Drink Tank

Extra Aqua Vitae Nulla Salus


Iraq's Unsettling Constitution - New York Times

[Bush Administration] "...which let its politically motivated obsession with an arbitrary deadline trump its responsibility..." [to liberalism]

But don't worry. The NYT's calls for a timetable for withdrawal weren't politically motivated. I'm sure it was directly related to security; as such a call would devastate the chances of Bush coming out ahead in the history books.


At 2:50 PM, Blogger oded said...

Do you really think that an inconsistant editorial board policy justifies the fact that we are prolonging a war of dubious scope and reason to enter a inept man into history books. I'm confused.

At 7:25 PM, Blogger Ivan said...

We can't have the "Iraq war is right/wrong" debate with every issue.

This is a comment about the New York Times. I'm not sure why people continue with such comments, as they are so thoroughly discredited as an unbiased source, it's a waste of time. The hard news is biased, and the editorials just reflect that.

As for the history books (and the other question about Iran "winning" the war), my guess is that the process of democratization will be contagious and reform or revolution in Iran will come from it.

So, yes, Iran has “won” while its government has “lost” the Iraq war. Even from a strategic perspective, with the US willing to call bullshit on dictatorships and act on it, Iran has lost.

Many people were ready to pre-write history for Bush in 2000, placing him firmly in the fascists' section. It is equally ridiculous to say he will be viewed as a success. Time will tell.

If I'm correct about the above w.r.t. Iran/Iraq/M.E., you'll have some folks (like those who re-wrote their opinions from "Reagan is going to kill us all and the USSR isn't that bad" to "Reagan was just in the right place at the right time") who will go from "Bush is a fascist" to "Bush is a fascist who had nothing to do with domino toppling of terrorist-inciting despotic regimes".


Post a Comment

<< Home