on occasion i read the NYT Op Ed pieces. I usually avoid William Safire, cause, well... I'll not say. http://nytimes.com/2004/07/14/opinion/14SAFI.html?hpHis latest piece is an illustration as to why I avoid him:
Consider the official pressure to get with the latest groupthink: the 9/11 commission staff assured us recently that repeated contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda (including the presence in Baghdad and Kurdistan of the reigning terrorist, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi), "did not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship." This week, the Senate Intelligence Committee chimed in, saying these contacts "did not add up to an established formal relationship." (Italics mine.)
Think about that. Do today's groupthinkers believe that Osama bin Laden would sit down with Saddam in front of the world's cameras to sign a mutual assistance pact, establishing a formal relationship? Terrorists and rogue states don't work that way. Mass killers collaborate informally, without a photo op, even secretly.
Ready? Remember after the Collapse of the Twin Towers when it was determined that the Taliban of Afghanistan were formally protecting Osama as a guest of thier country? That sir is what an "established formal relationship" looks like.
So while he carps about "groupthink" it appears that Mr. Safire is a victim of "dumbthink."
http://nytimes.com/2004/07/14/opinion/14SAFI.html?hp-The New Groupthink By WILLIAM SAFIRE Published: July 14, 2004