I, like most people, am well aware that things are not going 100% in the direction that we want them to in Iraq. However, one thing I do not understand is why many in the media and in the left-wing of the blogosphere feel the need to be so overtly pessimistic about the elections being held this week-end.
I understand the need not to whitewash what is going on over there, yet at the same time, I am not sure what weeks worth of pessimism accomplishes. If the elections go badly, we can be sure there will be a self-serving orgy of Bush-bashing. But can’t they at least be optimistic or neutral until something actually happens? Or is this just premature framing, so that no matter what the outcome is, the elections can be portrayed in a negative light?
Gary Farber
I’d say that if people are sincerely and thoughtfully either optimistic or pessimistic about the elections (or anything else in the universe), that’s what they think, and there’s no “should” about it, either way. I’d suggest that arguing towards a presumption is simply that — taking a predetermined stand by preference, rather than striving to engage in as unprejudiced an analysis as possible.
Kimmitt
But can’t they at least be optimistic or neutral until something actually happens?
Why set yourself up for disappointment?
Bob
The difference between Iraq and Vietnam?
Bush had a plan for getting out of Vietnam.
Robin Roberts
Actually, Bob, that’s a lie. One of the things that the CBS investigation of Rathergate found was that Mapes had found witnesses that confirmed that George Bush had volunteered to go to Vietnam when his air national guard unit sent a squadron of F106’s over.
Keep up the good work confirming your dishonesty.
nick
they are not the same
Vietnam was a LEGAL war