“I have long wondered whether Cheney and Rumsfeld ever believed that their job was to build a new democracy in Iraq. Rumsfeld had dealt with and supported Saddam in the past; Cheney was extremely suspicious of occupying Iraq in 1990. One subversive theory – which I’m not endorsing, just airing – is that both merely wanted to turn the Saddam regime to rubble, and then play along with neocon democracy supporters, while making sure that the military was never given enough resources to do nation-building. Then Cheney and Rumsfeld could prove their point about the impossibility of reforming the Muslim world, and promote the view that we need merely to pummel enemies, project military fear across the region, and deter Islamo-fascism by “shock and awe.” The Likud strategy, in other words.” –
Noam Chomsky Dylan Avery Michael Moore Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Andrew Sullivan, blogger, Time magazine.
Really, Sully, you’re in no position to play games like this. It wasn’t Malkin, after all, who said of the academic left, “they have almost no substantive contribution to make to American society.”
And while I have your attention, my colleague Mr. Goldstein has responded to your request for an apology.
Update: No, it’s not an isolated incident.
Update: Which is not to say that Sully’s point about the academic left isn’t largely true.