Saturday, March 08, 2003
Laying it all out
The impending war has virtually everyone weighing in, and the results aren't looking good for Dubya. Even those who agreed with the principle of improving the Iraqis' lot and planting the seeds of modern democracy in the arab world by overthrowing Saddam (such as Thomas Friedman) are recognizing the danger of the position in which Dubya's ham-handed imcompetence has placed us, and the improbability that an Iraqi venture will succeed as planned.
Additionally, Jimmy Carter lays it all out in this superb piece in today's New York Times.
Face it, folks: Dubya's in deep shit, and he's taking America's reputation with him.
The impending war has virtually everyone weighing in, and the results aren't looking good for Dubya. Even those who agreed with the principle of improving the Iraqis' lot and planting the seeds of modern democracy in the arab world by overthrowing Saddam (such as Thomas Friedman) are recognizing the danger of the position in which Dubya's ham-handed imcompetence has placed us, and the improbability that an Iraqi venture will succeed as planned.
Additionally, Jimmy Carter lays it all out in this superb piece in today's New York Times.
Face it, folks: Dubya's in deep shit, and he's taking America's reputation with him.
My goodness...
Check out this story on Capital Hill Blue. It seems even a majority of Republicans are having trouble rationalizing support for Bush's war stance now.
Check out this story on Capital Hill Blue. It seems even a majority of Republicans are having trouble rationalizing support for Bush's war stance now.
A defining moment
It would seem two recent events are changing some minds regarding the upcoming invasion of Iraq. The first was the faux press conference on Thursday; the second is the recent revelation that some of the evidence regarding Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction (TM) was likely faked.
Well-meaning liberals who (quite understandably) thought that overthrowing Saddam and giving the Iraqi people a democratic government was worth the cost are now re-assessing their positions. Of course, we Weasels have long felt that Dubya is hopelessly out of his depth, especially with this venture; he has not demonstrated any inkling of what it would take to rebuild Iraq into a thriving modern democracy (a few million little yellow MRE's don't quite cut it), much less any willingness to follow through with such (witness the failure of the administration to support post-Taliban Afghanistan in their latest budget). However, Dubya's scripted, vague performance and complete refusal to answer the most straightforward questions seem to have brought things home.
As for the faked evidence: I, for one, am willing to give the US and British governments some benefit of the doubt that they weren't responsible for it -- there are numerous other entities with an interest in planting that sort of thing. At the very least, however, they should have known better (evidently, it wasn't all that difficult to discover the evidence's fraudulent nature), and their blind acceptance of the evidence in question points to a dangerous willingness to view information promoting Invasion Iraq 2003 with an uncritical eye.
It would seem two recent events are changing some minds regarding the upcoming invasion of Iraq. The first was the faux press conference on Thursday; the second is the recent revelation that some of the evidence regarding Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction (TM) was likely faked.
Well-meaning liberals who (quite understandably) thought that overthrowing Saddam and giving the Iraqi people a democratic government was worth the cost are now re-assessing their positions. Of course, we Weasels have long felt that Dubya is hopelessly out of his depth, especially with this venture; he has not demonstrated any inkling of what it would take to rebuild Iraq into a thriving modern democracy (a few million little yellow MRE's don't quite cut it), much less any willingness to follow through with such (witness the failure of the administration to support post-Taliban Afghanistan in their latest budget). However, Dubya's scripted, vague performance and complete refusal to answer the most straightforward questions seem to have brought things home.
As for the faked evidence: I, for one, am willing to give the US and British governments some benefit of the doubt that they weren't responsible for it -- there are numerous other entities with an interest in planting that sort of thing. At the very least, however, they should have known better (evidently, it wasn't all that difficult to discover the evidence's fraudulent nature), and their blind acceptance of the evidence in question points to a dangerous willingness to view information promoting Invasion Iraq 2003 with an uncritical eye.
The New York Times has a fluff piece right now on Bush "girding" for war that says he's doing so "in solitude, but not in doubt".
Three things come to mind. First, I have difficulty seeing Bush "girding" for war -- he seems much more adept at avoiding any such service. Second, I'd vastly prefer a little less solitude and a little more doubt. And finally, it seems to me there'd be a little less solitude if Bush hadn't systematically alienated most of our important allies in his relentless, tunnel-visioned drive towards starting a war with an irrelevant power.
It's also notable that the piece seems in part to be yet another attempt by the White House spinmeisters at rehabilitating Dubya's image, this time after his disastrous press conference on Thursday. The author writes glowingly about Bush being "a man under inconceivable pressures", etc.
Three things come to mind. First, I have difficulty seeing Bush "girding" for war -- he seems much more adept at avoiding any such service. Second, I'd vastly prefer a little less solitude and a little more doubt. And finally, it seems to me there'd be a little less solitude if Bush hadn't systematically alienated most of our important allies in his relentless, tunnel-visioned drive towards starting a war with an irrelevant power.
It's also notable that the piece seems in part to be yet another attempt by the White House spinmeisters at rehabilitating Dubya's image, this time after his disastrous press conference on Thursday. The author writes glowingly about Bush being "a man under inconceivable pressures", etc.
I guess I'm not alone in believing that Bush's Audience with the Little People on Thursday was utterly unconvincing. It seems to be the opinion of the Weasels that King George the Doofus is losing his grip. There's even speculation that he's resumed his drug habit.
Now, if liberals can just get it together in 2004...remember, a "protest vote" doesn't mean much when the most whacko, extreme, incompetent fool gets into office as a result.
Now, if liberals can just get it together in 2004...remember, a "protest vote" doesn't mean much when the most whacko, extreme, incompetent fool gets into office as a result.
It works!!
Test under my own name!
