According to the Big Book of Wingnuttery, to ‘sullivan is to:
… base your argument on a source that actually argues the opposite what you claim it does.
Which brings us to his latest, “Nuh uh. I’m right, you’re wrong. All evidence to the contrary”. Followed by this weaseling about ths issue:
We can fight over words in this way, but the fundamental reality also undermines Marshall’s case. The point about 9/11 is that it showed that we were in a new world where we could be attacked by shadowy groups with little warning. The point about Saddam is that he was a sworn enemy of the U.S., had been known to develop an arsenal of WMDs, was in a position to arm terrorists in a devastating way, and any president had to weigh the risk of him staying in power in that new climate. The actual threat hangs over us all the time.
The Marshall plan was to answer the question about the administration’s use of the term “imminent” as challenged by Andy.. Marshall’s readers provided evidence that they did:
Last October, a reporter put this to Ari Fleischer: â€œAri, the president has been saying that the threat from Iraq is imminent, that we have to act now to disarm the country of its weapons of mass destruction, and that it has to allow the U.N. inspectors in, unfettered, no conditions, so forth.â€
Fleischerâ€™s answer? â€œYes.â€
In January, Wolf Blitzer asked Dan Bartlett: â€œIs [Saddam] an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home.â€
Bartlettâ€™s answer? â€œWell, of course he is.â€
A month after the war, another reporter asked Fleischer, â€œWell, we went to war, didnâ€™t we, to find these â€” because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isnâ€™t that true?â€
Fleischerâ€™s answer? â€œAbsolutely.â€
Nutted by reality, Sullivan immediately changed the rules of the game (hello, Calvinball). If Sullivan had any credibility left prior to this, I would have to say it’s deader than Bob Dole’s dick…..