Big Mistake

Well, I screwed up and accidentally read a blog post by Andrew Sullivan. (I'm not going to link to that crap, but I'll excerpt it here.) Let's see what he says about his support of the war in Iraq:

the proclaimed Bush policy was not mere deployment of brute force, torture, bombs and swagger as a response to the civil war within Islam. It was ostensibly to create a beach-head for modernity and democracy in Iraq. That, at least, was the rationale I signed onto.

Yeah, the Administration had a chance to support modernity and democracy in Afghanistan first. We saw those threads begin to unravel before we even set foot in Iraq. I guess some people were too busy advocating for the new war instead of assuring the first war was executed successfully. Oh well, I guess you could say we were virtually victorious, right Sully?

But, for all Cheney's and Rumsfeld's flaws, they are at least proposing something serious, however ineptly carried out.

Yeah, Jim Jones preached about something serious, too. It was called apostolic socialism. It had its theoretical merits, just like the neocon agenda. Unfortunately, neither are practical in the real world. Honestly, is this all we expect from our leaders? A proposal of "something serious"? I suspect the extreme Religious Right have proposed "something serious" regarding homosexuality in the United States. Are you ready to sign up for that one, too, Andrew? I hear that it's virtually pain-free...

I have yet to hear anti-war voices on the left propose a positive strategy for defeating Islamist terror at its roots, or call for democratization of the Arab Muslim world. Indeed, I heard little but scorn or silence when Bush announced this vision in London.

I've yet to hear anybody on the right propose a positive strategy for either. What exactly is Bush's plan? Spank the Taliban a little but let them fester for another generation? Spank Al-Qaeda a little? Destabilize Iraq and allow Iran to become the power player in the Middle East? Oh wait. I forgot that the Administration proposed an idealistic fantasy where we'd be greeted as Liberators and roses would be thrown at our feet. Basically I guess Andrew would be happy if the Democrats came out with something called the Super Happy FunTime Prancing Pony Democracy Rainbow Rollout Tour (Now with Cher!). It's virtually feasible, right Andrew?

Oh, and why was Bush's Vision met with scorn and silence? Because he does not have a REALISTIC plan. It might be serious enough for Sullivan to sign on, but the rest of the world needs ... oh, what are they called? Details. Feasible, realistic details. It's the same reason that Bush's Mars Vision is met with virtual silence and scorn...

Do the Democrats stand for democracy in Iraq? Or in Iran?

Gosh, Andrew, those are good questions. Do the Democrats also stand for unlimited unicorns? How about ice cream cones that don't melt? What is the Democrats position on kittens? Are three too many?

I can't speak for all Democrats, but I'd rather see the people of Iraq and Iran enjoy the benefits of economic development that allow them to consider forming a democracy for themselves. I was always told that democracies are born upon the backs of the middle class. Without the economic security necessary for a stable middle class, all talk of democracy is seriously moot. One man, One vote doesn't mean squat to a man without bread. Let's turn this question around: Where do the Republicans stand on investing in the infrastructure necessary to provide economic development? Actually, I think we've seen the answer to that question.

Until the opposition party presents a progressive, democratic agenda to reform the Middle East - as Blair has done in Britain, for example - there's no reason to take them seriously on national security.

I didn't realize our national security depended solely on reform in the Middle East. Is North Korea located in the Middle East? How about China? When did Russia move to Persia? I could've sworn the ultra-violent MS-13 gang come from South America, but perhaps that's actually in the Middle East, too...

Blair's proposal is serious. A very serious pipe dream. Are American Conservatives willing to invest in funding this pipe dream? Um, I doubt it. They aren't willing to invest enough money in NASA to fund Bush's Mars pipe dream.

Get a grip, Andrew. It's time to support realistic candidates that are capable of making intelligent, rational decisions in short periods of time. If you're satisfied with the decisions made by this Administration, then you should not support any party other than the Republicans. They obviously have the "serious" proposals that you're looking for.


Oh, and note to self: Never, ever read Little Roy Cohn's blog again... My time is better spent reading this.