Crunchy Foreign Policy.
George Bush got us into "a bad war on dubious pretenses." Iraq has been a debacle supported by "naïve" Christian conservatives.
"I find myself incapable of trusting this bunch who got us into this foolish Iraq debacle to make the right decisions on Iran--and to be honest with the American people. There's no getting rid of Bush and Cheney, but Rumsfeld? Yes."
Should Rumsfeld resign? "Absolutely."
"If, God forbid, the U.S. has to go to war with Iran, we had better do so only as a last resort, and we'll have to do it with the country united. Unity will be hard enough for Bush to pull off after the calamity of Iraq--but impossible to do, I think, with Donald Rumsfeld in place."
Who wrote this stuff? The euphemistic version of "Bush lied, people died"? The ahistorical notion that a war that is long, hard, and imperfect is ipso facto a calamity? The ridiculous idea that throwing Rumsfeld to the wolves would actually improve the chances of Democrats uniting behind Bush to deal with Iran? The positively dangerous idea that we cannot use military force against Iran unless there is such unity?
Who would honestly think that, if Bush removed Rumsfeld, Dems in Congress would ignore the smell of blood in the water and drop all thoughts about impeachment? Who would seriously suggest that the President should make bipartisanship the first priority in foreign policy in any circumstances, to say nothing of the here-and-now where a rabid left is willing to do anything to "get Bush" and where a sociopathic Iranian government is trying to get nuclear weapons?
The answer is, Rod Dreher, in his new blog at BeliefNet.com.
I wish I had something witty to say in response, this being a parody site and all, but it's hard for the humor gland to work when my Idiot Detector's screaming.
UPDATE (4/18): Ned Rice at NRO has just declared that we've lost the war, that it is a "miserable failure" and an "unwinnable exercise in imperialistic hubris."
Hard to argue with such wisdom.
"I find myself incapable of trusting this bunch who got us into this foolish Iraq debacle to make the right decisions on Iran--and to be honest with the American people. There's no getting rid of Bush and Cheney, but Rumsfeld? Yes."
Should Rumsfeld resign? "Absolutely."
"If, God forbid, the U.S. has to go to war with Iran, we had better do so only as a last resort, and we'll have to do it with the country united. Unity will be hard enough for Bush to pull off after the calamity of Iraq--but impossible to do, I think, with Donald Rumsfeld in place."
Who wrote this stuff? The euphemistic version of "Bush lied, people died"? The ahistorical notion that a war that is long, hard, and imperfect is ipso facto a calamity? The ridiculous idea that throwing Rumsfeld to the wolves would actually improve the chances of Democrats uniting behind Bush to deal with Iran? The positively dangerous idea that we cannot use military force against Iran unless there is such unity?
Who would honestly think that, if Bush removed Rumsfeld, Dems in Congress would ignore the smell of blood in the water and drop all thoughts about impeachment? Who would seriously suggest that the President should make bipartisanship the first priority in foreign policy in any circumstances, to say nothing of the here-and-now where a rabid left is willing to do anything to "get Bush" and where a sociopathic Iranian government is trying to get nuclear weapons?
The answer is, Rod Dreher, in his new blog at BeliefNet.com.
I wish I had something witty to say in response, this being a parody site and all, but it's hard for the humor gland to work when my Idiot Detector's screaming.
UPDATE (4/18): Ned Rice at NRO has just declared that we've lost the war, that it is a "miserable failure" and an "unwinnable exercise in imperialistic hubris."
Hard to argue with such wisdom.
posted by Anonymous at 12:37 PM
6 Comments:
what if, in 1891, the US went to war with a Crazy Dictator in the middle east? and 2 years later, in 1893, people with mysterious sponsorship from the same region tried and failed to blow up our biggest building? and 8 years after that, in 1901, people with mysterious sponsorship from the same region again tried to blow up the same building, and succeeded? looking back from one hundred years later, it would hardly seem reasonable to suggest that Crazy Dictator had zero! -- nothing! -- to do with those attacks.
Rod talks about "naivete" -- to me it seems naive to believe Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.
I hope that in the same spirit of challenging us soggy conservatives on the environment and what-not that Rod challenged those "Sierrans" that he spoke to on some pro-life issues. That would be edgy, crunchy, courageous even....
Otherwise some people - like me, for instance - might be tempted to think that he's playing the kind of political triangulation game that he despises in, well, faux conservative politicians. He might almost remind some people of John (heh, heh) McCain - perish the thought!
Rod states: "Sierra Club members are as normal looking as anyone at a church supper." Yeah - Rod's a real man (see I Samuel 16:7).
I guess the members he was talking about were the ones who could afford the $600/table tickets to the Sierra Club Awards Banquet. Bet it was a hell of a spread for the rich folk. They probably even took some left-overs home for the nanny and the little enviro-brats.
Iconoclasm suits the narcissist perfectly. He has a platform and wishes to be noticed, so he distinguishes himself from the madding crowd. Any disagreement with him just reinforces the fact that he is a misunderstood martyr for his cause, making him seem all the more extraordinary.
Or to paraphrase item number one of the "crunchy Con" manifesto: Rod is a conservative who stands outside the conservative mainstream; therefore, he can see things that matter more clearly [than we can].
btw, what is the Rod versus Ray business on the corner yesterday? another TNP type with multiple aliases i guess ...
Well, Pseudonym-Rod is now a Democratic consultant explaining how to reach normal people with the environazi message.
Maybe Nimrod doesn't realize it, but if Bush were a Democrat his approval rating would be at least in the 80's. The top 3 issues Americans identify are the economy, war on terror and Iraq. Most people admit all 3 are going well - great economic growth, no attacks since 9/11 and decreasing casualties and democratization in Iraq. The constant drumbeat of the media is what has beaten the AR for Bush down and if Nimrod wants to play tambourine I suppose he's welcome at the jam session.
Not that Bush has helped very much, granted - I'd love to see him take more leadership on immigration. Hopefully the Iran speech is coming soon.
Bubba:
> I actually don't have a problem with
> someone giving the DNC advice: Rush
> does it, for humor. I could see others
> doing it for the sake of the nation
"Dittoes", Bubba. I'd love to see America win the pro-life battle which would mean the Republicans would "lose" abortion as a campaign issue. This would send the party looking for other issues. Would we pick up the crunchy issues, would that be a part of the new platform? Maybe... I’m skeptical...
...but Rod's not content with that. He's wants the Republican Party to push his issues now, before this major cultural war has been won. And yes, I have sensed from the beginning the eerie similarity to the moral equivalency of the left. He won't go as far as Sister Chittister's recent crazy remarks on MTP, but there's kind of a moral equivalency "lite": "Well, certain types of consumption promote a consumerist mentality which can promote a materialist mentality which can lead to a contraceptive mentality which leads to abortion sometimes, therefore conservatives who are against abortion but OK with strip malls are being inconsistent."
Another problem is that Rod seems to believe that the Sierra types and Earth First and all these wacko organizations have no other goal than to protect the environment. No, there’s no political agenda, right? These are just the types of folks you’d see at a church dinner! Honestly, if the Sierra Club doesn’t violate Crunchy Rule 6 – they were doing the 527-loophole money-laundering in the last election and throwing around millions with the other big-lib players.
And notice that Rod’s white-washing of these enviro-libs is exactly the kind of thing he dislikes about the conservative "company-man" mentality.
Post a Comment
<< Home