There was an angry post here at first, which I deleted. Let us simply say that if Kevin Drum wishes to complain about some conservatives then he should not use language that implies inappropriate reactions exhibited by all conservatives – and that if he indeed feels that the reactions in that post are universal of all conservatives…
There was an angry bit deleted there, too. There are days when even contemplating becoming a Buddha is an uphill struggle.
Yup. Drum went too far to make a funny post. And wasn’t accurate.
Fox panel tonight decided Rumsfeld may possibly survive, but was very glum. There is extremely damning stuff to come, worse than what we have seen. And although Rumsfeld may not be to blame, the panel agreed that it was likely that a heavyweight was going to be thrown overboard to save the lifeboat.
My guess regarding his The Way Conservatives Are Reacting is that he’s referring to some Big Name Guys not named Moe.
Rush, of course. Tom DeLay. Linda Chavez gets the ball rolling nicely in the LA Times. Or hey, Michael Medved who thinks this means women shouldn’t be in the military. Throw a stick out your window and you’ll hear someone barking one of Drum’s listed points. Does this include all conservatives? Of course not. How about the conservative pundit gang? Hmm. Maybe. How about leading conservative firebrands. I’d say yep. How about as majority of the conservative opinion-makers?
Hey, it’s your team. You decide. But just repeat to yourself: this song is probably not about you.
I have to say that it’s been pretty nasty around blogovia in recent days, both in main posts and in comments.
I’ve been thinking about why, and I’ve come to the conclusion that there’s a fight for the moral high ground going on that’s as fierce as I’ve seen in my brief 25 years.
Aside from disgust and anger at the war itself, antiwar liberals are still smarting over the “you would have left Saddam in power” thing, and are striking back with a vengeance in an effort to reclaim what was lost.
And prowar conservatives are resentful at constantly having to defend the war and straining to see positive developments in a harshly critical environment. They suspect a disjunction between the unflattering media reports and the positive things we are accomplishing in Iraq. They think the war’s detractors are too eager to jump on every failure and too willing to dismiss positive secondary effects within the region.
Liberals, meanwhile see an attempt by leading Republicans to pre-emtively pin the war’s failure to live up to expectations on them, and are trying very hard to beat that back.
I msyelf was livid after watching the DeLay press conference smearing Jack Murtha, a local guy whom I respect enornmously for all that he has done for my region.
I was absolutely enraged.
Up until the Abu Ghraib photos came out, the debate was rather antiseptic and abstract. Sure, there were casualties, but even considering April’s tough weeks, still tolerable considering the stakes involved.
Moreover, there was still some resonance even among antiwar liberals to the argument that freeing people of a vicious dictatorship was a worthy achievement. I think there was doubt in some people’s minds as to whether the war wasn’t such a bad idea after all. That’s probably gone now for most of them.
I now fear that after Abu Ghraib the far left and right are going to go bezerk about all this, and that will spill over into the center.
We’re seeing the lefty moonbats like Ted Rall start to go into blame the troops mode, and wingnuts like Rush Limbaugh and Tom DeLay rush to accuse Democrats of treason and wink at torture.
Now, I’m not sure the real world is as polarized as the sphere of public debate is at this point. But it will become so very soon unless things get better in Iraq.
And God help us all if there is another attack on American soil or another major disaster in Iraq.
Perhaps the only hope for national reconciliation is that the situation stabilizes, that the handoff goes well on the 30th, and that Iraqis are by and large able to solve their own problems. I see some positive signs in the diplomatic isolation of Sadr within the Shia community, although I view the outcome in Fallujah with great skepticism. It’s still quite possible Brahimi and Sistani can pull this thing off, although a major question is what happens if the new government is pressured to ask the Americans to leave. What will we do?
It seems rather obvious to me that for the most part his 3 reactions are from different conservatives. Those who have the first probably don’t have the second. And frankly I haven’t seen anybody I respect even think about the third.
With your permission, asdf, I’d like to give your comment its own post.
Kate O’Beirne just lickspittled into the middle of things. She ‘thinks’ complaining congressfolks are putting our soldiers at risk. Marshall has the details.
It’s gonna get worse and uglier before it gets better. And that’s just Kate. I can’t even imagine what the videos portend.
go for it Moe. Thanks.
Wait, there are six other “Annoyed Moe” days of the week?
I hope not. “Annoyed Moe Friday” is reasonable.
We all probably would do well to look to the Buddha. It’s a bad time, and the fat man is good to look to in such a time.
Another thought.
Lots of bloviating on the Hill today.
One thing that seems to run through nearly every book I’ve read about foreign policy is that Congress is incredibly annoying and not really helpful in any material respect.
I mean, when you think about it, all these guys really do is review budgets put together by the branch agencies and then spout off their opinions and second-guesses. Generally speaking, they don’t have the horsepower on their staffs to really question the data and assumptions that comes their way from the executive branch. By far, most of the talent that isn’t in the executive branch is in think tanks or academia.
So I suppose Congress performs a useful function in some respects–in theory they speak for us–but I was irritated at just how much time they all spent giving their own little lectures. I was much more interested in questions and answers rather than the conclusions of grandstanding legislators. Lindsay Graham was great in this regard.
I can understand the temptation among executive branch types to keep these folks at arm’s length. Nevertheless, it’s probably best from a tactical standpoint to keep them in the loop and let them feel like they’re important. Otherwise you get episodes like today where they just blow off steam. To Rumsfeld’s credit, he took his lumps today.
One other thing that bothered me.
Where was Congress when hints of this started dribbling out last year? Who gets to question them on whether they received rerports about abuses in prisons abroad? They have their own network of contacts, and they had an oversight responsibility. If they’re going to point the finger at any policy changes that led to this, they ought to look inward as well.
Ahh, so it’s bloviating and congressional oversight we should be concerned about. Right then.
(Drum may have exaggerated, but it’s weird how the discussion moves from the specific crimes committed, to complaints about the complainers, to blameshifting rhetorical exercises. And okay, maybe you can only confront the horror for so long, at least until the vid tapes come out. But at times, not all the time but some of the time, it feels like inadvertant diversion — as opposed to the purposeful kind practiced by O’Beirne, Rush, et al.)
For what it’s worth, I got a repeat of MSNBC Keith Olbermann interviewing Margaret Carlson. Discussing the abuses and information to come and the words “children get raped” slipped past his lips.
I have nothing more to say.
Ahh, so it’s bloviating and congressional oversight we should be concerned about. Right then.
Sorry, Harley. I’m a little tired of slinging partisan bombs, I suppose.
In no way was I suggesting that Congress was the big problem. Just irritated that the questions weren’t better, that’s all.
Sorry, Harley. I’m a little tired of slinging partisan bombs, I suppose.
Wow. Just…wow.
?
I still don’t understand exactly.
Are you being sarcastic? What I think I’m expressing here is that I’m feeling really worried about everything, and upon reflection got irritated at the whole partisanship thing.
I still think I’m right, of course.
That was stunned admiration at the admission. I wasn’t sure what else to say about it other than…wow.
Maybe it’s because I’ve recently had guilt-by-association crap thrown at me by some fairly otherwise-intelligent monkeys. And I’m not talking about here, mind you.
No sarcasm, asdf. You’ve written some pretty deep stuff here the last couple of days, and I’m a little stunned, is all.
thanks.
surely it’s the reefer talking.
at any rate, I think this is a rare place of real discussion these days, and a great credit to its hosts and commenters.
Sebastian: Those who have the first probably don’t have the second. And frankly I haven’t seen anybody I respect even think about the third.
I haven’t seen anyone I respect have the second reaction.
One of the things that I have very much appreciated is that the right-wingers I respect are simply acknowledging that it’s a dreadful thing.
Kevin does have a bunch of right-wing trolls who post really repellent stuff on his blog – I have seen all three attitudes from them. I wouldn’t blame him if this tended to color his reaction a bit – while generally agreeing with Harley.
Have I said recently how much I admire your ability to delete angry posts, Moe?
I admire your ability to delete angry posts.
(Has a Moe Buddha-nature? If you answer yes or no, you lose your own Buddha-nature…)
“…at any rate, I think this is a rare place of real discussion these days, and a great credit to its hosts and commenters.”
Well, yeah, sure, but the free dope isn’t of the high quality it used to have on this site back when we posted to it in the Seventies.
Man, ObWings in the Seventies rocked; I’m telling you.
Oh, yeah, pass that over here, please.
#-D
Man, ObWings in the Seventies rocked; I’m telling you.
Not keen on the photos I’ve seen of the colour scheme, though, Gary.
“Not keen on the photos I’ve seen of the colour scheme, though, Gary.”
What makes that last bit funny was that at first I was seriously thinking about using the one that Fafblog decided on…
I was seriously thinking about using the one that Fafblog decided on…
Oh, the humanity…
Please Moe, have a heart.
Let it hereby be understood that all of my horrific fulminations against those on the other side, which are really directed at Delay, Limbaugh, and Norquist, etc, have very small print excusing my mother the Republican and one Moe Lane from inclusion in my utterly ridiculous partisan genereralizations.
My mother and Moe will continue to receive recipes unless I have a big snit after the 2004 election, which I probably will, but Moe’s and Mom’s status shall be grandfathered in perpetuity.
Even after the Revolution.
“Please Moe, have a heart.”
Did I not say, at first? Although nobody seems to want to tell me what’s so bad about purple and green…
(Has a Moe Buddha-nature? If you answer yes or no, you lose your own Buddha-nature…)
The blossom falls on the mountain
The fish swims in the stream
That you cannot comprehend this answer
Shows you have not yet killed your Buddha-nature
But I don’t want to kill the Buddha if I meet him on the road. It seems… impolite.
“It seems… impolite.”
But if you strike him down won’t he rise, more powerful than you can possibly imagine?
While generally agreeing with you, John Thullen, especially as regards Moe and your mom (not that I know your mom, but I’m sure she’s a good guy), I was a little startled by this: unless I have a big snit after the 2004 election, which I probably will
Kerry’s win is going to upset you that much?? 😉
rilkefan: But if you strike him down won’t he rise, more powerful than you can possibly imagine?
No, that’s John Barleycorn. Or Sir John Barleycorn.