I see the lefty memes I warned about yesterday are beginning to spread.l Remember, the two memes are:
1.) “Just because ballots were cast it doesn’t mean it is going to lead to a democracy.”
2.) “What about the WMD? We went in after the WMD.”
From the consistently dyspeptic Eric Alterman, today:
What
Rachel
Well, to a certain extent, he’s right. The votes can be thrown, certain ones “dissapearing”, etc. WE have that here! But if Iraq doesn’t try, it might as well be be another tyranny. At least they are using factors of democracy to fight and finally gain independence after 30+ years.
Steven Den Beste
An ABC News analysis contains this:
But the Bush administration, by insisting on holding the elections in Iraq today despite widespread violence and misgivings, may not advance the cause of freedom and democracy. Elections are not synonymous with democracy and, unless care is taken, they could play into the hands of antidemocratic forces.
Meanwhile, Time Magazine seems to have found the new party line. First, the election was a success but Bush doesn’t deserve any credit for it because he opposed holding elections:
But even as President Bush claimed vindication for his Iraq strategy in the spectacle of millions of Iraqis braving terror and intimidation to go to the polls, the real author of Sunday’s election
Thomas
So what Steven? Should Time and ABC celebrate democracy by throwing bullshit our way?
Steven Den Beste
Thomas, that’s what they in fact did.
Kimmitt
It’s not particularly antiamerican to not want US troops occupying you and administering martial law.
I mean, I don’t want US troops occupying us and administering martial law, and we speak a common language.
Slartibartfast
You guys come up with a truly murderous insurgency, and it can be a reality.
Kimmitt
You guys come up with a truly murderous insurgency, and it can be a reality.
Is that a bizarre threat or just a total non-sequitur?
Paul
Of course to think that we are occupiers only, and not liberators as well, is the only way these buffoons can maintain their delusions.
It was the “occupiers” who removed the tyrannical regime, thus liberating the Iraqis from the iron grip of dictatorship. It is the occupiers who are allowing the slow but steady transition to a free Iraq with a representative government.
The insurgency is doomed. The Iraqis have a newfound sense of pride in being able to participate in the selection of their own governmental process. Nobody watching the Iraqis on Sunday can deny how passionate they are about right to vote, how precious they find that which we take for granted. The insurgents represent nothing more than the elements that are striving to strip that power from the Iraqi population, and as their own security forces increase in strength and effectiveness they will root them out and crush them.
Bush is right about the universal desire to be free. Too bad the left will never get this, as they have always emphasized the primacy of the collective over the rights of the individual. They are as doomed as their Iraqi insurgent counterparts, although it will probably take a generation to be rid of the last grey ponytail.
Ernest Brown
These moronic fascism-loving jackasses are willfully ignorant of history and human decency.
tugboat
This is apropos of nothing, but I just wanted to mention that Eric Alterman is the ugliest man I’ve ever seen.
Huck
tugboat–
I’ll see your Eric Alterman and raise you a James Wolcott.
Slartibartfast
C), Michael. As hard as it may be for you to hold more than two ideas in your head, there are in fact more than two possibilities.
Kimmitt
As hard as it may be for you to hold more than two ideas in your head,
Oh, come now. For example, right now I think you’re a jackass, ignorant, and a self-righteous twit. And those are just the first three.
TJ Jackson
I see Kimmit gives us another insight into his education and upbringing.
Actually I think the Iraq will have mastered the arts of democracy to the troll’s satisfaction when they can run elections with the honesty and aplomb that we witness in Seattle, Cincinatti, St Louis, Chicago, and San Francisco.
Kimmitt
I see Kimmit gives us another insight into his education and upbringing.
Two t’s, bud. Just like the Brigadier General. It’s on the screen in front of you, and if that’s too hard, try the magic of copy/paste.
derek
Way to hit him where it hurts KimmiTT.
Slartibartfast
And correct on all three! Still, one has to wonder why you seemed limited to just the two ideas on our last exchange. Given that there are only a couple of choices, I figured either intentional dishonesty (unflattering) or stupidity (perhaps less unflattering). Do you have a third choice to offer, now that your horizons have expanded?
Kimmitt
Still, one has to wonder why you seemed limited to just the two ideas on our last exchange.
Those were the only two that seemed to fit. I mean, there was the possible implication that the American occupation somehow postdated the insurgency which arose as a result of the American occupation — and that somehow this had anything to do with the fact that people do not, in general, enjoy living under martial law — but that was so bizarre that it just got filed under “non sequitur,” and I left it at that.
Basically, I figured there was a flattering option and an unflattering option, and I left it to you which one you felt like endorsing.
now that your horizons have expanded?
For the record, this was choice. Details make perfection, and perfection is no detail.
Slartibartfast
If you’re quite through putting arguments in my mouth, here’s what I was saying:
It just may be possible that the quality and duration of the occupancy has a wee bit to do with the insurgency. If you’re attempting to justify the actions of people who deliberately kill civilians as a legitimate and acceptable backlash against the occupation, you’re morally bankrupt.
Now, you may completely disagree with this, but preemptively assuming my argument and contemptuously dismissing it prior to even laying eyes on it is simply bad form. Not to mention dishonest debating.
Kimmitt
It just may be possible that the quality and duration of the occupancy has a wee bit to do with the insurgency.
It didn’t even occur to me that this was your point, since even if there had been no insurgency*, Iraq would still be under US military rule, and that would still be something people don’t want.
If you’re attempting to justify the actions of people who deliberately kill civilians as a legitimate and acceptable backlash against the occupation, you’re morally bankrupt.
No, I cannot accept them, but I am aware of the fact that there is no centralized command structure for the insurgency and that a great deal of their efforts go toward attacking military or police targets, and those are legitimate actions. Of course, whether a person is killed in a legitimate or illegitimate action has no bearing on the grief and loss of victims’ loved ones.
*A physical impossibility, for the record.
Slartibartfast
How on earth can you say this? Are you still clinging to the empire theory?
Kimmitt
How on earth can you say this? Are you still clinging to the empire theory?
Wait, wait — are you actually contending that the US occupation of Iraq would have concluded before now if there had been no insurgency (or if the insurgency had restricted itself to US military targets, or if the insurgency had been of a nonviolent form)? This seems extremely unlikely to me, as it would still have taken quite some time for us to construct an Iraqi government and train a police force and military capable of keeping both domestic and international peace. During that time, we would still be occupying the country.