Friday, November 28, 2003
War of words.
Even the neoconservative Weekly Standard is getting tired of meaningless cheerleading about our "successes" in Iraq. Here's Matt Labash:
Now, the most fashionable pre-fab rationalization to use when the news isn't going as swimmingly as we want it to, is to select a place in Iraq, then a corresponding place in America. If the two places start with the same letter, all the better. Next, state baldly that no matter how lousy things are going, you'd rather fight the terrorists / Baathists / whoever-it-is-we're-fighting in the first location, rather than the second. Lastly, sit back with a self-satisfied smile, as if that settles the matter. . . .
The Boston Herald, for instance, wants to fight in Baghdad, "rather than mopping up after mayhem in Boston." A Fox commentator prefers "the Middle East so you won't have to fight them in the Midwest." New York governor George Pataki wants our troops fighting the terrorists "on the streets of Baghdad," rather than our firefighters fighting them "on the streets of Brooklyn." Representative J.D. Hayworth would rather "see the fight in Tikrit than in Tucson or Tacoma." And Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld scores a fighting hat trick, since he'd prefer the fight to go down in Baghdad rather than "in Boston or in Baltimore or Boise."
I'm partial to self-critical liberals, but I'm also happy to praise self-critical conservatives. Labash to all the "fair and balanced" crowd: "It's simple really, to know where you'd rather fight the terrorists. It's considerably harder to fight them." Amen.
Copyright © 2003 by Philocrites | Posted 28 November 2003 at 12:49 PM