Books

« Why we're suckers for war talk | Main | Dead bird mysteries: First Austin, now Australia »

January 10, 2007

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

_Arthur

"We fight them over there so not to have to fight them here"
Ridiculing the "Appeasers"
The appeal to "Show them America will always retaliate"
"Never accept Defeat"

All those have strong echoes into the US population, even when false, or wefully counterproductive.

Americans are quite willing, (well, slightly less so now) to pour another $100B of military "investment" into Iraqi sands, but, try to raise that same $100B with a gas tax, and the US Joe Q. Driver will rebell, and complain loudly.

The pain of losing a handful troopers each week is felt only as a statistic, the number of Iraqi corpses is irrelevent (but watch the necocons protest as a man against a 500,000+ number), and the pain of paying for the War(s) is completely academic, since all the money is borrowed anyways.

If the Democrats wants to convince the US people that the war is COSTLY (let alone amoral and utterly counterproductive), they should make Bush pay for it all, by levvying new taxes, or cutting services to the bone. Now The People would know a ltitle more what a Land War in Asia -- well, 2, but who is counting -- entails: a higher tax bill.

Jonathan Vause

Why I would want to put my head above the parapet to defend good ol' Dubya God only knows, but this is delurking week ... given just how useless this administration has been at everything it's tried, don't you think you're being a little harsh is claiming they never cared one bit about spreading democracy or improving the lives of ordinary Iraqis? I mean, to any intelligent person it looks like they didn't give a shit, but maybe that's another example of how they always overestimate their assets and abilities: once they'd got rid of the bad guy, surely (they thought) law, order and power generation would automatically fall into place?

Scarlet Seraph

Well said. And at this point, Bush can't let it ago. After all, HE HAS NO OTHER LEGACY. No domestic programs worth the name, no other foreign successes (North Korea got the bomb on his watch; Iran might get it on his watch; Putin is restoring Soviet insanity on Bush's watch...)

Bush has nothing but some faint hope that history will judge him better than, say, Van Buren or Jackson, or Harrison.

Somehow, I doubt it will.

The comments to this entry are closed.