Something just occurred to me. I was reading the comments to one of Patrick’s posts, saw Scott Martens’s comment about “why tradition, conventional international law and even the Nurenburg principles forbid wars where the peace has not already been broken”, and thought to myself that some of the war’s supporters consider this war a continuation of the Gulf War, and then it came to me: They’re trying to pretend Clinton’s term never happened.
Not literally they aren’t. But this is something that’s been going on for a while. This is implicit in the use of the word “conservative” (which literally refers to preserving the existing state of affairs) to refer to what are really right-wing reactionaries (trying to push back against recent change) — that act of naming implies that the changes against which they’re acting haven’t really taken place.
So now, by erasing the Clinton budget surpluses, by picking up the Gulf War where it left off, the conservatives are essentially trying to erase most of the nineties.
The Bush administration says it wants to build a democratic regime in Iraq. Sorta like the one they were supposed to be building in Afghanistan. Say, how’s that going, anyway?
[...] Taliban is not only determined to remain a force in this country, but is reorganizing and reviving its command structure.
There is little to stop them. The soldiers and police who were supposed to be the bedrock of a stable postwar Afghanistan have gone unpaid for months and are drifting away.
Someone doesn’t have much faith in the current crop of Democratic presidential hopefuls.
House Joint Resolution 11, introduced this past January:
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.
My first thought: Some goofy GOPster setting things up for a third Dubya administration. Then I looked the guy who introduced it, and it turned out to be José Serrano (warning: website looks like bodega awning), Democrat from NY’s 16th district in the Bronx, who just won his seventh term with 92% of the vote, and presumably has no need to appeal to Dubya-lovers. Weird, I thought, till I realized that if the 22nd Amendment got repealed quickly enough (yeah, right) Clinton could run against Dubya in ’04.
Proudly bearing the double-standard.
Glenn Reynolds says, of some cool satellite photos of Baghdad:
This is a useful antidote to Iraqi propaganda and to "peace" activists' hopeful fantasies of mass destruction due to U.S. bombing.
Meanwhile, if you think my comment above about the "peace" people hoping for civilian casualties was too harsh (not that anyone emailed to say so. . . .) well, read this.
OK, what has one guy somewhere on the net said that’s got up Reynolds’s nose, and given him an excuse to slime all war opponents? This:
Exactly contrary to coalition hopes, expatriate Iraqis are now streaming into, rather than out of, Iraq to fight for their homeland. It is not impossible that substantial sections of Iran and Syria - with or without their governments - will join the fight. Bloody as such a result may be, it may be for the best in the long run, because it is the only result that would set limits to future adventures.
Any resemblence to this is purely coincidental:
Some people think the looting is bad, but I think that a certain amount is good. It reinforces in people's minds that Saddam is gone, and that he was unpopular.
Keep it in mind for the next time Reynolds talks about the importance of respect for property rights.
Whoops, no, I somehow missed this, which almost counts.