Criticizing Liberal Bloggers

2005-06-07T15:15:00.000-07:00

Atrios, via Digby are both wrong.

Atrios writes:
Right now too many Democrats think that their credibility on this issue is tied with their previous support for the war. That is false. That's what gives them their lack of credibility. The only way to start speaking with any credibility on the issue is to go back to the beginning and say it was a bad idea, we were lied to, we shouldn't have trusted them then and we can't trust them now.
[my bolds]

Atrios is correct to point out that Democrats believe their credibility is tied to their prior support for the Iraq war. But he is wrong to emphasis that Democratic support proceeded from a false belief.

Bush won support for his war by successfully portraying any would-be opposition as traitors. This tactic worked extremely well in the 2002 US congressional elections no politician ever wants to be branded, even unjustifiably, a traitor.

It seems to me that what bears scrutiny isn't the White House's blatant lying to Congress and the American citizenry, but their use of rhetorical fascism. Karl Rove's spin machine has used the "you're either with us or against us" meme to great effectiveness, turning it into 'patriots v traitors' to gain domestic support for war in Iraq along with just about every other item on the White House policy agenda.

Those cowards in Congress placed their political careers before duty. It is as simple as that, and that is why they've lost credibility. Ditto the national "news" media.

Considering this Time article, (which was around years before the Downing Street Memo came to light) it is clear that Bush always intended to invade Iraq.

And then there's this tidbit via ThinkProgress.org:
Bush, December 2002: “You said we’re headed to war in Iraq – I don’t know why you say that. I hope we’re not headed to war in Iraq. I’m the person who gets to decide, not you. I hope this can be done peacefully.”

I absolutely believe Bush would have attempted to invade Iraq even if the 9/11 tragedy had never happened...but that's another subject for another day.

In any case, it is self-evident that George W Bush lied to everyone, and will not be held accountable.

The Periodicals

2005-06-04T11:56:00.000-07:00

The list of mags to the right comprises the primary source material for my views on politics, policy, and current events.

Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and Policy Review are establishment pieces, ranging from right to centrist on the political spectrum.

Commentary represents the right to far right viewpoint. It is the primary publication of neoconservatism and extreme right-wing Zionism. For perspective, The Weekly Standard is essentially a dumbed-down version of Commentary.

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (WRMEA) is a pro-Palestinian, pro-Arab/Persian, leftist mouthpiece. It is to Commentary what The Communist Manifesto is to Atlas Shrugged.

The Nation. Ranges from (predominately) left to centrist-left.

In These Times and Z Magazine espouses views from left to far-left, including socialism and anti-corporatism.

Political Science Quarterly is an intellectual, almost painfully centrist publication.

Testing

2005-06-04T08:35:00.000-07:00

This is only a test...

Magic Mountain

Criticizing Liberal Bloggers

The Periodicals

Testing