Thursday, November 24, 2005

Bullshit disguised as "truth"

Hugh Hewitt smugly tries (and fails) to make some sort of case for the Bush (hswib) War.

His cases hinges on 20/20 hindsight in positing that it would have been better to take out the Taliban in 1999 or 2000. But it simultaneously fails because the same 20/20 hindsight with regards to Iraq shows that our adventure in Iraq had no grounds except for neo-con fantasies.

His position is the basically the same bully/chicken-shit one of the current administration (hswib). This position says that we must strike preemptively because we can strike and because we are too chicken to wait for the other guy to throw the first punch. In the real world such behavior constitutes felonious assault. Self-defence it isn't. No matter how often you say otherwise.

But the righties are all a-twitter nonetheless.

But is reassuring to know that this is the best argument they may have and that it's so abysmally lame.

1 comment:

S.W. Anderson said...

Yup, Saddam was a field-tested, bungling loser at war. Iraq was a second-rate military power in its category of Third-World stragglers. Iraq was contained in a box of surveillance and ready-to-roll countermeasures. So Bush and his nitwit neocons' paranoid fantasies were absurd, all right.

I can conceive of a case where pre-emptive war could be justified. Iraq didn't make it when Bush was hard-selling his blunder war, and revelations since make him look like a crackpot who couldn't be bothered with due diligence.

Hewitt, his me-tooers and the rest of the right-wing noise machine can be counted on to create articulate blather in defense of what Bush has done. They don't need facts, after all; they have their anything-to-win compulsion to drive them and their faith-based substitutes for real-world facts with which to bolster their arguments and cheer one another on.

It's like a perpetual-motion mechanism, cranking out lies and distortions without end.