From Andy McCarthy at the Corner:
Even if we grant, for argument's sake, that there was negligence on the part of Hastert and the leadership, I think throwing Hastert under the bus for this smacks of the very line of thinking National Review has quite correctly challenged for three years running on Bush and Iraq — namely, the suggestion that reliance on faulty intelligence (which there was reason to know was faulty) should now be seen as malevolent or reckless because, as it turned out, we didn't find WMD in Iraq.
4 comments:
I've read it at least five times and I still can't make any sense of it.
And you can read it five more times, for all the good it'll do you.
what negligence is he granting if not the negligence he is wagging his finger at us for granting? does he have inside information about hastert failing to change his underwear one day? if you know it's faulty, how are you not reckless in your acceptance of it? it's like there's a knife in my eye, and he's twisting it.
if you know it's faulty, how are you not reckless in your acceptance of it?
As my friend Maximos would say, "herein lies the aporia."
Post a Comment