Posted under Election 2008 & Iraq
The Republicans, we learned, have absolutely no idea what to do about Iraq. The only two people with coherent positions were McCain and Paul. McCain supports a war without end, a permanent occupation of Iraq, regardless of whether a national government there can exist in the foreseeable future. He’s for empire, as are Cheney and Bush. I can see no reason for him to withdraw any troops in the next five years. The notion that a national Iraqi government, composed of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, will be able to defend itself and take the side of the West in the war in Jihadist terror is simply ludicrous in the imaginable future. That much we surely know by now. So empire is the new Republican consensus: an empire built entirely for security reasons, and an empire which somehow manages to make us less secure. Paul, in contrast, had the balls to state the classic Republican position, and to defend it in the wake of 9/11. Man, that guy has some brass cojones. He even invoked Ronald Reagan in urging withdrawal from the irrationality of Arab politics. Other than McCain and Paul, the others were risible in their soundbites and faux toughness…
…Giuliani, interestingly, openly lied about Ron Paul’s position on 9/11. Paul specifically did not make a statement, as Giuliani immediately claimed, that the U.S. invited 9/11. I rewound to double-check. It was the Fox questioner who ratcheted up the stakes on that question, not Paul. Paul demurred on a specific answer and switched the question to the general issue of blowback. As to who’s right, the answer is both. Bin Laden – still at large and operating within the territory of Pakistan, an alleged ally which Cheney recently visited – both justified the 9/11 attack on those grounds but has a theology that doesn’t require such a casus belli. But now he doesn’t even need the theology. We have, alas, made more terrorists by our bungling in Iraq than Bin Laden could have dreamed of just six years ago.
I don’t agree with much of what Sullivan usually says, but like Derbyshire, he is at least honest and acts like an adult. Hannity and much of the rest of the NRO crew are like a bunch of school children. They act like Ron Paul said a dirty word, and they are running to tell the teacher. The fact that what Ron Paul said is an indisputable fact is of no consequence to these intellectual and emotional children. In the minds of the post-9/11 War on Terror cultists, some things, true or not, are just not supposed to be said.
Bede on 16 May 2007 at 2:07 pm #
Bareback Sullivan is a fool. He is injecting himself full of testosterone, which has made his brain go soft. Sailer has written on it here.
In a previous post, Sullivan largely agrees with a reader’s email:
Bareback then says that we shouldn’t completely dismiss him as the MSM has, but then concedes the reader’s points.
Bareback is largely like Chuck Hagel: A liberal globalist who supports the third-world invasion of the West, initially supported the war in Iraq, and now disagrees with the implementation of the war in Iraq. But Bareback may go even further, as he, like Christopher Hitchens, thinks the West has a moral duty to spread democracy throughout the Middle East.
Filmer on 16 May 2007 at 2:21 pm #
His analysis of the debate was rational. For comparison, look at some of the simpleminded and snide comments that are masquerading as commentary at NRO. That is all I was giving him credit for. Being honest (although generally wrong) and not resorting to demagoguery.
Bede on 16 May 2007 at 3:24 pm #
Filmer,
Oh, I know. I wasn’t questioning your judgment.