The method-behind-the-madness of the Friday Free-For-All is simple: I provide a quotation, statement, statistic, or piece of news, without any commentary of my own. The readers are free to merrily discuss, debate, deride, or mock in whatever way they see fit -- hopefully it will at least tangentially pertain to the posted item, but hey, it's a free-for-all -- who knows!
I'm a bit more argumentative than normal in this Friday Free-for-All, but I can't help it.http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/blog/2006/08/21/BL2006082100700_2.html
From the Monday morning White House press conference, in which President Bush took questions for two hours regarding Iraq, Iran,
and one of those Koreas
and other dangers facing the US. He had this exchange with Cox News Service reporter Ken Herman.
Herman: "A lot of the consequences you mentioned for pulling out seem like maybe they never would have been there if we hadn't gone in. How do you square all of that?"
Bush: "I square it because imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein, who had the capacity to make a weapon of mass destruction, who was paying suiciders to kill innocent life, who had relations with Zarqawi. Imagine what the world would be like with him in power. The idea is to try to help change the Middle East. . . .
"You know, I've heard this theory about, you know, everything was just fine until we arrived and -- you know, the stir-up-the-hornet's- nest theory. It just doesn't hold water, as far as I'm concerned. The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. They were. . . . "
Herman: "What did Iraq have to do with that?"
Bush: "What did Iraq have to do with what?"
Herman: "The attacks upon the World Trade Center?"
Bush: "Nothing. Except for it's part of -- and nobody's ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a -- Iraq -- the lesson of September the 11th is: Take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. . . .
"I fully believe it was the right decision to remove Saddam Hussein, and I fully believe the world is better off without him. Now the question is: How do we succeed in Iraq?"
So...wait. First it was WMD's, then when no WMD's were found, it oscillated between "He trucked the WMD's to Syria!" and "There is a link between al Qaeda and Iraq that must be addressed, and that's why we invaded." And now -- oh, there's still a link, but Iraq didn't have anything to do with 9/11, even though the President will allude to 9/11 as justification for invading Iraq...
Anyone else dizzy yet from all the circular and completely nonsensical logic?
Okay, okay, now actually the Free-for-All question: Is this a reasoned, albeit nuanced, stance that Mr Bush is taking? Is it backpeddling? Outright inanity? Go!