The Thrill Is Gone
...at least it is for Professor Bainbridge. The Professor's post is one long strident diatribe against Bush's supposed multiple peccadilloes, from not reducing the size of government to the increasingly unpopular Iraq war. I do not disagree with everything Bainbridge has to say, but a few things made me think, "now, wait a minute."
Says Bainbridge,
Bainbridge's logic is like saying, "whenever police hold a prostitution sting operation using decoy officers, arrests for prostitution go up. Therefore prostitution sting operations are sexualizing the public and leading to more prostitution." Please.
The fiercest bug-zapper in the world, the US Military, has taken out tens of thousands of terrorists on account of our operations in Iraq. Are we to believe these individuals became terrorists simply because we showed up, or could it be that we are simply giving existing terrorists an opportunity to come out of the closet? I am giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on this one, since there is not a valid counter argument--at least not from Bainbridge.
As for the supposed Bush failures on the domestic issues he cites, has Bainbridge forgotten the tax cuts? Limitations placed on partial birth abortions and stem cell research? What about Bush's conservative judicial appointments, the ones Bush has managed to get approved, anyway?
I do agree with Bainbridge, to a certain extent, in criticizing the growth of the federal government under GWB. Was Bush 43 supposed to, in only five years, undo decades worth of entrenched Democrat-created bureaucracies? Even Eisenhower lamented how little impact he as President has upon the federal bureaucracy. No, I agree, we have not gotten everything we wanted from George W. Bush. I wonder how we would have fared under eight years of Al Gore.
Bainbridge sounds less like a cogent evaluator of circumstances and more like a victim of wounded naiveté. The honeymoon is over, Professor. Now lets look at things realistically, not expecting unbroken bliss and perfection, and get on with the hard work--disappointments and all.
The first step to total failure is a failure to believe.
Props: La Shawn Barber
UPDATE: via Lucianne: Afghan raids 'kill 100 militants'
UPDATE: A cordial welcome to readers of Instapundit. Please Check out my Greatest Hits section for more good reads. And many thanks to Glenn for the link.
Says Bainbridge,
"The second problem is that the fly paper strategy seems to be radicalizing our foes even more. For every fly that gets caught, it seems as though 10 more spring up."I see this as a logical fallacy. "It seems" is a pretty thin basis for a conclusion. Bainbridge offers no support for the notion that "10 more spring up" is a result of this war strategy. Perhaps just the opposite--those that are "springing up" are simply revealing themselves because they have an opportune target, and that target receives nonstop international media scrutiny. Are more terrorists being created, or are we just hearing more about existing ones?
Bainbridge's logic is like saying, "whenever police hold a prostitution sting operation using decoy officers, arrests for prostitution go up. Therefore prostitution sting operations are sexualizing the public and leading to more prostitution." Please.
The fiercest bug-zapper in the world, the US Military, has taken out tens of thousands of terrorists on account of our operations in Iraq. Are we to believe these individuals became terrorists simply because we showed up, or could it be that we are simply giving existing terrorists an opportunity to come out of the closet? I am giving Bush the benefit of the doubt on this one, since there is not a valid counter argument--at least not from Bainbridge.
As for the supposed Bush failures on the domestic issues he cites, has Bainbridge forgotten the tax cuts? Limitations placed on partial birth abortions and stem cell research? What about Bush's conservative judicial appointments, the ones Bush has managed to get approved, anyway?
I do agree with Bainbridge, to a certain extent, in criticizing the growth of the federal government under GWB. Was Bush 43 supposed to, in only five years, undo decades worth of entrenched Democrat-created bureaucracies? Even Eisenhower lamented how little impact he as President has upon the federal bureaucracy. No, I agree, we have not gotten everything we wanted from George W. Bush. I wonder how we would have fared under eight years of Al Gore.
Bainbridge sounds less like a cogent evaluator of circumstances and more like a victim of wounded naiveté. The honeymoon is over, Professor. Now lets look at things realistically, not expecting unbroken bliss and perfection, and get on with the hard work--disappointments and all.
The first step to total failure is a failure to believe.
Props: La Shawn Barber
UPDATE: via Lucianne: Afghan raids 'kill 100 militants'
UPDATE: A cordial welcome to readers of Instapundit. Please Check out my Greatest Hits section for more good reads. And many thanks to Glenn for the link.
posted by Impacted Wisdom Truth at 8/22/2005
7 Comments:
Bravo. I've been using the "bug zapper" metaphor for over a year. That's precisely how we should view the "insurgents" and their terrorist antics. Better they get zapped across the globe than bite us here at home.
And you're right, everyone overlooks the tens of thousands who are no longer around to murder innocent civilians. Any doubts as to whether they've encountered any virgins where they ended up?
You are apparently confused as you are conflating the term "terrorists" with "insurgents".
Try to be more careful next time.
I regard, with great care, the two terms "terrorists" and "insurgents" to be synonymous.
"Are we to believe these individuals became terrorists simply because we showed up"
Are your really saying that the people of Fallujah were all planning to pop over to the USA just before you invaded?
The vast majority of the Iraqi resistance are fighting a foreign invasion, just as we would if our country was invaded.
Nope, don't remember saying that.
And the "insurgents" would be defending and seeking the return of Saddam Hussein.
Are you saying we should leave and give the country back to Saddam?
Do you have any support for the notion that the insurgents want to bring back Saddam? I'd say most agree Saddam was a lousy dictator even as dictators go. They spent 12 years getting poor under sanctions while he built his tacky palaces with their oil money instead of WMD that even they thought he had. Let's face it Stalinist dictators rule by fear hence his 5 secret police organizations to act as checks on one another. Even his friends hated him, afterall his son Uday used to rape their daughters.
No, I'd say insurgents have as many reasons to keep blowing up GIs with IEDs as the President has justifications for the invasion and our continuing presence in Iraq. The one we seem to share with them is honor. Iraqis feel they must honor their dead, tortured or humiliated relatives by killing the occupiers. Bush says we should honor our dead soldiers by finishing the mission. But the mission's rationale is going to have to change yet again. The Iraqis look like they're going to pass a constitution that makes them a Islamist theocracy more like Iran than the US. We don't need to stand anymore of them up so we can stand down. They have plenty of Iranian trained militiamen in the DAWA and SCIRI goon squads. They're all over the South shooting anybody who sells alcohol, barbers who cut beards and women who don't cover their heads.
What about the non-Iraqi "insurgents"--what is their goal? It is not their country.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home