Michael, I'd call that post satirical and I'd say that it was invited. It might have been a stretch to include you because you have shown the judgement to question many of your own views, but on the part of Nadine and Rough Cut it was well deserved.
But maybe you don't think it was ironic for the Queen of wrong and the Prince of Pollyanish good intentions to have a discussion regarding the "psychological" reasons for why I might have consistently challenged the spin used to support this war in Iraq?
I'd think that kind of "why would he do that" analysis would be reserved to try to understand why someone had been so wrong, so often.
That's not the case here. In fact I challenge anyone to find a post, any post, where my common sense analysis of the course of the war in Iraq or any of the side issues revolving around that was off base? There's a lot of ground there so let's see if Nadine or Rough Cut or any of their little buddies can find something.
But that wasn't the case here, was it? Here, as in so many other instances, the unwelcome views were not debated but rather the motives and character of the person presenting those views. There was an opportunity challenge what I said and present logical, rational arguments if they were available, but instead the rebuttal was that I was "too affected" by Vietnam to see Iraq clearly.
Coming from two people who have been so glaringly wrong so often, it was too silly to pass up.
And all Rough cut could come up with in response to my satirical post was a blanket denial and, even weaker, a throwback of a one liner that I used in my own post. That sort of response may serve as persuasive logic for the board idiots like Ruffian, but not many thinking people are likely to be nodding their heads on that one.
And you got thrown in because you accepted it as a given that their main point was correct. It wasn't.
Why don't you take a careful look at my last few posts to Nadine and Rough Cut and analyse how many logical points I tried to articulate and how often those were met with bland do-gooder generalities by Rough Cut and narrow nit picks by Nadine. In other words, they never really engage on the main points, presumably because they can't think of anything credible to say.
For instance, in the post that started this particular thread I explained why we might want to pay more attention to those soldiers who criticized the war effort in Iraq rather than those who stood to gain by cheer leading it.
See if you can find any real attempt at a substantive response to the points I made. I think you'll find the only responses had to do with challenges to my motives or attacks on me as a person allegedly too emotionally impacted by the war in Vietnam to fairly evaluate the war in Iraq.
And, by the way, you know perfectly well that most of the consistent, articulate critics of the war in Iraq have been proven sadly correct. It's gotten to the point where even such brilliant minds as Fareed Zawkawi and Tom Friedman have turned from cautious hawks to severe critics of the war. And, if they hadn't been for it before they were against it, they'd be joining some of the rest of us who long ago said that it wasn't just the execution that was flawed but rather the basic conceptual premises upon which it was based.
So, please, don't talk to me about the "room in the middle." I don't care, never have, about whether I'm in the middle, the left or the right. All I care about is providing the best analysis that I can and seeing it as it is. And the way I see it is the way I say it. Ed |
