I am not sure what to make of this post from Big Media Matt:
Now that Orson Scott Card says I’m unpatriotic, I guess it’s time to throw in the towel. Seriously, like all young nerd everywhere I loved Ender’s Game, but if you read the Ender prequel’s you’ll see that this is a man with all the insight into geopolitics of a really devoted Civ III player.
Here is Card’s statement:
“Am I saying that critics of the war aren’t patriotic? Not at all – I’m a critic of some aspects of the war. What I’m saying is that those who try to paint the bleakest, most anti-American, and most anti-Bush picture of the war, whose purpose is not criticism but deception in order to gain temporary political advantage, those people are indeed not patriotic. They have placed their own or their party’s political gain ahead of the national struggle to destroy the power base of the terrorists who attacked Americans abroad and on American soil.”
Is Matt saying that he is one of those who “try to paint the bleakest, most anti-American, and most anti-Bush picture of the war, whose purpose is not criticism but deception in order to gain temporary political advantage, those people are indeed not patriotic. They have placed their own or their party’s political gain ahead of the national struggle to destroy the power base of the terrorists who attacked Americans abroad and on American soil.”
What the hell is Yglesias talking about?
Moe Lane
I believe that this might be called a ‘confession’ on Yglesias’ part.
(pause)
Or that Matt may have misread, which is the more likely option, not to mention far more charitable.
mark
Perhaps there is some credence to the theory that Bush is simply making his sensible liberal critics absolutely stark raving mad.
For Matt, his undoing was Bush’s Thanksgiving trip to Iraq. He blew a gasket at that point.
Moe Lane
“Perhaps there is some credence to the theory that Bush is simply making his sensible liberal critics absolutely stark raving mad.”
I said something not totally dissimilar in my own blog – it was part of an post telling the Democrats how to win next year, all the while happily secure in the knowledge that nobody would ever actually listen to me – and I got told that fighting angry was actually a good thing, especially when it came to Bush.
See what I mean about not being listened to? :)
Dodd
I would just like to state for the record that the comment I posted over at Mr. Yglesias’ site asking this same question was written *before* I came here and read this post. That is all.
John Cole
Great minds and all that, Dodd…
DANEgerus
Answering the Leftists shrill hypocrisy with a resounding ‘Yes you are’ of course drives those Lefties to distraction.
so yes… it is a clear confession in that he fails to even comprehend what the transparency of his own sentiments say about himself and his REAL point of view.
JKC
The problem is this: how do you tell whose criticism of the President is sincere and whose is solely motivated by politics? And wouldn’t a political opponent by definition disagree with the President? Who gets to decide what category any given critic falls into?
Occasionally it’s an easy call-Bush’s Turkey Day trip to Baghdad is the best example. You’ve got to be pretty blindly partisan to ascribe foul motives to that trip. But after that, it gets a bit gray.
Moe Lane
“You’ve got to be pretty blindly partisan to ascribe foul motives to that trip.”
But apparently not to make bad puns about it. :)
Kimmitt
Making bad puns about Presidential actions is as American as Mom and Apple Pie.