Re: A New American Nationalism, Modestly Proposed
gmark_at_svs.com
Date: 01/31/05
- Next message: quirk_at_syntac.net: "Re: Venture Communism Draft IV"
- Previous message: ruetheday_at_outgun.com: "Re: The monopolization of the air and Georgism"
- In reply to: jay_stutz_at_yahoo.com: "Re: A New American Nationalism, Modestly Proposed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 31 Jan 2005 13:35:34 -0800
Dang, this is a LOT easier than, you know, writin' stuff and all.
GMS
John Podhoretz, NY Post:
E-mail: podhoretz@nypost.com
WHEN you heard about the stunning success
of the Iraqi elections, were you thrilled?
Did you see it as a triumph for democracy and
for the armed forces of the United States that
have sacrificed and suffered and fought so valiantly
over the past 18 months to get Iraq to this moment?
Or did you momentarily feel an onrush of disappointment
because you knew, you just knew, that this was
going to redound to the credit of George W. Bush?
This means you, Michael Moore. I'm talking to you,
Teddy Kennedy. And not just to the two of you,
but to all those who follow in your train.
There are literally millions of Americans who
are unhappy today because millions of Iraqis
went to the polls yesterday. And why? Because
this isn't just a success for Bush. It's a huge
win. It's a colossal vindication.
It's a big fat gigantic winning vindication
of the guy that the Moores and Kennedys and
millions of others still can't believe anybody
voted for.
And they know it.
And it's killing them.
Case in point: the junior Eeyore from Massachusetts,
John Forbes Kerry, who had the distinct misfortune
of being booked onto "Meet the Press" yesterday
only 90 minutes after the polls closed in Iraq and
couldn't think of a thing to say that didn't sound negat
"No one in the United States should try to overhype
this election," said the man who actually came
within 3 million votes of becoming the leader
of the Free World back in November.
No? How about "underhyping"? How about belittling
it? How about acting as though it doesn't matter
all that much? That's what Kerry did, and in
so doing, revealed yet again that he has the
emotional intelligence of a pet rock and the
political judgment of a . . . well, of a John Kerry.
At the worst possible time to express pessimistic
skepticism, Kerry did just that. The election
only had a "kind of legitimacy," he said. He said
he "was for the election taking place" (how big of
him!), but then said that "it's gone as expected."
Hey, wait a second. If it went as Kerry "expected,"
how could he have been "for the election taking
place" - since the election only had, in his
view, a "kind of legitimacy"?
I mean, who would want an election with only
a "kind of legitimacy"?
Is Kerry perhaps saying he was for the election
before he was against it? Kerry views the results
in Iraq as being less legitimate than, say, the
opinions about U.S. conduct in Iraq as expressed to
him by "Arab leaders." In a truly jaw-dropping moment,
he told Tim Russert approvingly of his conversations
with those self-same Arab leaders Hosni Mubarak
of Egypt and King Abdullah of Jordan among them
who expressed concerns about the Bush administration's
approach in Iraq.
Kerry seems to believe that the autocrats and
oligarchs in the region are actually rooting
for the creation of a democracy in their midst
and want to help the United States make it happen.
Okay, what politician wants to join Kerry in
pooh-poohing an election in which at least 8
million Iraqis braved death to cast a ballot?
What politician wants to cite Mubarak and Abdullah
in support of that position? Hillary? Hillary,
are you there?
Wow, suddenly it's so quiet in here you can
hear crickets chirping.
Yesterday's amazing human drama in the land
between the Tigris and the Euphrates changes
the nature of the political bet on Iraq, and
that's why you don't hear Hillary Clinton throwing
her lot in with the skeptics. She better steer
clear of Newsweek magazine this week as well. In
another jaw-dropping display, Fareed Zakaria
soberly informs us in this week's issue that
Iraq's democratic evolution is probably doomed
because get this it isn't proceeding according
to a plan he outlined in a book he published two
years ago.
No, I'm not kidding.
"No matter how the voting turns out," Zakaria
wrote, "the prospects for genuine democracy
in Iraq are increasingly grim... In April
2003, around the time Baghdad fell, I published
a book that described the path to liberal democracy
... In Newsweek that month, I outlined the
three conditions Iraq had to fulfill to avoid
this fate. It is currently doing badly at all three."
Whoa, better stop the vote counting, Omar! You
Iraqis aren't following the Zakaria Plan! Tell
you what I'll go to my dentist's office and
send you an old copy of Newsweek from his coffee
table so that you can get yourself right with Zakaria.
Yesterday was a day for Democrats and opponents
of George W. Bush to swallow their bile and
retract their claws and join just for a moment
in celebration of an amazing and thrilling human
drama in a land that has seen more than its
share of thrilling human drama over the past 5,000
years.
But you just couldn't do it, could you?
Losers.
- Next message: quirk_at_syntac.net: "Re: Venture Communism Draft IV"
- Previous message: ruetheday_at_outgun.com: "Re: The monopolization of the air and Georgism"
- In reply to: jay_stutz_at_yahoo.com: "Re: A New American Nationalism, Modestly Proposed"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
