I continue to be amused by the insistence of some pundits that because no top official adminstration pooh-bah actually used the precise word, "imminent," that means that those of us who heard it implied are deranged leftist loonies. I'm now pleased to annouce that
Daniel Drezner has made our case for us (we deranged leftist loonies, that is).
Here's Daniel on the
CPI denying that they explicitly stated a quid pro quo between campaign contributors and Iraq contracts and instead meant to call for a more transparent process of bidding and awards:
However, while I will flatly concede that they never use the words "clear quid pro quo," that's what they're implying. Stating that, "There is a stench of political favoritism and cronyism surrounding the contracting process in both Iraq and Afghanistan" sounds like a completely different kind of accusation from one of a lack of transparency. The first charge implies disorganization and inefficiency. The second charge implies malfeasance and, well, quid pro quo corruption.
So...they didn't actually have to
say the words "quid pro quo." One can deduce their meaning from the context and other phrases. Ok. Here's more:
The link between campaign contributions and contracts was also the lead of all of the initial media coverage of the report. I'd say it was pretty damn clear that CPI was implying a quid pro quo.
Oh! So the fact that the media reported it that way is an indication of the true meaning of the CPI statements.
And how exactly is that different from the fact that the media, prior to the war, clearly "heard" the adminstration saying that the thread was imminent? (see: mushroom cloud)