« Yep. Moonbats. | Main | Shorter David Brooks »
June 18, 2004
James Joyner, Moonbat Enabler
Really, I don't think James is a loon, but at this point, he really is a bona fide Moonbat enabler. He always skates a fine line, leaving the obvious inferences of his writing for the Moonbat crowd to make themselves. But it's pretty clear what he's doing. He's damn good at it, but he's still doing it.
Anyways, here's his TCS article, Saddam and al Qaeda.
Shorter James Joyner:
Using the fallacy of Composition, we can frame the debate about the absence of evidence to make the claim that this is not evidence of absence and thus conclude that the enemy of Saddam's enemy must have been his friend.
Here's the current link set to Joyner's piece:
Pejman Yousefzadeh: SADDAM HUSSEIN AND HIS TERRORIST TIES — James Joyner makes a valuable contribution to fleshing out this issue with this piece.
Glenn Reynolds: Plus this observation: [snipped quote] Indeed. ANOTHER UPDATE: This piece by James Joyner is worth reading, too.
James Joyner: TCS: Saddam and al Qaeda — My second piece for TCS, Saddam and al Qaeda, is now up.
Robert Garcia Tagorda: But, in a perceptive Tech Central Station essay, James Joyner urges us to think more critically of it: "It should be...
Steven Taylor: More OTB@TCS — James Joyner has a new TCS: Tech Central Station column on the Saddam-al Qaeda connection debate.
Posted by Azael at June 18, 2004 9:39 PM
Comments
It is, of course, possible that he is simply analyzing the situation as he sees it. You make it sound as if he is cleverly treading a line between lunacy and respectability for some nefarious propagandist agenda.
As I noted in a lengthy post over at my place yesterday—there are reasonable arguments to be made on both sides of the issue in regards to Saddam and terrorism. The fact that his regime supported terrorism is incontrovertible (two examples: he harbored Abu Abbas and allowed him to train terrorist in Iraq, and the fact that Saddam paid money to the families of successful Palestinian suicide bombers as a matter of state policy). The question becomes twofold: 1) how significant was his sponsorship of terrorism to US national security (and might it worsen), and 2) what kind of ties were there to al Qaeda? The 911 commission report does confirm that the two sides did talk, and that bin Laden was willing to work with Saddam, even if at the time Saddam was unwilling to work with bin Laden. This is not an insignificant finding. It doesn’t justify war in and of itself, to be sure.
And to be fair, James’ prose on OTB has a far less incendiary tone that what you normally post on Hellblazer (granted, part of that is stylistic and about differing goals for the blogs). But let’s face facts, referring to your opponents (e.g., Condi Rice, the Bush administration, etc.) as “moonbats” and then posting a quote from a news source (usually without much analysis) is far more enabling of the “moonbats” on the left that anything in Joyner’s TCS column, or his typical OTB posting.
Posted by: Steven at June 19, 2004 7:26 AM
Sorry, we just got into a major war based on this conspiracy theory mongering. It's not just a simple matter of an academic discussion. James' piece purposefully conflates Saddam's support for regional terrorist groups with international terrorist groups. He then tells us that the standard of proof is unreasonable. Considering that we've prosecuted a war precisely because we such a low standard of proof that we were willing to use as evidence the lies told to us by Chalabi and the INC, it would appear that lowering our standards of proof is precisely the problem that we need to be worried about.
As to your criticism of me and my style of blog posting, that's quite fine. But this isn't "Bride's Monthly" where I have to recapitulate everything in every post. The Financial Times article was quite clear
Whether the Osama and Saddam thesis was more the result of self-delusion or cynical manipulation, it - along with Washington's mismanagement of the whole Iraqi adventure - has been enormously damaging.So I'm actually taking the high road here by calling them Moonbats. There are far worse terms that can be validly applied to this pack of Jackals who did all this damage. Considering the whole history of the Neocon crew with conspiracy theories, this is actually a mild term to be using for these guys.
It's not my fault that most of this administration is filled with conspiracy theorists. And it's not just some innocuous conspiracy theory. As the FT says, the result of all these amazingly bizarre beliefs and fallacious reasoning patterns have resulted in a hell of a lot of damage to our country.
It is rather interesting to note that I don't really have any "Moonbats" on the left hanging around on my blog - well, except for my current troll from the right side of the isle. One would think that if I was such an enabler they'd be hanging around and we'd be getting into a feedback loop. But I guess absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence.
Again with that wacky logic that got us into this whole mess in the first place.
Posted by: Hal at June 19, 2004 8:35 AM
Hal,
With this line "So I'm actually taking the high road here by calling them Moonbats" you utterly vitiate any claim you have to ration argument. You aren entitled to that opinion, but just calling names does not equal making your point. I know you believe that affiar to be an utter mess, but you tend to make that point by saying that it is an utter mess. It is circular.
And James' point about of proof is that by the Commission's standard, we don't really know if al Qaeda is responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing--something widely accepted to be fact by persons you would regard as non-Moonbats (i.e., the Cinton administration).
And by your own standard, the test isn't whether one has Moonbats hanging about, but whether the info provided "enables"--your claims, which are often based solely on your rather explosive vie of subject, could fit in that category.
And really, shooting out quotations simply isn't argumenation, it is cutting and pasting.
Posted by: Steven at June 19, 2004 9:54 AM
No, I made my point by pointing to a relatively authoritative source that claims it's an utter mess. It would only be circular if the FT was using me as the basis of their conclusion. As I've said before, this isn't "Bride's Magazine", where I have to recapitulate everything in every post because that's all anyone is going to read. I've gone on in great length in past posts on why I think the situation is FUBAR.
James is comparing apples and oranges. In one case we have something that hasn't been proven, but we all seem to believe that there are connections. Therefore, this other unrelated accusations, with even less evidence, should be considered under the same rules. Strange logic, that. The only purpose seems to be to give the impression that there are the very connections that the Administration claims.
As to your point that I'm a Moonbat enabler, I don't think Technorati confirms such. James is linked by a lot of people who are conspiracy theorists, and his posts are being used to try to persuade those who laugh at this nonsense and/or reinforce the idea that they are correct.
As to your last point, I think you'll have to take this up with Insty, Sullivan and pretty much all the blogs on the planet.
Posted by: Hal at June 19, 2004 10:48 AM
I've heard on good, but regrettably anonymous authority, the MoonBats you think you saw in the Apollo 11 footage were really NASA StudioBats they forgot to edit out in a rush to get the hoaxed video to the media.
That you confuse these HoaxBats with the vile SkullAndBonesBeelzelbubCaligulaBushBats demonstrates the complete enclutterment of your mind.
I think you need to clear out a few DustyAtticBats of your own buster.
One HoaxBat does not equal the other.
Posted by: Moon Bat vs Goon Bat at June 20, 2004 12:58 PM
Yea, right. Like the bizarro theories that there weren't any WMDs or that there weren't any al Qaeda connections or that we should have followed through in Afghanistan instead of pushing on to Iraq. Or that relying on a known fraud as the lynchpin for one's occupation and reconstruction plan was a simply idiotic plan. Or that not having enough troops on the ground or international support was fatal to whatever plan one might have.
Yep, millions of 'em that I need to sweep out of this dusty old attic.
Posted by: Hal at June 20, 2004 1:16 PM
