Comments on: This Would Be Hilarious If He Weren’t Serious http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/10/04/this-would-be-hilarious-if-he-werent-serious/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=this-would-be-hilarious-if-he-werent-serious n. the principle of good order<br /><br /> "Observe the strange inversion of all order and sense! Dignity debased; how vilely is the function of a consul prostituted!" ~The Craftsman Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:25:26 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: ahistoricality http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/10/04/this-would-be-hilarious-if-he-werent-serious/comment-page-1/#comment-14862 ahistoricality Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:30:31 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/04/this-would-be-hilarious-if-he-werent-serious/#comment-14862 I am struck, reading this, by the tendency of Bush and McCain to favor dramatic bold strokes over carefully developed strategies or institution-building, the preference for unilateralism. I wonder, though I hate to overgeneralize, about the fact that both of them were fighter pilots.... their preference for strafing runs instead of ground games, the self-important drama. I am struck, reading this, by the tendency of Bush and McCain to favor dramatic bold strokes over carefully developed strategies or institution-building, the preference for unilateralism. I wonder, though I hate to overgeneralize, about the fact that both of them were fighter pilots…. their preference for strafing runs instead of ground games, the self-important drama.

]]> By: JBraunstein http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/10/04/this-would-be-hilarious-if-he-werent-serious/comment-page-1/#comment-14861 JBraunstein Sat, 04 Oct 2008 22:05:34 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/04/this-would-be-hilarious-if-he-werent-serious/#comment-14861 Gerson exhibits all the signs of having a submission fetish. Probably the result of some childhood event(s). Gerson exhibits all the signs of having a submission fetish. Probably the result of some childhood event(s).

]]> By: Charlie http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/2008/10/04/this-would-be-hilarious-if-he-werent-serious/comment-page-1/#comment-14857 Charlie Sat, 04 Oct 2008 19:55:31 +0000 http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/04/this-would-be-hilarious-if-he-werent-serious/#comment-14857 I'd rather judge Bush on his actions and the results of the policies he has pursued, rather than speculating about his motives. This reverence for Bush's "character" and "instincts" may just be a symptom of Gerson's childishness, but they are also a tacit admission that the things Bush has actually DONE don't stand up to scrutiny. Much better to start an unresolvable argument about whether Bush is a good person, whether he's "not a typical politician," blah, blah, blah, who cares? That said: Bush waited until after the 2006 midterm elections to fire Rumsfeld. He initiated the surge in January, 2007, at the moment of minimum political danger for himself and for his party. A legislature controlled by Democrats refused to vote against the troop increases. All of that might make a reasonable person wonder if Bush's approach to counter-insurgency reveal a man who is "bold" and "above politics." It had been clear since at least the fall of 2003 that the US military was facing an organized insurgency; it had been clear since the spring of 2006 that Iraq had become a sectarian abattoir. Hundreds of thousands of people died in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 while Bush dithered, congratulated himself on his own rectitude, and accused critics of his Iraq policy of being defeatists, leftists, racists and worse. Even if we take the rosiest possible view of the surge, it's just sickening to give Bush credit for being a bold risk-taker for finally starting to take things seriously years after initiating an unnecessary war. I’d rather judge Bush on his actions and the results of the policies he has pursued, rather than speculating about his motives. This reverence for Bush’s “character” and “instincts” may just be a symptom of Gerson’s childishness, but they are also a tacit admission that the things Bush has actually DONE don’t stand up to scrutiny. Much better to start an unresolvable argument about whether Bush is a good person, whether he’s “not a typical politician,” blah, blah, blah, who cares?

That said: Bush waited until after the 2006 midterm elections to fire Rumsfeld. He initiated the surge in January, 2007, at the moment of minimum political danger for himself and for his party. A legislature controlled by Democrats refused to vote against the troop increases. All of that might make a reasonable person wonder if Bush’s approach to counter-insurgency reveal a man who is “bold” and “above politics.”

It had been clear since at least the fall of 2003 that the US military was facing an organized insurgency; it had been clear since the spring of 2006 that Iraq had become a sectarian abattoir. Hundreds of thousands of people died in 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006 while Bush dithered, congratulated himself on his own rectitude, and accused critics of his Iraq policy of being defeatists, leftists, racists and worse. Even if we take the rosiest possible view of the surge, it’s just sickening to give Bush credit for being a bold risk-taker for finally starting to take things seriously years after initiating an unnecessary war.

]]>