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.”