My Client Wasn't in the State at the Time of the Murder, and Anyway It Was Self-Defense!

It is always amusing to see someone put forward two totally contradictory positions at the very same time, simply because each supports the course of action the person wants to see done. (In the post title, it is "Acquit my client.")

We see that today with the Iran hawks, who put forward two narratives about Iran that run directly counter to each other:

1) Iran has been a covert sponsor of terrorism, being careful to work secretly behind the scenes so they won't face retaliation; and

2) Iran is totally nuts, and will cheerfully nuke Israel because they don't give a hoot about retaliation.


  1. I totally get what you're saying here, but I imagine if you or I had a theory about, say, the guy down the street planning to ambush us, this type of "gotcha" would strike us as silly. I.e. if we thought we had tons of evidence that the guy was plotting to ambush us, and he was a little nutty so we didn't think "jail time" would deter him, the fact that he took steps to hide his growing cache of weapons wouldn't mean our theory was wrong.

    1. Yes, they may think that way: the terrorist attacks were hidden just so the really big one could still come off. But I don't see the Iran hawks actually explaining that.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Central Planning Works!