Oh, it's sticky all right
There's
a beautiful Republican rationalization for Iraq, one that claims we purposefully created a place where terrorists can bring it on. It's called the Flypaper Theory. Iraq is now like flypaper, see, attracting all the bad guys in a fiendishly clever trap. Instead of attacking civilians, they waste their precious jihad on well-armed troops, the theory goes. Unfortunately, the analogy would work only if flypaper helped
accelerate the reproductive rate of flies. (Not to insinuate that Iraqis resemble flies.)
Now they won't help us!
Just because they didn't want this war, and lobbied against it, and we called them bad names and insulted their national character and tried (childishly and ineffectively) to eliminate traces of their culture in the U.S., the French won't help us in Iraq! Can you believe it!
Tom Friedman can't. He's aghast at their perfidy, which I believe to be a type of cheese.
I too am of the opinion that the French aren't acting in the best interest of the region. But this is not a new development. They weren't entirely helpful in the former Yugoslavia, but you didn't hear the Clintonistas talking about surrender monkeys. Then again, the Clintonistas seemed to have a firmer grasp of the word "diplomacy."�
Now we can bad-mouth the war
In case you've been waiting, Andrew Sullivan says it's OK to criticize the war effort now. You may recall that there was a time when questioning the war on terror was
unpatriotic and worse, in the eyes of Sullivan and other conservatives. Then, a few weeks ago, he told his readers that it's just smart to try to
talk through this whole war thing.
"The issue should never be: do you support the president? The issue should be: is what the president doing going to work? I'm not omniscient, but it's simply crazy to deny the real problems we are facing right now and the need for clear and urgent thinking about them. Many Americans who support the war agree. That's not going wobbly; it's doing what any thinking person should do, which is try and figure out what's going wrong and how to fix it."
When did it change? What made it OK, and no longer traitorous? Not sure. I've emailed him, but he hasn't replied or posted my emails. Maybe if you email him too (andrew@andrewsullivan.com), we can get more details etc. so we can know where we should all stand (at attention) on this crucial issue.
The thing is, Republicans, you want to talk about important items like this calmly and intelligently BEFORE you do them. And no one can do this calmly and intelligently when they're being labeled traitors, appeasers, defeatists, America-haters, and worse.
A little hardship
E.J. Dionne comes out against Iraq funding in
a most forceful piece of editorial work. A beautiful little missive that lays tax cuts, the war in Iraq, and the administration's true approach to people right out in the open. Bonus quote from the ever-judicious Rick Santorum!
Uncle Dick's dustup with the truth
In case you didn't see it, Dick Cheney tried to pull a fast one on "Meet the Press" last Sunday. Or several fast ones, insinuating that Iraq had something to do with 9/11. Tim Russert looked steely-eyed, but swallowed it whole. The existence of Russert and his ilk explains why 69% of Americans think that Saddam's buddies were flying the jetliners. Luckily, Russert's more alert conterparts aren't letting the administration get away with it. They're in retreat. Heavens to Betsy, even
Donald Rumsfeld won't try to slide that one by again.
