And thus we Advance the Discourse, eh? (Their comments section seems to work fine, and bully for them...)
MUCHO MAS. I really am sorry for the comments weirdness. Youse all are like the obnoxious dysfunctional family I actually like, as opposed to the obnoxious dysfunctional family I had to go to family with. So bear with it, redsnouts.
The a lot of reasons why there's not much talk in Serious Circles anymore about the hideous disaster that was, and is, the Iraqi Adventure. But one such reason that deserves attention is that the only way Serious People ever discuss any fucking thing ever nowadays is in terms of bullshit competitions of at most a week's duration -- and where yesterday is garbage.
Here look. Duncan is totally right that Richard Cohen is very good at what he does, even when you can look back and want to throw up upon contemplating what he did.
But the key here is not simply what Cohen did or said; sure he was a dick. But he was hardly alone in this madness. The point is to identify the reasons why this madness took hold so powerfully among the class to which Cohen belonged.
And you can't forget that while to the vast majority of the inhabitants of this planet the clever turns of phrase of people like Cohen are utterly meaningless, in the intimate world of the Village Cohen likely dined out for years on "fools and Frenchmen."
These people compete very intensely against each other. The New York Times and WaPo opinion pages are not meant to inform anyone of anything. They are lists in which morons don elaborate heraldry to engage in fancypants shitheaded jousts.
In such competitions the prizes are awarded, say, weekly. Being proved right ten years later? Who the fuck cares about ten years later?
I agree with everything Scott says here. I remember the dsquared post referenced vividly; I remember reading the original and thinking "I knew that from Irish history, and also from trying to get contractors to give honest quotes on the roof, that the Iraq war was stupid."
The insight here is not that "fibbers lies are useless," but that "people who want to 'win the week' need to shut the fuck up about policy."
They won't. But what's poignant is that these contests aren't even over money.
They are over the weird Rules of Who Rules Pundit Mountain.
But such finger and tongue-wagging smuggeries are mere priggish prudery.
So -- General David Petraeus has been "caught" having an affair with someone not his wife.
So -- General David Petraeus has been revealed as possessing an illicit, "dangerous" sexuality.
So -- what?
The cant! The hypocrisy!
Let us all face the truth. Let us stride manly forth into the daylight and say YES! YES! THIS IS WHO I AM!
Let us be bold. Let us be honest. Let us... be true to ourselves.
Who among us, in America, does not want to fuck a General?
Yes, we have all heard the slander, we have endured the pervasive cruelty. We have often been accused of being, as they say, generalosexuals. Or worse! But let us own the epithet. Let us say, loud and proud: I am an American, and I am a General-fucker.
Republican or Democrat, we have all wanted to fuck General Petraeus; we have for years cast him coy glances, batted our eyes, simpered, primped, and preened, flirted shamelessly, desperate for his favor, his manly charms.
Don't deny it!
That dear, dear David has cast his favors upon an unworthy BITCH, excuse me, TROLLOP is the polite term I am informed, must not discourage us.
Someone else will come along just like him soon enough, and since we will be faithful and true and sincere general-fuckers, we'll stay steadfast and unchanging, and be rewarded by getting well and truly fucked in the end.
I mean, not quite as fucked as certain foreigners, sure, but whatever.
Golly. It sure is a mystery why whenever them fuzzy l'il foreigners get the right to vote, they totally forget that the True Meaning of Democracy is "voting however American shithead politicians demand they vote."
Let’s hope that the Obama administration doesn’t follow the Jimmy Carter playbook for dealing with revolutions in strategically vital Islamic nations.
Once upon a time, way back ten years ago, we had to invade a strategically vital Islamic nation to Create Democracy. Now we need to maybe consider attacking a strategically vital Islamic nation because of Democracy.
Power Tools explicitly informs us that the best thing we can do for the peoples of Strategically Vital Islamic Nations is to maintain proxy military dictatorships.
Verdict: GUILTY! Err, Bloody Caesar wins. Might be just a matter of the sodium content, or maybe not. In spite of my natural concerns re: "clam juice" as a cocktail additive, I judge for the Canuckistanians.
In these dark, uncertain, scabic times it is good to know that we can always count on Jonah Goldberg to supply the nation with noisome bullshit.
And so it ends. The United States is leaving Iraq.
We're leaving Iraq now. It's in our eyes. There' no disguising it. It really comes as no surprise to find that Obama planned it all along. And now, sure as the sun has crossed the sky, this lie is over. Lost, like the tears that used to tide us over. Etc.
I'm solidly in the camp that sees this as a strategic blunder.
Whatever camp you're in, man, you're solidly there. Nobody ever said otherwise.
Still, there's an upside. Obama's decision to leave Iraq should deal a staggering blow to America's critics at home and abroad.
After all, what kind of empire does this sort of thing?
That's actually a rather good question.
My thesis about the True Reasons for why the Iraqi Adventure was launched has for a long time been that they did it because they were a gang of demented ideologues. Yes: they wanted the oil. But they also wanted to Prove Melodiously Triumphant a cacophany of horrendously ludicrous wingnut theses about how the world might be brought into sweet sweet music. It never ocurred to them that they were sub-kazoo class incompetents. But they were! Jonah is still trying to get an A-flat out of a Gowanus Trombone...
In many quarters of the Middle East, the war on terror is cast as a religiously inspired front for crusader-imperialism. This nonsense overlooks the fact that America has gone to war to save Muslim lives more often than any modern Muslim country has. Under Democrats and Republicans we've fought to help Muslims in Somalia, Kosovo, Bosnia, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq and now Libya. We've sought the conversion of no one and -- with the exception of Kuwait -- we've never presented a bill. When asked to leave, we've done so.
When asked to stay home, we haven't, also too. "Thank you for the invasion! Also the drone bombs."
What sort of an empire are we?
Invasions did not make us popular amongst the invaded. Ingrates. Weird!
“What about Ron Paul?! He took second! Doesn’t he warrant a mention?” This meme has been echoed even by the likes of Jon Stewart, whose fanciful quest to ferret out every trace of hypocrisy on the side of his opponents has instead led him down the rabbit hole of self-righteousness and false punditry, always thinly veiled by a layer of badly applied clown makeup.
OK, just stupid & juvenile so far. No need to hold your breath, however. Just your nose.
Because Ron Paul is a joke at the expense of the Right, and his second place showing in the straw poll was the bad punch line. The man tracks with (and may agree with) racist, conspiracy-mongering mongoloids so vile that they would instantly discredit libertarianism if any liberal media outlet more relevant than The New Republic ever bothered to cover them. Those who disagree are invited to explain the chumminess between Ron Paul and the Mises Institute, whose patron Saint Murray Rothbard once made a habit of paling around both with Maoists and with the followers of David Duke, for the simple reason that the responsible Right failed to display a sufficient hatred of America relative to those two groups.
Mongoloids. Ha ha. What is it, 1955? Also funny: A pseudonymous clown typing for TheDC claiming that "liberal media outlet" TNR isn't relevant. And here's the big fun:
What Paul’s partisans fail to apprehend is that the reason that coverage is not forthcoming for their hero is because Paul has made himself the avatar of a time-tested brand of Republicanism: That is, self-hating Republicanism. The reason disingenuous sniggerers like Stewart sympathize with Paul, and why Rachel Maddow will fawningly ask him to explain his crackpot theories between heaping mouthful [sic] of carpet is because Ron Paul attacks his own party with twice the zeal he ever uses against liberals. He spouts the same nonsense talking points as members of the Pacifist Left (“Iran is only defending themselves!”) and the Socialist Left (“Corporations aren’t people! Only people are people!”) with the ingenious capacity for somehow duping legions of devoted followers into believing these time-tested left wing gobs of spit are somehow true conservatism. It’s time someone explained precisely why this designation is as fantastical as Paul’s chances at election are.
Does he mean Rachel Maddow is as nutty as Hitler, who was alleged to be rug-chewingly mad? Or have I somehow missed the hard core carpet-munching that is (Subliminally?) interspersed w/ Ms. Maddow's questions?
Because TheDC needs clicks, there are four more pages of this (Granted, an easy condemnation of Rep. Paul's economic cow patties.) but I'd as soon poke myself w/ a sharp stick as use that stick to search through the urine-filled tank to spear more poop nuggets. I will share that Pseudo-Mencken's main gripe w/ the Texas Turkey is that he is not bloody-minded enough to engage in pre-emptive attacks/strikes/wars against any nation, group or individual that looks cross-eyed at these United Snakes. Help yourselves if you like. Just don't say you weren't warned.
— M. Bouffant (Available here in the first person plural.)