Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Commentary on U.S. politics from a Scandinavian in America
About Me
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(138)
-
▼
August
(13)
- Intelligence, Gender and Race Differences
- Leave Shabana Alone!
- B.D. on Flypaper
- Does CNN need saving?
- Outta Iraq
- College Rankings
- Democrats and Elections
- Liberals, Conservatives and Nastiness
- Why Democrats Lack Voter Appeal
- Jennings dies
- Krugman: Design for Confusion
- Moral Conviction: Democrats vs. Republicans
- Bush's Faith-Based Rule
-
▼
August
(13)
4 comments:
Utter garbage.
This is a Bush voter who is supposedly upset that he isn't getting competent leadership. You get the leaders you deserve.
Gosh, I wonder why this great, philanthropic enterprise is running afoul of the American people? I guess all those liberal bloggers, "anonymous" operatives, retired officials, people like Colin Powell's aide, and just plain outraged voters made a LUCKY GUESS about there being no weapons of mass destruction or viable rationale for an offensive. Whoops!
"Look, we don't need to make up fake arguments about why we are in Iraq. We went in because Saddam was an uniquely dangerous individual whom was commonly believed to be in possession of WMD. In a post 9/11 world, caution demanded that the burden of proof that he had disarmed be on him. He never convincingly met this burden, by showing the world beyond a reasonable doubt that his regime didn't possess WMD, and Bush acted pursuant to various UN resolutions to bring him to task. But we were wrong, and he didn't have WMD, yet History had marched on by then."
This paragraph is so fantastically misguided that I don't know where to begin. If one begins his ranting, no matter how seemingly informed, esoteric (or needlessly convoluted) it is, laboring under the delusion that a well-meaning public servant is in the White House, everything you touch will inevitably be caked in bullshit, if you'll pardon my language. This is garbage dressed up to look like honest scrutiny.
We're not entirely sure whether or not, had we not gone into Iraq, Saddam Hussein, the "uniquely dangerous" man that he was, would have eradicated his populace and begun to work his way West, eating children as he carved a path through Europe on his way to occupying Paris, and it's sad that we'll never know. I mean, it was "commonly believed", so all we can do is our best, right?
I'm sorry if this sort of flip commentary isn't in the form of reasonable discourse on your eminently reasonable and honest blog, Mads, but I'm beyond fed up with arguments about what might be the best way for Bush to "handle" this. They voted for a warmongering lowlife who, while probably (that's right, PROBABLY) doesn't revel in the casualties he's responsible for, DEFINITELY doesn't give a damn about them. Yes, I'm that certain. They should cope with how a man like Bush decides to "handle" the situation, shut up about it, and witness their tangle of thorns.
I agree that by the 2004 election there was no reason to trust Bush's intentions.
And even though I did not support going into Iraq at the time, I did think Saddam had WMDs and I would have supported an invasion "for the right reasons" if it had broad international support.
I think Greg's "we don't need to make up fake arguments" line is an honest one, especially considering where he's coming from. Surely you don't have to agree with everything in order to appreciate a man's contribution to a debate, right?
In some ways I find it more interesting to read people I respect but disagree with (Andrew Sullivan is another one). Both Greg and Andrew think for themselves (lately, anyway) and it's been interesting watching them slowly distance themselves from the Bush party lines. I could read Kos and Atrios (and I do) but I already know what they will say.
Yes, it can be refreshing when a conservative blogger or figurehead expresses critical thinking skills. It's worth the tireless search, perhaps.
Isn't it more frustrating sometimes though, in a way, when they are so very close to casting off completely but then just hang there in space? It's unsettling. Sometimes I read Andrew Sullivan and I wonder how and why in the world he is still a Republican. I can't explain it. I want to tell him, "let it go!" He wants to let it go, but he can't do it. He has conservative ideals that are fictitous, fantastical, moribund or else totally dead in this country. Far beyond the point of no return, in my opinion. IT defines him as one of the most popular bloggers in the world, and he'll be damned if he's going to admit to being misguided for that length of time. It takes impressive humility to face up to that, and he doesn't possess it. I know you're a fan of the man, so I'll go no further with my insulting dismissals.
BD is not refreshing. He begins from an absurd and ridiculous premise and goes from there. His reasoning appears to be fairly sound, and he appears to have all of his faculties, but unfortunately he has wound up in entirely the wrong destination because his starting point was off the map. It would be nice to live in that world, this world so lacking in cynicism that you assume most people, even Bush, are out there for the greater good. It's asinine.
I wasn't born this way. They have earned it, Mads.
You lost me there. You weren't born how? Not cynical? Are you saying that you're not out for the greater good?
Anyway I still don't agree that B.D. has ended up at "entirely the wrong destination". Yes he is still calling for us to stay in Iraq but unlike going in to Iraq I don't see how that is a ridiculous suggestion. In the end it may be true as The Clash says (via Matt Yglesias) that "If I go there will be trouble / And if I stay it will be double", which I take to be your opinion.
Personally I am not sure what to do. I have very little faith left in Bush's ability to orchistrate a withdrawal along the lines of what Juan Cole and Wes Clark are advocating. So I guess my de facto position is with Kevin Drum in support of a pullout.
I'm worried about a bloody civil war though. Aren't you?
Post a Comment