Sunday, July 22, 2007

Mona Charen: Democratomyopia

Republicans have, of course, been wrong about everything about Iraq thus far. But conservatives do not admit error. The Bush dead-enders are still trying to defend every single one of Dear Leader's actions. He is, to hear them tell it, guilty only of--if anything--caring too much.

So it's beyond tedious to hear these immoral, incompetent, dogmatic morons carp about the Democrats' lack of perfection with regard to Iraq.

Problem is, they do have some points. Mona Charen makes a few of them here--mixed in among boilerplate conservative nonsense.

It IS hard to believe that Dems don't think that it's likely to get worse after we leave. It might not--and God knows we all hope that it doesn't--but odds are that it will. If you're not having nightmares about Cambodia, perhaps you should be.

And, as Charen points out, it's rather puzzling why Dems are arguing that our presence in Iraq is a catalyst for violence--but our presence in Afghanistan is not.

But it IS hard to take the Bushies seriously when they continue to deliver their partisan lines with super-dogmatic confidence even when they've been wrong about everything up to this point. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and I wish Dems would take some of these points more seriously. Of course if Republicans had an ounce of intellectual integrity, a modicum of humility, or the sense that God gave a goose, and if they really wanted people to listen to them, they'd admit that they are the ones responsible for screwing this particular pooch beyond all recognition, ask for some measure of forgiveness, and then try to make their case with something at least vaguely resembling a civil tone. But NRO-style Republicans seem incapable of saying anything in any tone other than one of smug, self-satisfied infallibility. And those who take such a tone are obviously not taking the debate seriously. So I think the rest of us might be excused for not taking them seriously.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And, as Charen points out, it's rather puzzling why Dems are arguing that our presence in Iraq is a catalyst for violence--but our presence in Afghanistan is not."

`And, as X points out, it's rather puzzling why Doctors are arguing that antibiotics cure bacterial infections--but do nothing for viral infections.'

different culture, differnt history, different situation on the ground. There is nothing puzzling about this at all.

11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There's also the small matter of different justification too.

12:58 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Um...and exactly what ARE those differences, A?

1:17 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Which is a polite way of saying:

The medical analogy seems bogus.

1:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

note: there are in fact two A's

erm, are you arguing that the histories, cultures, and situations are the same in Iraq and Afganistan?

There are places military force works, and places it doesn't. The world is not so simple that blanket statements like `military force does(n't) work' can ever possible be true.

7:58 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home