On one level, you can't be in favor of the Iraqi vote and opposed to the war. On another level, you can, but it's a happy chocolate land where the fountains spout fudge and the bunnies are edible and Saddam relinquishes power, ashamed, because Kofi Annan drafted a stern letter promising Serious Consequences, and some Iraqi Gandhi not only showed he was morally superior to the Tikriti gang, but had a titanium-hulled body that made him impervious to torture shredders. And then the Baathists devolved and the Rotarians took over.What's he thinking? War is not the answer. No blood for oil. Bush lied, people died. Bakesales for bombers. Etc.
Monday, October 17, 2005
Lileks Screed
Today he talks about the election in Iraq--you know the one that has gotten so little coverage because so few people got blown up and democracy working in a place where democracy supposedly cannot work isn't really as newsworthy as 'the Hammer getting nailed' or 'the crisis of competence and cronyism in the GOP' (last week's Newsweek) or 'women who lead, like Oprah' (this week's):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I made this point last week and was taken to task by dcat. Only my issue was the media's complete lack of coverage of possible terrorism on college campuses. "The Hammer Getting Nailed" was the most important issue in the news weeklies; no front page news about blossoming democracy in Iraq or domestic terrorist plots .
Final line:
"My point? No point. Just that the day the people of Iraq went home with purple fingers, some folks in a nice safe suburb of Minneapolis reacted by standing on a streetcorner with transcribed bumperstickers urging the US to abandon Iraq tomorrow. Who would Jesus bomb? I cannot presume to speak. If you think he would have bombed Afghanistan, Iraq, AND Yugoslavia to strike at tyranny, well, you must hold the current president in contempt. He’s two for three."
Post a Comment