Friday, June 17, 2005
"Iraq Is Lost"
Dana Blankenhorn says it, in a hard-to-argue-with nutshell.
Of course this doesn't stop at least one commenter from arguing with him:
But a little earlier, the same commenter includes the clause, "...if you feel so morally superior to the half of America that understands the importance of Iraq in the scheme of things..." (Emphasis mine.)
Note the tension which this passage sets up between morality (even alleged morality) and understanding (even alleged understanding), and note how the comment's author makes his choice: understanding (even alleged understanding) trumps morality (even etc.). Mayhap what we're seeing on display here is a bit of intellectual superiority, you think?
I think this pretty much gets to the core of the difference between left and right: heart vs. head. Maybe that's flaunting a morally superior attitude, I don't know. But I do know this: anybody who insists on "understanding" Iraq in the way this commenter insists on it is like the proverbial ostrich, who insists on "understanding" the dry savanna by squinting ever more intently at the dirt on the inside of the hole in which his head is secured.
Of course this doesn't stop at least one commenter from arguing with him:
Is this any way to discuss a serious issue? Why not start over and avoid calling people you disagree with cowards and hypocrites? Under these rules of debate, the charge works both ways.Which, if you really want to get, y'know, technical, isn't much in the way of an argument.
But a little earlier, the same commenter includes the clause, "...if you feel so morally superior to the half of America that understands the importance of Iraq in the scheme of things..." (Emphasis mine.)
Note the tension which this passage sets up between morality (even alleged morality) and understanding (even alleged understanding), and note how the comment's author makes his choice: understanding (even alleged understanding) trumps morality (even etc.). Mayhap what we're seeing on display here is a bit of intellectual superiority, you think?
I think this pretty much gets to the core of the difference between left and right: heart vs. head. Maybe that's flaunting a morally superior attitude, I don't know. But I do know this: anybody who insists on "understanding" Iraq in the way this commenter insists on it is like the proverbial ostrich, who insists on "understanding" the dry savanna by squinting ever more intently at the dirt on the inside of the hole in which his head is secured.
Comments:
<< Home
I completely agree with what Dana Blankenhorn said in the post you linked to. I also agree with your analysis of the "commenter."
But, to change the subject just a little here, shouldn't we be discussing the impeachment of the President who got us into that quagmire on false pretenses? The American media has been shamefully quiet about the Downing Street memo that exposed Bush's secret plans to invade Iraq, his manipulation of intelligence and his outright lying to Congress and the American people.
An excerpt from today's "Seattle Times:" Their anger, amplified by left-wing advocacy groups, columnists, bloggers and some Democrats in Congress, gradually has forced the mainstream media to take a second look at the July 2002 document. In recounting a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his aides, the memo said intelligence on Iraq "was being fixed" by the Bush administration and that war was inevitable.
What I want to know is why did the blankety-blank mainstream media have to be forced? Have they been universally reduced to running only sound bites and press releases from the White House? And in too many of those mainstream newspapers, any mention of the memo was relegated to inside pages and treated as incidental news.
And where's the outrage over the fact that Congress at first denied Congressman John Conyers a venue in which to hold his "forum" on the memo? (Without Congressional authority, he couldn't call it an "inquiry" and there could be no "testimony.")He finally secured a small basement room. Methinks that small basement room probably echoed with more truth than both Republican-heavy chambers could have stomached.
But, to change the subject just a little here, shouldn't we be discussing the impeachment of the President who got us into that quagmire on false pretenses? The American media has been shamefully quiet about the Downing Street memo that exposed Bush's secret plans to invade Iraq, his manipulation of intelligence and his outright lying to Congress and the American people.
An excerpt from today's "Seattle Times:" Their anger, amplified by left-wing advocacy groups, columnists, bloggers and some Democrats in Congress, gradually has forced the mainstream media to take a second look at the July 2002 document. In recounting a meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his aides, the memo said intelligence on Iraq "was being fixed" by the Bush administration and that war was inevitable.
What I want to know is why did the blankety-blank mainstream media have to be forced? Have they been universally reduced to running only sound bites and press releases from the White House? And in too many of those mainstream newspapers, any mention of the memo was relegated to inside pages and treated as incidental news.
And where's the outrage over the fact that Congress at first denied Congressman John Conyers a venue in which to hold his "forum" on the memo? (Without Congressional authority, he couldn't call it an "inquiry" and there could be no "testimony.")He finally secured a small basement room. Methinks that small basement room probably echoed with more truth than both Republican-heavy chambers could have stomached.
Yes, that was "just a little" change of subject!
At the risk of inviting a change back, or to yet another subject, I'll try to do a post in the next few days about the matters you deal with in your comment. All of which are, I think, as you describe them.
Thanks for the note!
Post a Comment
At the risk of inviting a change back, or to yet another subject, I'll try to do a post in the next few days about the matters you deal with in your comment. All of which are, I think, as you describe them.
Thanks for the note!
<< Home
