Drezner Referees the Great “Imminent Threat” Debate
I have a deep and abiding fascination with the proposition that two arguments can be both compelling and mutually exclusive. A really nice example of that is the following sequence of posts, currently running on Daniel Drezner’s weblog: The post-war debate about the pre-war rhetoric: Part I, Part II, and Part III.
The posts in question have actually been authored by two frequent commentators on Kevin Drum’s CalPundit site, one of whom generally supports Bush’s Iraq policies, the other of whom generally opposes them. Each is arguing for or against the following assertion: “It is a complete fabrication that the Bush administration argued in the runup to the war that there was an imminent threat from Iraq.”
Drezner’s role in all this is that of a referee, chosen because both sides, apparently, acknowledge his essential intelligence and fairness (well, at least until he renders judgement, at which point one or the other of them will probably decide that they were mistaken in that regard).
It’s all pretty darn interesting. I confess to being really curious what the final judgement is going to be.
October 16th, 2003 at 9:50 am
It infuriates me that the hawks are drawing anti-war people into this Clintonesque game of the meaning of the word “imminent.” It’s stupid and a distraction from the problem – an administration that lied its way into war and occupation.
These bread and circuses are just what the neocons want to distract us from kicking their asses to the curb.