The Beclowning of Dan Froomkin

by Pejman Yousefzadeh on March 9, 2011

There is a lot that I could write about this article. I could write, for example, that Paul Craig Roberts is no one’s idea of an exemplar of Reaganism. I could write that the Silberman-Robb Commission found no evidence that the Bush Administration lied us into war in Iraq. I could write that the assertion that they lied us into war in Afghanistan is so transparently silly as to merit little to no commentary whatsoever, and that Froomkin lazily agreed to this argument without even considering whether it made any sense whatsoever (did the Obama Administration lie us into a further war in Afghanistan by agreeing to implement a counterinsurgency strategy there?). I could write that just because the Reagan Administration dealt with Lebanon a certain way in the 1980s, does not mean that it would advocate dealing with Afghanistan in the same way in 2011. And I could write that neither Grover Norquist, nor Lawrence Korb, nor Bruce Fein have Ouija boards sufficient to channel Ronald Reagan, that they are merely expressing their own opinions, and that their associations with the Reagan Administration give them no particular right to invoke Reagan in support of their arguments (you know, Robert Gates worked in the Reagan Administration too. Why doesn’t he get to cite the Gipper?).

But even if I didn’t mention the forgoing, mentioning the following update to Froomkin’s story would be enough to discredit it:

UPDATE: A reader notes that Roberts has also written several times that he does not believe the official explanations surrounding the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Roberts wrote an essay in 2006 espousing many of the so-called “Truther” beliefs, casting doubt on how the World Trade Center towers actually collapsed and raising the possibility of a military cover-up. Roberts defended those views in an email: “No real investigation has been done, and experts who raise points have simply been brushed aside or called ‘conspiracy theorists.’” He added that “until the ‘truthers’ are professionally answered, I will remain a 9/11 skeptic.” Roberts’ beliefs clearly raise questions about the soundness of his foreign policy views. He either should not have been cited in the piece or the article should have clearly noted his perspectives.

On his Facebook page, Froomkin writes “Oh, hell. It turns out my paragon of Republican sanity about the war is a ’9/11 skeptic’. Just nevermind.”

“Nevermind,” indeed.

  • Chris

    i heard that guy Rumsfeld used to work for Reagan too. Wonder what his views are?

    • Anonymous

      He arranged to contract with Halliburton to rig the towers with explosives for demolition.

      Cheers

  • spool32

    At least he copped to it. I agree with the precedent, too: being a Truther basically invalidates all your foreign and domestic policy opinions.

  • http://twitter.com/LeatherPenguin TC Lynch

    Oceana…LOOK IT UP1!!11100oo!

  • Lviger

    If the Bush administration blew up the World Trade Centers as the “Truthers” says why hasn’t Julian ‘ pissleaker’ Assange’s Wikileaks leaked as such. Wouldn’t it be his #1 coup of revelations?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_6EGSMGDMXBUZ7VCE6G4KMHFKW4 Michael

    Certain beliefs–such as being a truther or a birther–have the capacity of invalidating all other statements. It may not be the best way to filter out the “noise” of radically competing ideas, but on a day to day basis it is efficient to ignore people who are on the same level as the poor lunatic standing on a streetcorner with a “The End Is Near” sign. The lunatic may be smart enough to deal with losing all the lug nuts on one wheel (old joke), but depending upon him for anything more than what can be immediately verified is dumb.

  • Anonymous

    In 2001 I worked for a large government weapons laboratory. Many of us watched the television images of the towers burning from a conference room near my office. One of my colleagues was a fellow who specialized in calculating stress and failure of materials; I happened to be standing next to him. As the flames raged, he turned to me and calmly stated, “You know, those buildings are going to collapse.” I was startled by his remark and asked why he thought so. He explained that the heat from the fires would weaken the structural integrity of the buildings, and the immense load of the upper stories would start collapse, after which the buildings would “pancake”. This is precisely what happened less than 10 minutes later.

    9/11 truthers are typically simply ignorant of the any engineering.

  • Ger

    I don’t know why you are all so skeptical. Didn’t Rosie O’Donnell tell us that steel doesn’t melt? What more expertise do you need?

  • http://twitter.com/jtLOL ‘Jim’ ‘Treacher’

    Details, details!

  • http://twitter.com/jtLOL ‘Jim’ ‘Treacher’

    Details, details!

  • Roux

    “Dan Froomkin is senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington Post.”…. AOL made a great deal…. LOL!

  • Anonymous

    Half the comments on that FB entry are “well, just ‘cos he’s a 9/11 truther doesn’t mean he’s wrong about this other stuff” and the other half are “you know, there’s something to this Truther stuff.” *headdesk*, as the kids say.

Previous post:

Next post: