<$BlogRSDURL$> abbr, acronym { cursor: help; font-style: normal; font-weight:bold; color: #2a548d; /*border-bottom: 1px solid; */ }

Eminent Domain Stuff

New London Update (2/24/06)
Coverage of the Rally at New London's City Hall (w/ pics)

Tuesday, February 01, 2005


Not What Makes America Great

I just ran into an interesting Op/Ed by Mark Brown that made a few impressions on me (via Drudge). First off, I hope that he is representative of his liberal cohort and the successful (and largely peaceful) voting in Iraq will at least begin to bring President Bush's opponents around to his side. But the thing that struck me most was the general feeling I from reading the piece. Specifically, that the attitude Mr. Brown displays in this piece is not what made this country great. He starts out ok with:

But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?

It's hard to swallow, isn't it?
All right, I can deal with that. So he realized his mistake and, although it's difficult to admit when you're wrong, at least he seems to be heading towards just that. Maybe...

He then spends a good deal of the article saying things like:

For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.

I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.

Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.

Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.

Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.

I don't want to get carried away in the moment.

Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.
And finally...

If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.
I believe that it would be safe to classify this piece as an official example of hemming and hawing. I understand that topic may fall into the category of "things [that] must be done delicately or you hurt the spell" in order to not offend his liberal pals (after all, you don't want to be disinvested to the most POSH stand-up parties in town). Regardless, this 'wait and see' attitude is not useful. Standing back and waiting to see how things turn out before deciding whether or not an action was justified is worse than useless, it's dangerous.

For far too long pundits have been second-guessing President Bush's decision to go into Iraq. Come to think of it, they were doing the same thing about Afghanistan...until it became a stunning success story, thereby relegating it to the status of Media Memory Hole.

So, while Mr. Brown's piece does engender some respect his admission of the existence (faint though it may be) that he could possibly be wrong, I find his the ends justify the means only if things work out ok in the end attitude to be, simultaneously evasive, spineless, worse-than-useless, and actually dangerous.

Remember, we didn't crush the Barbary Pirates because Jefferson said, "Well, I can't really do anything about it because I don't know how it's going to turn out." No, instead (after considerable debate and delay, much like the current situation) he finally sent the fledgling Marines to solve the problem. They proceeded to the shores of Tripoli and kicked some Barbary butt, effectively ending the threat to our shipping by, for the first time, raising the American flag over a fortress in the Old World.

The same lesson holds true today. Leaders make decisions based on the information they have...and then they kick up the dust and lead. Pundits "reserve judgment" until the dust settles and then pompously declare whether or not the results of the leader's decisions were worth the costs.

But then I suppose that's why Mr. Brown is a columnist and GW is President.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?