Atrios hits on something I’ve been thinking a lot about lately: the willingness of the right to twist itself into rhetorical knots to cover all possible eventualities. They’ll defend anything, if the administration or its allies are doing it; and also defend the opposite, just in case.
While I was on hiatus, reading much more of right-wing rant weblogs than is good for my health, I started collecting these contortions for future posting. Here are some common ones:
“Iraq had lots of ties to al Qaeda, but even if they didn’t, it doesn’t matter.”
“Iraq did have weapons, but even if they didn’t, it doesn’t matter. It was a growing threat. And anyway, everyone else said they had them.”
“Bush didn’t intend to invade Iraq from Day 1, but if he did, it was a good idea.”
“Connections to actual terrorism don’t matter. We decide what the threat is.”
“The Bush administration didn’t out Valerie Plame as a CIA agent. But even if they did, it wasn’t important.”
“What happened at Abu Ghraib wasn’t torture. It was more like a fraternity prank, or getting undressed in gym class. But even if it was the most heinous torture imaginable, those criminals deserved it.”
“Don Rumsfeld didn’t order the abuses at Abu Ghraib. But even if he did, those bastards deserved all they got, and more.”
“Nick Berg’s murder is the media’s fault. Wait, it’s those evil Arabs – they don’t need an excuse to kill us. But the press are still traitorous bastards.”
It must get tiring.