March 10, 2003
Almost regardless of what happens in the coming war, the hawks will probably take it as a vindication. If we see a surge in domestic terrorism, it will be proof that Iraq and al-Qaeda are linked, and that it’s important to fight on against a still-looming threat. It sure won’t be a sign that perhaps we should reevaluate our strategy, since that would constiute “appeasement” or “blaming America.” If we don’t, they’ll cluck their tongues at what scaredy-cats we all were to suggest such a thing. If Hussein uses biological or chemical weapons on advancing American troops, it will be further evidence of his barbarism (did we need any?) and willingness to use prohibited weapons stockpiles. If he doesn’t, well, that certainly refutes all our dovish “scaremongering” about the prospect, doesn’t it? Ah well, I suppose now I just get to hope that I get “proved wrong” in the second way in each case.[12:11 AM]
That's been a worry of mine for a while. The Bush Administration, suffers from war only in the long run. It got an incredible boost in the short run, and probably in the medium run.
But never forget:
"You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."
Someday people are going realize what an utter crock of distraction the war on Iraq is. It might take a leak, or a open mike, or something really ugly happening.
Hopefully sooner than later. The problem is that Bush has had that great gift to him from a lower power (9/11), added to the support of the elites of our society (by that, I mean the people with money and power, not Ph.D.'s in universities).
My pessimistic version of Lincoln's statement changes the last clause to 'and sometimes, that's enough'.
Okay, but what is the war in Iraq distracting us from?
If it's the economy, it's a pathetic distraction, since so far it looks to me like the war and its preparation is what's depressing the economy now more than anything else.
It's certainly not helping the economy. But there was a big slowdown even before 9/11. Things the war distracts us from: Tax cuts for the rich, changes to environmental rules, curtailment of privacy and civil rights, the Enron fiasco (did ya read about how Karl Rove vetted creepoid "Christian" activist Reed for a cushy consultant position at Enron?) . . . need more?
It does worry me that so many people will always be unwilling to hold Bush to account for his decisions. We're still hearing about what a great job he did in Afghanistan, even though he hasn't followed through and now we're right back where we were at the point when the Taliban seemed to many Afghanis like a good idea. Which is, of course, just what many anti-war people were worried about prior to the attack. We were assured that, no, we're not going to make that mistake. And now we're being assured again that we will follow through in Iraq. If we don't, will the punditocracy finally be prepared to object to this continuous fraud?
I seriously think that the majority of the punditocracy is selected for not doing so. And it'll be that way until the money and power in this society decides that Bush is to be dropped. Since the only alternative for them is a Democrat, they'll fight that all the way down - just like in 1992.
Hard-Hitting Moderator: Teresa Nielsen Hayden.
Comments on The very intelligent libertarian: