Tucker Carlson, on the Scott McClellan "revelations," is typically duplicitous.
He's [McClellan] opening a whole new line of questioning, I think, that's important. Look, McCain's explanation you just heard is defensible: 'I support the war because I thought Saddam was going to hurt us, so we should hurt him first.' That's a reasonable point of view.
What's unreasonable in my view is what Scott McClellan is saying, which is the White House wanted to invade Iraq for theoretical reasons. Because establishing democracy there would somehow bring peace to the Middle East and make the world a better place. That is very, very hard to defend. In fact, I think it's borderline ludicrous.
If that's true, then I think, you know, historians have a stronger case that the Bush White House was, you know, negligent and acting against the best interests of the United States. But again, that's not a debate most people are interested in having. I mean, every survey shows, television ratings show, people don't want to revisit this. Most people think the war was a mistake. They don't want to hear about it. Which is why almost nobody covers the war any more.
So McClellan's book "opens up a whole new line of questioning" regarding whether "the White House wanted to invade Iraq for theoretical reasons."
Gee, what a "new" line that would be. And in other news, if General Francisco Franco is still dead, that opens up a new line of questioning and...
This is a really tightly-packed one minute of bullshit, though.
First of all, what Tucker's really saying here is, "In order not to look like a total moron, I need to say that Scott McClellan might be saying something important here. But I can't throw the whole war and McCain under the bus just yet." So what he says is, oh, well, John McCain's position on the war is defensible. Preemptive war is defensible. But theoretical war -- however that differs from preemptive war -- is not. Bad White House! Unless, of course, you walk the war rationales back and say it was purely preemptive, which is "reasonable" and "defensible."
Anyone think the White House is going to be hesitant to do that?
Right. So the escape hatch is built right in. Tucker gets to be on TV being "relevant," gets to make the comments necessary in order for the host not to immediately dismiss him as being a moron, but then gets to wrap his comments in the blanket statement that if the White House will just say they were being reasonable, well then, they were being reasonable. Not like what this nutty guy is saying.
Second of all... historians? Historians will have a stronger case that the Bush White House was negligent and acting against the best interests of the United States?
Why "historians?" Why would we be waiting on history here? Why wouldn't you say the Bush White House was negligent and acting against the best interests of the United States, Tucker? Why would that job fall to historians?
Third, here comes the set up. And oh baby, what a set up it is!
Nobody wants to hear about this! Nobody wants to revisit this! It's all in the past! Water under the bridge! It was a mistake! 4,000 dead and fifty years to go ("Maybe 100!"), but hey, look, we're rightfully chastened, we feel bad about it, but let's not get hung up on it. Let's look to the future.
Oh, man. Our future understanding of our immediate past is really gonna suck.