ebonlock: (Tinkerbell)
[personal profile] ebonlock
The Rude Pundit discusses what will inevitably be the new Right Wing talking points regarding the increasingly inevitable civil war in Iraq:

So let's just say it up front here: over here in Liberalburg, we weren't happy when Ronald Reagan was cozying up to Saddam Hussein back in the 1980s. We weren't happy that the United States was backing a brutal, murderous, raping thug, giving him weapons and such. We weren't happy with the first Persian Gulf War. We weren't happy with sanctions that decimated the poorest people in Iraq. We weren't happy that the President wouldn't allow weapons inspectors to finish their work.

We weren't happy with this war to start with, saying, for instance, that a civil war was the inevitable outcome. We're not happy to be proven right. We're not happy, simply, when people are dying for no good cause, with no good outcome on the horizon, and no good way out. Frankly, oh, dear, sweet right wing, on the whole, we'd've rather been wrong and had tens of thousands of people not killed, tens of thousands of America soldiers not wounded. We'd've eaten the crow and, trust us, wonderful, fair right wing, you'd've shoved our faces in the plate of that black bird.

But since we were right, maybe, just maybe, someone oughta pay a political price for being so goddamned wrong. Instead, though, the right's gonna try to turn it around and blame the left and those who "didn't support the war" for its failure. Which would, for all intents and purposes, finally seal the deal on Vietnam redux.

It was inevitable, really.

Date: 2006-02-27 07:58 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] scoreboard.livejournal.com
The reality-based community - hell, even intellectually-honest conservatism - is based squarely in the Enlightenment. As PJ O'Rourke memorably opined, "I believe in things that can be proven by reason and experimentation, and believe you me, I want to see the logic and the lab work."

Modern GOP-Bush conservatism wants none of that - it's based on personal loyalty and blind faith. Consequently, it cannot admit error; therefore, it's time to find someone to blame. And given that the Republicans have held complete control of government since the beginning of 2003, two months before the war, the Democrats need to be proactive and unrelenting in making sure blame is placed appropriately. Will they? Probably not. I can see the traditional circular firing squad forming already.

Say what you like about New Labour, but Blair's guys at least know how to counterpunch.

Re: It was inevitable, really.

Date: 2006-02-27 08:27 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] ebonlock.livejournal.com
I find it increasingly odd that I used to be a member of the "idealist" party and now, suddenly, we've become the "realists". Weren't we the ones who were constantly accused of blind faith and magical thinking? I seem to recall that, but these days it just doesn't compute.

I think when we were running up to war and I kept hearing the "flowers and candy" outcomes from wingers and pundits, I honestly couldn't grasp that people actually believed the shit they were spouting. I mean I've met ten year olds with a firmer grasp on the complexities of foreign relations than these people. And now it's all blown up in their faces and somehow they'll still manage to make it our fault. We just didn't clap hard enough, or some damn thing.

Profile

ebonlock: (Default)
ebonlock

August 2013

S M T W T F S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728 293031

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jan. 22nd, 2026 11:17 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios