How Safire does it:

What do you do when the facts don't support your case? We see in William Safire's column, a classic defense. Safire wants to keep alive the notion that there was a (meaningful) connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. So he does the following:

It's not the commission report, it's somebody else's (Zelikow or a rogue staff ):

• ... not a judgment of the panel of commissioners appointed to investigate the 9/11 attacks
• ... runaway staff, headed by the ex-N.S.C. aide Philip Zelikow
• ... the staff's sweeping conclusion ...
• The Zelikow report ... fuzzed up the distinction ...
• ... the staff had twisted the two strands together to cast doubt ...
• Zelikow & Co. dismissed the reports ...
• Kean and Hamilton have allowed themselves to be jerked around by a manipulative staff.
• ... the Zelikow bombshell ...

Frame the 9/11 commission report as partisan:

• ... the politically charged Zelikow report.
• What can the commission do now to regain its nonpartisan credibility?
• ... Democratic partisan Richard Ben-Veniste ...

But most important of all, avoid reaching a consensus:

• Require every member to sign off on every word that the commission releases, or write and sign a minority report. No more "staff conclusions" without presenting supporting evidence, pro and con.

posted by Quiddity at 6/21/2004 07:37:00 AM