Letters to the Editor
-
Atrios
I believe his witticism is "from the New Republic to the Free Republic"
-
SO MUCH TO CRITICIZE
Charlie Rose should have had Lewis Lapham on. See: The Road to Babylon; October 2002, Harpers. As the saying goes: 'it's all there.'
The frustrating thing from my view is that the punditry keeps their jobs no matter what happens outside the TV studio. If a cage match between HRC and BO is good theatre, McCain pimping 'the US doesn't do defeat' during his Victory Tour, is good theatre too.
If this all leads to bombing Iran, 10$ gas, a depression, etc., the whole crew of toothsome TV commentators will occupy screens coast-to-coast telling us how awful the theatrical turn of events are.
But they won't be able to say "I told you so." To me this is a kind of folk nihilism pitched via a reflexive onslaught of self-promotion.
Do they actually care what happens or do they care more about giving the viewership their fix of drama and horse race calls?
-
Missing Link
Pardon the interruption Glenn, but you're missing a link in your sentence of:
"Despite the fact that unconditional withdrawal happens to be the position of both Democratic presidential nominees and the vast majority of the American public (see this superb new report documenting that fact, by Ruy Teixiera (.pdf)), the entire panel -- war lovers and "war critics" alike -- agreed that this is a bad idea."
-
BTW -George Packer is really
a "lapsed socialist". Calling him a "liberal hawk" is just shorthand for "the left". He's also Herbert Packer's son.
-
What does Charlie Rose have to gain
from presenting such a biased survey? I could understand if other journalists in MSM refused to admit that they were wrong when they acted as a mouthpiece for the Bush administration's lies and propaganda five years ago. Since Rose was one of the few people who actually interviewed valid experts opposed to the war prior to the invasion, wouldn't he have much to gain by saying that he was one of the few people who presented a fair discussion, especially since the public sentiment now is vastly against the war? Wouldn't that secure his reputation? Alas, perhaps if the public had a better memory.
-
Nothing too far to the right?
Glenn, I'd disagree with your statement that there is no "outer boundary" on the right. See Ron Paul: principled libertarianism based on a whole-hearted commitment to private property rights and constitutional authority tends to be too far to the right... although it is often called "so far to the right that it meets the extreme left," because it has to sit out with the other Politically Incorrect Unmentionables. So it's perceived as "left" just because our current political discourse seems to equate "not what I agree with" and "left." But technically it's substantially more right-wing than the current administration, which is not averse to appeasing the populace with gifts of welfare and "tax rebates."
-
Ask the occupied...
...and you get the same answer over and over: Get your troops out of our country. What about this aren't we getting?
-
Toe in the Water
My favorite line from this confederacy of putzes is, "There are no good options now," to which any sentient being would have to reply, "Well, then, since you fully acknowledge that the policy you advocated is now an insoluble catstrophe, doesn't that make you want to perhaps admit your mistake?"
Of course, were such a question ever to be uttered in the M$M, the answer could never be heard admidst the flapping of pig's wings. It still is a bit surprising, though, and another pebble on the mountain of neocon BS, that such wankery can be repeated endlessly, repeated, verbatim, without ever eliciting such a sensible response.
Similarly, I've heard ad nauseum from chickenhawks that it was time to "grow up," and face the fact that this war was going to be much longer and harder than "we" thought, "we" meaning opponents like myself, not the sweets-and-flowers crowd, who sold us this load to begin with.
No wonder actual opponents must be excluded; the war supporters can stand the truth about as well as the Wicked Witch of the West can stand a bucket of water.
-
Charlie Rose is a poor journalist
It's a great mystery to me how a second-rate intellect like Rose acquired such a prominent role on public television. It's painfully obvious that far too often he has no direct understanding of or experience with the topics that are under discussion on his show. He clearly crams for his shows, but is unable to mask the fundamental ignorance that underlies his compulsion to constantly, pathologically, talk over his guests. The fact that Packer and Gelb are brought in as war opponents only highlights a chronic defect in his show: Rose almost never knows what he's talking about.
-
Opposing the war....
I am a dyed in the wool conservative, was vocally against invading, much less occupying Iraq and somewhat resent your simple one-dimensional analysis and overly simple categorization of hawks/doves.
I registered Independent when the moron ran, knowing him and his military history could never allow me to help that fruitcake, at all. Disgusting deserter could never fly, either.
So, now you know at least one fiscal conservative activist who, from technical knowledge alone, could not see a way to successfully invade, then disengage from, Iraq, knowing that any occupation would also be a disaster.
There are more where I come from, many in the halls of the Pentagon. Try not to alienate those of us, who, while differing how to get there, still want to be in the same place as you.
-
They don't even try anymore
"I've never been in favor of doing that. . . . We shouldn't do it precipitously, and no deadlines"
Hell, Gelb doesn't even bother to strip out GOP rhetoric when he's pretending to represent the left.
I find the degree and extent to which the Republican Party controls the message to be creepy, like I'm in a bad zombie movie and everywhere I turn there's another walking corpse saying the exact same thing.
-
The Iraqis on the Rose clip
Why aren't we listening to these people? They are articulate, they are intelligent, they are F***ING Iraqis, for crums sake. I guess you have to give some props to Rose for having them on, but his basic assumption when interviewing them was "what is good for America?" and "what can America do to make our occupation good?". I could tell the long-haired guy wanted to punch him a couple of times, but restrained himself admirably. And he was right - until the U.S. faces up to what we did, and why, to Iraq for the last 30 years, let alone the last 5, we will not be cured of our imperial sickness and we will not be able to get it, or anything else, right. Too bad the Iraqis can't do Nuremberg trials on us.
How can people watch this and not feel like crawling into a hole in shame for what we have done?