bush paranoia reaches new levels
listen to all the self-righteous shrieking about bushs comma comment. for christs sake people, by definition when he made the decision to invade he was dismissing the casualties. at least he is being consistent and not so hypocritical as I might have expected.
September 25th, 2006 1:22pm
Perhaps. Perhaps Korea and Viet Nam were also "just a comma" -- a footnote to a treatise on America's tendency to treat small brush wars as "falling dominoes" in a larger conflict.
Now we've got Afghanistan and Iraq as 'small footnotes' on the 21st century's way to a more democratic planet. Perhaps. And perhaps this reveals yet more of the hypocrisy of the neo-cons, who ran their Presidency AGAINST "nation building", but who now pretend what they're doing ISN'T "nation building" (they're still against that) even as they try to build democratic nations.
September 25th, 2006 1:26pm
I think he has more than just a pair of noias. He has a whole closet full of them. Along the with monster under his bed and the witch in the closet.
son of parnas
September 25th, 2006 1:27pm
Yeah, but just let him get his Texas Cowboy hat on, strap those pistols to his waist, put on his best Clint Eastwood sneer, and he's ready to send some people to kick some butt.
September 25th, 2006 1:33pm
I think the OP was directed at the anti-Bush paranoia rather than Bush's internal paranoia. but I didn't bother reading the article. no I didn't.
Also the neo-cons are idealists who favor engaging in the Muslim world in order to moderate it. They were for the Gulf War. For the intervention in Somalia (Powell's big blunder). For the intervention in Bosnia and Kosovo. That's the ideal - to 'win' Islam over by economic and political interdependence (like Western Europe/Japan after WWII and Eastern Europe/China after end of Cold War).
But this musical chair had been taken by the New Democrats of Clinton and Gore (and by McCain in the primaries, to a degree), so Bush had to find new campaign territory for himself. Rove (smartly) knew that Bush couldn't win by advocating the same positions as the other guy, so when campaigning in 2000 Bush said the interdependence idealists were going too far (basically Nader's criticism from the left as well, though he was persuing an anti-NAFTA, anti-World Bank angle). That a certain amount of pragmaticism was needed. The pragmaticism of 'what's in it for us'. Why intervene in Kosovo when there is nothing to gain? Why have more Somalia fiascos (Black Hawk Down) on our hands? Why send missles into Sudan or Afghanistan just to kill some tall bearded gadfly of an ascetic?
This was more in keeping with the realpolitik of Rice who grew up as a student of Soviet affairs, and was concerned about global players, balance of power, and stability (read "don't stir the pot") as much as possible. Not gadflies, low tariffs and 'nation building'.
That's when our narrative twists as the gadfly promotes himself to P.E. #1 and moves the realpolitik bull's-eyes around (who remembers that in the spring of 2001 the submarine incident in the South China Sea heralded a slew of "China is the new emminent threat" articles?).
Rice the Realist and friends finds herself wanting the same thing that the idealist neo-cons advocated ... restructuring the economically non-interdependent Muslim countries. Rove agrees that it's a savvy political move that leaves the Democrats, like Kerry, flat-footed, unable to commit to either isolationism/disengagement, because it would denounce Clinton's success, or to agree with Bush, because it would take away the main differentiating reason to vote against Bush (besides his skivviness).
Anyhow, I think the Iraq War was both an example of idealism gone too far and a cold-hearted Faustian buying of short-term political gain at the price of one's soul.
September 25th, 2006 3:32pm