Reply
Sun 31 Dec, 2006 08:48 am
This is an excerpt from an opinion piece by Pulitzer-prize winning novelist and essayist Jane Smiley. Please note the parts I bolded:
I was working on another post, entitled, "How is the War in Iraq like a Frontal Lobotomy?" (answer--false advertising), but really, I'm not that interested in the history anymore. I'm more interested in the "surge". I'm interested because the "surge" is a classic example of a loser's strategy, and it is about to be put in place by a bunch of
losers. The "surge" is about saving face rather than achieving an objective, and, let me say it right here, it's a guy thing. It's like "going down fighting", except that those who are going to be going down aren't going to be those who want to save face.
People always comment on how stubborn George W. Bush is, or how stupid he is, or how ignorant he is, but what they don't comment on is how selfish he is. Clearly, the face that is being saved in this probable "surge" is his face, and that's how he wants it.
He is willing to sacrifice any number of troops (and we don't know what that number will be, but it could be high) and any number of Iraqis (certainly a higher number, because the American troops will throw off all restraint) in order to say that---Well, what? What would be the expression? "We did our best"? Well, no. The Bush administration didn't do their best, because they never gave their post war strategy any thought. "We tried"? Hardly. "We did everything we could"? But no. They gave the PR a shot ("weapons of mass destruction"), but in the end, they were indifferent to everything about the war except George W. Bush's mood. When his mood was good, they told him some nice things about Iraq, and when his mood was bad, they kept the bad news from him so his mood wouldn't get worse. Remember how the former British Ambassador was warned by Condi Rice as he went into a meeting with Bush, "Don't make him angry"?
Now, I don't suggest that people like Okie and Brandon and cjhsa (and Timberland and O'Bill among others, to a lesser degree) are equal in their degree of coresponsibility for the Iraq fiasco as are the close advisors to the president. I only submit that in their unquestioning acceptance and support for G. W. Bush's headlong inital plunge into Iraq 3+ years ago, and in their continued support for him, despite the obvious insanity (the definition for insanity here meaning being persistent in the same methods and expecting different results) of the "upcoming "surge", they are just as morally and intellectually compromised as are those high profile losers like Cheney and Rice.
To illustrate what I mean, let us for a moment imagine that tomorrow morning, George W. Bush himself publicly capitulated to the outcry to begin withdrawing from Iraq en masse. In that case, those A2K'ers I named above would have no real choices but to either do a completely incongruent and obviously disingenuous 180 degree turnabout and follow their leader, or to insist that they were still right about Iraq and become irredeemably exposed once and for all as morally and intellectually feckless.
In continuing to support Bush, even in this suicidal (for the soldiers) and homicidal (for the Iraqis) idea of a "surge", they are abandoning, IMO, any claim to caring about the greater good, or our soldiers, or almost anything at all except saving face for Bush.
No one - no president, no human being on earth, is worth abandoning all common sense and integrity for.
In supporting the George W. Bush "surge", that's what it looks to me like some are doing.
when I get banned it's usually anywhere from 2 to 6 months. PM me your email addy so I can keep in touch with you buddy.
what you say must be true
when perusing the new post page, i was struck by a revelation
the revelation can be found here
http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2458562#2458562
This is a blatant bait. I hope BpB is right.
Snood
Snood, I salute your common sense and integrity.
BBB
You can hope all you want. You might pray a little too.
way to take the bait Sluggo...
Hmmm... that's interesting, BpB - suggesting that I may be banned for this thread. I honestly didn't think it was ad hominem.
It can be debated - the point I make being compromised intellectually and morally. Points could be raised that attempt to explain the continued support of a president who I and many others consider lost vis-a-vis foreign policy.
Or, I suppose it could be looked at as a nasty and blatant personal attack.
That honestly wasn't the mood in which it was written. It was more of a last-ditch appeal to those on the right to acknowledge the cliff toward which Bush seems determined to drive.
why not just let 'em go over the cliff together snood? We can sit back, have a glass of wine or spirits, and enjoy watching the herd thinned..... :wink:
snood wrote:
Or, I suppose it could be looked at as a nasty and blatant personal attack.
That honestly wasn't the mood in which it was written. It was more of a last-ditch appeal to those on the right to acknowledge the cliff toward which Bush seems determined to drive.
the truth, as they say, hurts
i myself saw the post as you describe it above, a last ditch appeal
things are going wrong and more troops means more dead, on both sides
let me go on record. I did not find snoods post as bait, ad hominem or anything more than he states it was.
Just having my little joke. I consider snood one of my favorite posters.
Wow. That means alot coming from you - BpB. Thanks, and HAPPY DADBLAMED NEWYEAR!!!!!!!!!!
I can't see snood being in trouble here. All he did was state the truth as he sees it, re politics. Not an assault in the personal sense.
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:why not just let 'em go over the cliff together snood? We can sit back, have a glass of wine or spirits, and enjoy watching the herd thinned..... :wink:
Yeah, only problem is - there are another couple hundred soldiers who might have to give up their young lives for this farce.
snood wrote:Bi-Polar Bear wrote:why not just let 'em go over the cliff together snood? We can sit back, have a glass of wine or spirits, and enjoy watching the herd thinned..... :wink:
Yeah, only problem is - there are another
couple hundred soldiers who might have to give up their young lives for this farce.
give george and company some credit, i'm sure they can do better than that
but we can hope i'm wrong
Re: Bush Supporters are Intellectually and Morally Compromis
snood wrote:
...Now, I don't suggest that people like Okie and Brandon and cjhsa (and Timberland and O'Bill among others, to a lesser degree) are equal in their degree of coresponsibility for the Iraq fiasco as are the close advisors to the president. I only submit that in their unquestioning acceptance and support for G. W. Bush's headlong inital plunge into Iraq 3+ years ago, and in their continued support for him, despite the obvious insanity (the definition for insanity here meaning being persistent in the same methods and expecting different results) of the "upcoming "surge", they are just as morally and intellectually compromised as are those high profile losers like Cheney and Rice.
To illustrate what I mean, let us for a moment imagine that tomorrow morning, George W. Bush himself publicly capitulated to the outcry to begin withdrawing from Iraq en masse. In that case, those A2K'ers I named above would have no real choices but to either do a completely incongruent and obviously disingenuous 180 degree turnabout and follow their leader, or to insist that they were still right about Iraq and become irredeemably exposed once and for all as morally and intellectually feckless.
In continuing to support Bush, even in this suicidal (for the soldiers) and homicidal (for the Iraqis) idea of a "surge", they are abandoning, IMO, any claim to caring about the greater good, or our soldiers, or almost anything at all except saving face for Bush.
No one - no president, no human being on earth, is worth abandoning all common sense and integrity for.
In supporting the George W. Bush "surge", that's what it looks to me like some are doing.
So those who disagree with you are intellectually and morally compromised. How tolerant. You clearly have little or no comprehension of my thinking or motives. To answer your question directly, my support for Bush exists only as long as he does things that I want him to do, which, up to the present time, he usually does. Were he to abandon the Iraqis to the insurgents, I would cease instantly to support his policies, and treat him, naturally, as someone who had a long history of doing things I agreed with, but had suddenly done something I considered very wrong. I know it's easier for your arguments to suggest that I am supporting him unswervingly, but the actual fact is that I support him simply because he does what I want him to do most of the time, and says things I agree with most of the time. I was arguing in favor of an invasion of Iraq for years before I even became conscious that George Bush existed. Paradoxically, I support politicians who agree with me and oppose those who disagree with me. I believe that he was absolutely correct to invade Iraq, and not particularly culpable for failing to anticipate the factional violence in Iraq, but rather culpable for not having then adjusted the war strategy enough to prevail. Had he not invaded, and had Iraq later declared that they had perfected and built atomic bombs, things might now or soon be much worse than they are. A western city might, for instance, have been vaporized by a suitcase nuke (Iraq would, of course, deny any involvement) and Hussein might now be using the threat of the weapons, or the actual use of the weapons, to annex his neighbors as he had previously tried to do with conventional weapons. And, personally, I find it to be in rather poor taste to refer critically to specific individuals in a post before those individuals enter the post.
Snood is entitled to his opinion of those who support -- and continue to support -- the Iraq War. Just as I'm entitled to my opinion of those who place great stock in the Huffington Post or horse novelists.
(I did not consider his post to be a personal attack, btw. But then, of course, I was not specifically named.)
I am willing to concede to your point about it perhaps being in bad taste to mention individuals, if you are willing to concede to me that the issue is grave enough, and the ideologies disparate enough to produce in me a need to raise the question.
In other words, I would ask you Brandon, and others whose screen names I used to take this as you did - for the most part... as an opportunity to say clearly why you are supporting the views you support. This war - this particular war in Iraq - has never been a good idea to me.
I said I can respect someone who says they are wrong. But I think I can also respect someone with whom I deeply disagree, if I think that they are moved to their beliefs by their convictions.
Thanks for your answer, and happy goldanged New Year.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace