Jacob Weisberg, writing in Slate: The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it. Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously. They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict. Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism. Politically, it points the way to perpetual Democratic defeat.
The dispute here is not between war hawks and America-hating hippies with no grasp of geopolitics, and it's tiresome the way these "centrist" writers keep mischaracterizing the antiwar position. Surely it's a dispute over whether the "global battle against Islamic fanaticism" is a fought like a traditional World War II face-off among nation-states or some 4th Generation combo of politics, trade, cultural persuasion, and, when necessary, intelligently planned commando raids. Right now we're losing in both senses, not thanks to the antiwar movement but because Bush is out of his depth and screwing up massively. If we can't replace him, we need to tie his hands while he is in office, keep him from invading any more countries. Also, it's a dispute over whether pan-Islamic "fascism" is a real threat or just some propaganda shite Christopher Hitchens made up for Bush. Seems as if the "Islamics" do an awful lot of deadly fighting among themselves. On the military side, Steve Gilliard does an excellent job of putting the mushy Weisberg in his place.
Jesus Christ, no just say "Cheese and rice." Weisberg, Marty Peretz, Krautmammer, Kristol and all the other neocon agonistes spinning this before and aft as a disaster for Dems can go schtup themselves. It ain't so. The win was a mainstream reaction. Who put these fools in charge of the zeitgeist?
Gawd chose them to be in charge.
Weisberg, who used to write for Slate before he became its editor, describes himself as a "liberal Republican" or some such. As Digby says, he was 4 in 1968 but still has an irrational "fear of hippies."
I understand the Republican need to spin this disaster for them as a disaster for us, but I used to like Weisberg's writing, pre 9/11--I wonder if he really believes this crap or if he's become such a hack he just ladles Rove's spin points without any real feeling.
And I used to think 20 years ago that the New Republic was an interesting publication but then it turned from pseudo liberal into neocon almost overnight. I think it was when they started shilling for the contras (nicaragua) in late 80s. I don't whether it was TNR or Washington Monthly where Weisberg was before but there's an odd continuum. Ivy league trust funders wanna be Walter Lippmanns or some other some other stripe of "public intellectual," fail miserably, and become snide operatives. And where does Israel fit in the ideological enchiladas of various pundits and pols?
TNR is still interesting to me. I very rarely agree with their opinions, but I'm willing to read it. (though, their commenters can frighten me)
|
Jacob Weisberg, writing in Slate:The dispute here is not between war hawks and America-hating hippies with no grasp of geopolitics, and it's tiresome the way these "centrist" writers keep mischaracterizing the antiwar position. Surely it's a dispute over whether the "global battle against Islamic fanaticism" is a fought like a traditional World War II face-off among nation-states or some 4th Generation combo of politics, trade, cultural persuasion, and, when necessary, intelligently planned commando raids. Right now we're losing in both senses, not thanks to the antiwar movement but because Bush is out of his depth and screwing up massively. If we can't replace him, we need to tie his hands while he is in office, keep him from invading any more countries. Also, it's a dispute over whether pan-Islamic "fascism" is a real threat or just some propaganda shite Christopher Hitchens made up for Bush. Seems as if the "Islamics" do an awful lot of deadly fighting among themselves. On the military side, Steve Gilliard does an excellent job of putting the mushy Weisberg in his place.
- tom moody 8-10-2006 9:11 pm
Jesus Christ, no just say "Cheese and rice." Weisberg, Marty Peretz, Krautmammer, Kristol and all the other neocon agonistes spinning this before and aft as a disaster for Dems can go schtup themselves. It ain't so. The win was a mainstream reaction. Who put these fools in charge of the zeitgeist?
- SHM (guest) 8-11-2006 12:55 am
Gawd chose them to be in charge.
- Thor Johnson 8-11-2006 1:36 am
Weisberg, who used to write for Slate before he became its editor, describes himself as a "liberal Republican" or some such. As Digby says, he was 4 in 1968 but still has an irrational "fear of hippies."
I understand the Republican need to spin this disaster for them as a disaster for us, but I used to like Weisberg's writing, pre 9/11--I wonder if he really believes this crap or if he's become such a hack he just ladles Rove's spin points without any real feeling.
- tom moody 8-11-2006 2:46 am
And I used to think 20 years ago that the New Republic was an interesting publication but then it turned from pseudo liberal into neocon almost overnight. I think it was when they started shilling for the contras (nicaragua) in late 80s. I don't whether it was TNR or Washington Monthly where Weisberg was before but there's an odd continuum. Ivy league trust funders wanna be Walter Lippmanns or some other some other stripe of "public intellectual," fail miserably, and become snide operatives. And where does Israel fit in the ideological enchiladas of various pundits and pols?
- SHM (guest) 8-11-2006 6:35 am
TNR is still interesting to me. I very rarely agree with their opinions, but I'm willing to read it. (though, their commenters can frighten me)
- L.M. 8-11-2006 7:00 am