein--particularly, that it did so to justify removing its troops from Saudi Arabia--and that the entire war was therefore a fraud . . . well, this idea, too, is crackpot.
After following Wolfowitz's interview trail for a few weeks, I know how to cut and paste to make Dr. Paul say the most outrageous things. But I try to fairly represent the underlying meaning of the full interview by using exerpts to provide context, and links to the full text. Often the conversation is a flow of interconnected ideas, and making those snips is a difficult choice.
In his article and my commentary in the main post, Kristol and I made similar choices for putting the "bureaucracy" phrase into context. Although Kristol does snip the parts in which Wolfowitz undermines reasons number two and three. Perhaps this distortion was introduced by Kristol purely for reasons of space, and not to undermine Tanenhaus' interpretation that reason number one was the "one reason" that mattered.
Kristol and I have made very different choices for putting the "Saudi Arabia" discussion in context. Below on the right, I provide overlap with the other exchange to put this particular Wolfowitz statement into context. On the left is Kristol's edit of the passage.
Kristol's version ...
There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. . . . I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.
|
In context.
Wolfowitz: [snip]
There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.
I don't want to speak in messianic terms. It's not going to change things overnight, but it's a huge improvement.
Tanenhaus: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into --
Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. ... [begin "bureaucracy", three reasons, etc.]
|
After stating the "huge" benifits vis-a-vis Saudia Arabia and bin Laden, Wolfowitz agreed with Tanenhaus' suggestion that this was a motivation for the war. Wolfowitz specifically agreed that the linkage between Iraq, our presence in Saudi Arabia, and bin Laden's rage about that presence was a motivation for the war.
Kristol snips a statement out of a "statement-question-confirmation" sequence. And then he deletes two key sentences from the middle of Wolfowitz's statement. Why does Kristol makes this editing choice in a distortion critique?
Perhaps Kristol deleted Wolfowitz's reference to bin Laden and his grievances out of this passage specifically to undermine the notion of motivation. To be clear, Kristol's implication that withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia should be seen as an unintended consequence of the invasion of Iraq is ... well, a crack pot idea, and insults the intelligence of Dr. Paul.
|
I don't buy Kristol's analysis of Sam Tanenhaus' Vanity Fair piece. I'll tackle just one particular, and leave the rest as an exercise for the reader. Kristol says ...
After following Wolfowitz's interview trail for a few weeks, I know how to cut and paste to make Dr. Paul say the most outrageous things. But I try to fairly represent the underlying meaning of the full interview by using exerpts to provide context, and links to the full text. Often the conversation is a flow of interconnected ideas, and making those snips is a difficult choice.
In his article and my commentary in the main post, Kristol and I made similar choices for putting the "bureaucracy" phrase into context. Although Kristol does snip the parts in which Wolfowitz undermines reasons number two and three. Perhaps this distortion was introduced by Kristol purely for reasons of space, and not to undermine Tanenhaus' interpretation that reason number one was the "one reason" that mattered.
Kristol and I have made very different choices for putting the "Saudi Arabia" discussion in context. Below on the right, I provide overlap with the other exchange to put this particular Wolfowitz statement into context. On the left is Kristol's edit of the passage.
There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. . . . I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.
Wolfowitz: [snip]
There are a lot of things that are different now, and one that has gone by almost unnoticed--but it's huge--is that by complete mutual agreement between the U.S. and the Saudi government we can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things.
I don't want to speak in messianic terms. It's not going to change things overnight, but it's a huge improvement.
Tanenhaus: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into --
Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. ... [begin "bureaucracy", three reasons, etc.]
After stating the "huge" benifits vis-a-vis Saudia Arabia and bin Laden, Wolfowitz agreed with Tanenhaus' suggestion that this was a motivation for the war. Wolfowitz specifically agreed that the linkage between Iraq, our presence in Saudi Arabia, and bin Laden's rage about that presence was a motivation for the war.
Kristol snips a statement out of a "statement-question-confirmation" sequence. And then he deletes two key sentences from the middle of Wolfowitz's statement. Why does Kristol makes this editing choice in a distortion critique?
Perhaps Kristol deleted Wolfowitz's reference to bin Laden and his grievances out of this passage specifically to undermine the notion of motivation. To be clear, Kristol's implication that withdrawal of US troops from Saudi Arabia should be seen as an unintended consequence of the invasion of Iraq is ... well, a crack pot idea, and insults the intelligence of Dr. Paul.
- mark 6-03-2003 4:00 am