Instapundit: Champion of the Intellectually Lazy
Glenn Reynolds (a.k.a. Instapundit) had this to say on his running daily MSNBC blog.
And it did -- the war, Kerry told us, was an honorable one, in defense of America.
What, the Iraq war? No, the war that Kerry prefers to talk about: Vietnam!
As reader Gary Duncan emails:
2004 convention: Democrats roll Max Cleland onto the stage to say what a great thing it was to have served in Vietnam.
Neither Kerry nor Cleland said anything about whether or not Vietnam was a wise war to fight. They said it was an honor to serve their country. And they said it was an honor to serve alongside each other. It's clear from everything else Kerry said in his speech as well that despite the fact that we rushed unnecessarily into this war, the soldiers in Iraq now ARE fighting for an important cause. Mainly, to fix something we broke. There are no inconsistencies there, just wise men dealing with hard truths.
This, however, is unnecessarily critical because, in fact, Kerry's statements represent a major step forward for the Democrats, as James Lileks pointed out,
"I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as President."
But Lileks then equates THAT statement as well to being an endorsement of the Vietnam War. It's not. Anybody who puts on a uniform and shoots at enemy soldiers has the notion that they are defending our country. That microcosm, though, is not a direct representation of the full geopolitical effects of any war. Both Vietnam and the Iraq War are great examples of this. German soldiers that invaded France and Poland in World War II also thought they were defending their country because they stood alongside other Germans and fought the enemy, but the reality of that situation was that their actions, on a larger scale, made Germany a target, and therefore made them much weaker and eventually led to their defeat.
Next, he quotes the Washington Post saying:
Mr. Kerry last night elided the charged question of whether, as president, he would have gone to war in Iraq.
Why did he do that? Because he has no idea whether or not he would have!! The problem with the war in Iraq wasn't that we decided it was necessary to fight a war against Saddam, the problem was because our President thought that it was an easy decision to make. And that laziness and arrogance that Bush displayed is what cost us the luxury of a strong coalition, and that lack of a strong coalition is what has caused this war to be such a tremendous failure. Kerry's war vote was a nod to Bush to allow him to view the war as an OPTION, it was Bush's fault that he didn't weigh the options and seek the truth with the amount of responsibility we should expect from our commander-in-chief. And it was Bush's fault that planning for the aftermath was a total afterthought.
And more from the Post:
Nor did Mr. Kerry's statements about future threats do justice to the complexity of today's challenge.
If Bush manages to do this in his speech, I'll vote for him. But only if all the flying pigs don't give Rove an excuse to postpone the election.
Republicans are already peddling a twelve minute video consisting of clips of Kerry sounding bellicose, denouncing Saddam and worrying about weapons of mass destruction, until he started to run for the Democratic nomination. Kerry's harsh criticism of the war, and of Bush, looks like a flip-flop, not a firm stand.
So Bush's statements in 2000 about how he won't nation-build and use American troops to overthrow dictators aren't a flip-flop? What planet are you on? There's no inconsistency in a position that says, "This guy is dangerous, but fighting a poorly-planned war against him based on lies and intentionally misleading statements will make things worse for the U.S. as a whole" That's not a flip-flop! That's wisdom.
Kerry needs to do more than tell us that Bush was wrong on Iraq, and that he'll ask the tough questions if he's President. He needs to tell us why he was wrong on Iraq, and why he didn't ask the tough questions as a member of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees.
So the onus is on Kerry to prove that he was doing his job questioning the President, but not on the President, for doing his job getting the right answers? Now, I expect logic this poor from the legions of dittoheads that think Clinton is a rapist and that Michael Moore is a communist, but you're a goddamn college professor! What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you saying things this stupid just to keep your status as 'right-wing blogger' at MSNBC? Are you afraid they'll fire you for saying something coherent? Or are you just really an intellectually lazy hillbilly that got lucky because you were an early adopter to the blogging craze?
And it did -- the war, Kerry told us, was an honorable one, in defense of America.
What, the Iraq war? No, the war that Kerry prefers to talk about: Vietnam!
As reader Gary Duncan emails:
2004 convention: Democrats roll Max Cleland onto the stage to say what a great thing it was to have served in Vietnam.
Neither Kerry nor Cleland said anything about whether or not Vietnam was a wise war to fight. They said it was an honor to serve their country. And they said it was an honor to serve alongside each other. It's clear from everything else Kerry said in his speech as well that despite the fact that we rushed unnecessarily into this war, the soldiers in Iraq now ARE fighting for an important cause. Mainly, to fix something we broke. There are no inconsistencies there, just wise men dealing with hard truths.
This, however, is unnecessarily critical because, in fact, Kerry's statements represent a major step forward for the Democrats, as James Lileks pointed out,
"I defended this country as a young man, and I will defend it as President."
But Lileks then equates THAT statement as well to being an endorsement of the Vietnam War. It's not. Anybody who puts on a uniform and shoots at enemy soldiers has the notion that they are defending our country. That microcosm, though, is not a direct representation of the full geopolitical effects of any war. Both Vietnam and the Iraq War are great examples of this. German soldiers that invaded France and Poland in World War II also thought they were defending their country because they stood alongside other Germans and fought the enemy, but the reality of that situation was that their actions, on a larger scale, made Germany a target, and therefore made them much weaker and eventually led to their defeat.
Next, he quotes the Washington Post saying:
Mr. Kerry last night elided the charged question of whether, as president, he would have gone to war in Iraq.
Why did he do that? Because he has no idea whether or not he would have!! The problem with the war in Iraq wasn't that we decided it was necessary to fight a war against Saddam, the problem was because our President thought that it was an easy decision to make. And that laziness and arrogance that Bush displayed is what cost us the luxury of a strong coalition, and that lack of a strong coalition is what has caused this war to be such a tremendous failure. Kerry's war vote was a nod to Bush to allow him to view the war as an OPTION, it was Bush's fault that he didn't weigh the options and seek the truth with the amount of responsibility we should expect from our commander-in-chief. And it was Bush's fault that planning for the aftermath was a total afterthought.
And more from the Post:
Nor did Mr. Kerry's statements about future threats do justice to the complexity of today's challenge.
If Bush manages to do this in his speech, I'll vote for him. But only if all the flying pigs don't give Rove an excuse to postpone the election.
Republicans are already peddling a twelve minute video consisting of clips of Kerry sounding bellicose, denouncing Saddam and worrying about weapons of mass destruction, until he started to run for the Democratic nomination. Kerry's harsh criticism of the war, and of Bush, looks like a flip-flop, not a firm stand.
So Bush's statements in 2000 about how he won't nation-build and use American troops to overthrow dictators aren't a flip-flop? What planet are you on? There's no inconsistency in a position that says, "This guy is dangerous, but fighting a poorly-planned war against him based on lies and intentionally misleading statements will make things worse for the U.S. as a whole" That's not a flip-flop! That's wisdom.
Kerry needs to do more than tell us that Bush was wrong on Iraq, and that he'll ask the tough questions if he's President. He needs to tell us why he was wrong on Iraq, and why he didn't ask the tough questions as a member of the Senate Intelligence and Foreign Relations committees.
So the onus is on Kerry to prove that he was doing his job questioning the President, but not on the President, for doing his job getting the right answers? Now, I expect logic this poor from the legions of dittoheads that think Clinton is a rapist and that Michael Moore is a communist, but you're a goddamn college professor! What the fuck is wrong with you? Are you saying things this stupid just to keep your status as 'right-wing blogger' at MSNBC? Are you afraid they'll fire you for saying something coherent? Or are you just really an intellectually lazy hillbilly that got lucky because you were an early adopter to the blogging craze?
posted by thehim at 11:16 AM
<< Home