Monday, August 22, 2005

The Thrill Is Gone 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,
"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.