Saturday, May 05, 2007
I thought it was no big deal and everyone did it. Glad as I am to see Democrats pretending morality is valued, isn't the charge of hypocrisy to be raised here? I know it will be raised if the Republicans nominate Giuliani. After all, Democrats defended a president who did more then sleep on the floor of his intern's apartment with the words, "Everyone does it." In fact, if you want to know the reason more people don't take it seriously...paging Dr. Clinton, Dr. Clinton. Yes, a whole generation learned that what an elected official does morally is nobody's business but his. Now that a Republican has been "caught" (although I can't even tell if anything happened there) the Dems are happy to espouse morality.
Even funnier: the NYT announced today that "surprisingly" terror attacks are up in Iraq and Afghanistan while down in all the rest of the world. I wish I were like the Times editors--everything is always such a delightful surprise. The lesson we're supposed to take from this is that the War in Iraq has failed because there are terror attacks there. But maybe the real lesson is that Al-Qaeda is fighting a war with the US Army and so they're attacking them in Iraq and Afghanistan because that's what they are. The media will never report that, of course, because the corollary is that if we bring them home, the terror attacks will be happening here. Much better, and less intelligent, to believe that the War has failed. Actually, I think these statistics may be proof of the success of the War in Iraq. We went to war for two reasons so far as the Pendragon can remember: one was to prevent future terror attacks on our soil by fighting the terrorists where they were, and two, to stabilize the Middle East by creating prosperous, democratic regimes. The Pendragon is more than willing to admit the second is steadily becoming more problematic, perhaps even failing--not failed, it's not over till President Obama whips all the troops out--but not working as well as we would like. The statistics seem to suggest that the first war aim has been a resounding success. We're not being attacked. We're fighting them where they are. The rest of the world is safer. But don't expect to hear that from the NYT.
Even funnier: the NYT announced today that "surprisingly" terror attacks are up in Iraq and Afghanistan while down in all the rest of the world. I wish I were like the Times editors--everything is always such a delightful surprise. The lesson we're supposed to take from this is that the War in Iraq has failed because there are terror attacks there. But maybe the real lesson is that Al-Qaeda is fighting a war with the US Army and so they're attacking them in Iraq and Afghanistan because that's what they are. The media will never report that, of course, because the corollary is that if we bring them home, the terror attacks will be happening here. Much better, and less intelligent, to believe that the War has failed. Actually, I think these statistics may be proof of the success of the War in Iraq. We went to war for two reasons so far as the Pendragon can remember: one was to prevent future terror attacks on our soil by fighting the terrorists where they were, and two, to stabilize the Middle East by creating prosperous, democratic regimes. The Pendragon is more than willing to admit the second is steadily becoming more problematic, perhaps even failing--not failed, it's not over till President Obama whips all the troops out--but not working as well as we would like. The statistics seem to suggest that the first war aim has been a resounding success. We're not being attacked. We're fighting them where they are. The rest of the world is safer. But don't expect to hear that from the NYT.
// posted by The Pendragon @ 10:29 PM 
