Ockham's razor.

OK..all caught up now.

What gets me about this story is of course how much it reveals about the echo chamber. Of course the actual theory is daft. And say what you will about Malkin, Reynolds or Johnson, they aren't THAT stupid. But they know that their readers are and they have absolutely no qualms whatsoever about putting this kind of stuff out there for the true beleivers to lap up. It's quite sickening if you think about it long eneough.

And my co-blogger Jim Henley has the links to prove it: http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/04/21/6275

Jim jumps off from Glenn's post, but doesn't merely link to Gaubatz's personal website, but also to his SANE organization, which must be read to be believed. That Melanie Philips relies on this demented Gaubatz creature for anything is, well, all you need to know about her.

I'm thinking, tho, of joining Dave's "Mapping Shari'a in America Project," for the entertainment value.

Two pionts. First this appears on its face an attempt to rehabilitate the WMD excuse for invasion. I would argue it is not. But honest critical minds could argue that this new claim follows in the journalistic footsteps of neocons like Pearl and Hitchens who, faced with the obvious proof of their mistake, instead cling to the belief that the horribly bloody consequences of invading Iraq are not the result of a criminally wrong and misguided belief in creating Levantian utopia through the barrel of a gun, but the incompetency of those they charged and goaded into carrying such a misguided dream out. Hitler wasn't wrong to waste his army on Stalingrad, he was wrong to let such incompetents as General Guderian carry out his magnificent plan.

My second point is the more important. This rant, first seeded into a blog then slowly seeped into more "credible" blogs and finally the MSM is not designed for the purpose of rehabilitating the justification for the Iraq War. We are long past that point. Rather, and more ominously, its point is to reaffirm the assumption that America is a country threatened by an axis of evil, being China and Russia and its puppets Syria and North Korea. Iraq is lost and if you read between the lines of this rant you would understand that the authors and their enablers are using this WMD claim to admit as much. The real point they want to make is that the very reason that should have justified our invasion of Iraq has no moved to Syria, North Korea and eventually Russia and China.

Following this logic, you can agree that Bush's administration is incompetent, you can agree that Iraq no longer presents a threat. You can even agree that pulling out is a good thing. Just so long as you agree that such a pullout must be followed by increased militarism against Syria, Iran, North Korea and strategically Russia and China.

The Soviet Union up and imploded while we weren't looking, leaving an incredibly large military industrial complex scrambling for a new "cold war" to justify it's existence. This is an "existence" they have enjoyed only since 1945. Prior to that America has always brought down its military capability. The goal is perpetual military preparation and there is so so much money to be made that way and so many ways to use that Cold War military to protect overseas corporate investments.

Glenn, you have asked readers to study the rantings of Osama Bin Laden to better understand how this war on terror began and how to end it. I would offer that it would be helpful to read the rantings of the Project for a New American Century and other such America first writings or think tanks to understand why the neocons so need to create military enemies out of the likes of China and Russia; why Dick Cheney for no apparant reason last year went to the Baltic states and made seriously innappropriate and threatening remarks about Russia's "democracy" only to follow up with a visit to Kazakstan to praise the most tyrannical regime in Central Asia for being a great democratic friend. Americans would be forgiven for not understanding the ugly irony, but Russians fully understood the insult and the underlying motive.

Don't waste your time trying to rebut the WMD argument. That can be simply done by pulling up every article by Judy Miller as she canvassed the Iraqi countryside with special forces looking for evidence both of WMDs and evidence they were moved. Yes, this article is right up there with "I saw Elvis at McDonald's last night." but that is not it's purpose.

It's purpose is the war next time and if you want to serve us journalistically you might want to keep your eye on articles designed to create the new cold war; against Russia and China. The one that doesn't really plan on fighting, just spending trillions on the military industrial complex.

I agree with Paul Rosenberg that the disconnect between the right and reality has been a long time in the making, and that it has clearly identifiable parallels in earlier historical periods. I also agree that its increasing virulence heralds a gap which is rapidly becoming insupportable between what the right asserts, and what anyone can see with his own eyes. (It still amazes me that any adult of reasonable competence would join any club which requires tangible evidence of schizophrenia as a condition of membership, but that's another discussion.)

In pondering Paul's analysis, it amuses me to imagine an End Times theory for the left, which, if not terribly useful, is at least as plausible as what Krauthammer, Dobson and Melanie Phillips have to offer us.

It goes like this: When the fears of the right, fears of everything from the vagina dentata to the yellow peril begin to generate flecks of foam on the lips of its principal spokesmen, the End is Near.

Their end, or ours, or everybody's? That, of course, is what is of principal interest to the faithful, but unfortunately, it's also the only aspect of the catechism which has yet to be worked out. Perhaps our theologians here can help us; we'd like to avoid schism if possible, especially given the great work of evangelism which still lies before us.