Our favorite left gatekeeper on 9/11

[Ace Acme]

24. Your points 3,4,5, and 6 are compleat nonsense.

More from the Seger School of Rhetoric:

Post empty assertions verbosely--those who see through you will refrain from disputing what they haven't read, those who agree with you will skim for certitude and terms like "non sequitur" and "no true Scotsman" and assume you know what you're talking about.

They had no problem getting support for attacking Iraq. 9/11 created a state of blind panic among the people, and intimidation amongst the media and the legislature. Americans can't be expected to tell Arabs from Persians, let alone Arabs from Arabs, so there was no need to blame 9/11 on Iraq--the American people did that for themselves. There was no credible threat from an international band of fanatical Iraqi Muslims. It was far more advantageous to blame Islam itself instead of the secular Iraqi regime.

I didn't say BushCo needed cooperation. I said they could expect it from the Saudis and not the Iraqis. For instance, the Iraqi government could be expected to deny Bush claims that they did 9/11. The Saudi government did not deny that Saudis did 9/11.

The Bush actions--torture, illegal war, illegal surveillance--are those of a madman (whether he was truly mad, or it was just going to be his defense at any criminal trials is open to question).