Walk of shame
Jonah Goldberg:
". . .Rarely has the intellectual rot of liberalism been more evident. Both at home and abroad, the honorable tradition of liberalism — and there is one — has been hollowed out by its own appetite for power and vengeance. Indeed, it is exceedingly difficult to see how liberalism, at the national level, stands for anything but appetite — undirected, inarticulate, unprincipled, ravenous appetite. Truly it has become Bill Clinton's party.
". . .Whether the war was necessary or not, reasonable people of all political persuasions outside the arena of partisan politics understand that the task of reconstructing Iraq is immensely necessary.
"If the United States were to 'bring the boys home' now, Iraq would implode, America would be seen as not merely a bully (which is not always bad, but rarely good) but also a bully with a glass jaw — which, as every thinking person must understand, would be an invitation to disaster of precisely the sort that left the World Trade Center in ruins.
"Of course, except for the odd character actors at the left end of the screen in the Democratic presidential debates, the leading candidates do not say they are in favor of immediate withdrawal. Rather, they spew clouds of verbiage about why we need to have a 'plan' and insist that until we have a 'plan' we should not spend money on Iraq. Senators John Kerry and John Edwards, both of whom voted for the war, voted against spending any money on Iraq's reconstruction because 'we don't have a plan' or because we 'need a real plan.' Wesley Clark and Howard Dean — the Democratic frontrunners — also say that they would have voted against the reconstruction funds. Dean is consistent — and consistently wrong — in that his position has always been 'if Bush is for it, I'm against it.' Clark, on the other hand, is not only inconsistent on the question whether he supports Bush, but it seems that this inconsistency is his only reliable trait.
". . .All of the top Democratic consultants have run polls, convened focus groups, disemboweled goats — and done whatever else constitutes the science of political augury these days — and concluded that Democratic candidates must draw "clear distinctions" between them and Bush. So, since Bush favors the reconstruction of Iraq — which means, as a practical matter, reluctantly favoring the expenditure of blood and treasure — the Democrats must be against it. By this logic, John Edwards should embrace Satan and start drinking heavily, since Bush is a born-again Christian and a teetotaler.
Jonah Goldberg:
". . .Rarely has the intellectual rot of liberalism been more evident. Both at home and abroad, the honorable tradition of liberalism — and there is one — has been hollowed out by its own appetite for power and vengeance. Indeed, it is exceedingly difficult to see how liberalism, at the national level, stands for anything but appetite — undirected, inarticulate, unprincipled, ravenous appetite. Truly it has become Bill Clinton's party.
". . .Whether the war was necessary or not, reasonable people of all political persuasions outside the arena of partisan politics understand that the task of reconstructing Iraq is immensely necessary.
"If the United States were to 'bring the boys home' now, Iraq would implode, America would be seen as not merely a bully (which is not always bad, but rarely good) but also a bully with a glass jaw — which, as every thinking person must understand, would be an invitation to disaster of precisely the sort that left the World Trade Center in ruins.
"Of course, except for the odd character actors at the left end of the screen in the Democratic presidential debates, the leading candidates do not say they are in favor of immediate withdrawal. Rather, they spew clouds of verbiage about why we need to have a 'plan' and insist that until we have a 'plan' we should not spend money on Iraq. Senators John Kerry and John Edwards, both of whom voted for the war, voted against spending any money on Iraq's reconstruction because 'we don't have a plan' or because we 'need a real plan.' Wesley Clark and Howard Dean — the Democratic frontrunners — also say that they would have voted against the reconstruction funds. Dean is consistent — and consistently wrong — in that his position has always been 'if Bush is for it, I'm against it.' Clark, on the other hand, is not only inconsistent on the question whether he supports Bush, but it seems that this inconsistency is his only reliable trait.
". . .All of the top Democratic consultants have run polls, convened focus groups, disemboweled goats — and done whatever else constitutes the science of political augury these days — and concluded that Democratic candidates must draw "clear distinctions" between them and Bush. So, since Bush favors the reconstruction of Iraq — which means, as a practical matter, reluctantly favoring the expenditure of blood and treasure — the Democrats must be against it. By this logic, John Edwards should embrace Satan and start drinking heavily, since Bush is a born-again Christian and a teetotaler.
Comments
Post a Comment