Drezner, Levy, and Levy again, two of the dwindling band of decent people who have not yet joined the ranks of shrill Bush-haters are wondering if the Bush administration really failed to strike at Abu Zarqawi for crass political reasons. Both say that if this story turns out to be true, they will be very disturbed. Both are desperately casting about for contrary information. The best Levy can come up with is a couple of quasi-denials. Both feel the press ought to investigate more resources into looking into this. I'm happy to say folks should look into it, but let's step back here. Is there any reason to think this might possibly be false?
Why wouldn't the administration have just quickly and clearly denounced the story if it were false? Are there any examples -- any, any at all -- of the administration failing to denounce inaccurate anti-Bush stories that have appeared on major television networks? More generally, has this administration distinguished itself as an honest and forthright one? Has this administration distinguished itself as one committed to doing the right thing above political advantage? Has this administration been known to engage in questionable behavior in order to build public support for invading Iraq? What planet are we living on here?
UPDATE: I really should have read this post by Jacob Levy where he semi-endorses Kerry before writing this. We've got also got one more reason not to pick Gephardt.