Strange but true, a reasonably kind review of Heads in the Sand by Robert VerBruggen (my new favorite conservative writer) in National Review -- "Blogger Extended: Matthew Yglesias's Heads in the Sand is a mixed success."
« Bad Math | Main | Blast from the Past »
Mixing Bowl
26 Apr 2008 05:07 pm
Comments (27)
How did he get a copy, visiting Pyongyang, North Korea? Your publishers send it to him directly via the mail?
I gotta close down these insurgent copies!
Total war! Hama rules! Salt the earth!
This is where he gets his facts clearly wrong. The inspectors were in Iraq and doing their job, hence, the resolution to allow inspectors was indeed being enforced. (UNLESS, VerBruggen is talking about the sanctions and all that left over shit from 1991, which the Bush adminstration had tried to use as cover and authorization for the invasion. But that's also BS.)
The inspectors left Iraq because of the impending invasion by the United States. And what is this revisionist "given what we knew at the time" BS. That's why we had the inspectors in there - to find out whether he had WMDs.
This seems to imply that had the Iraqis been less cooperative with the UN inspectors, and the Security Council had taken umbrage at that, invasion would have been justified. That's a plausible view, but not one I'd expect Matt to espouse (today, anyway).
I imagine Matt would now incline more toward the Robert Wright model of arming the UN teams so that they could perform coercive inspections. But maybe he'll enlighten us himself?
Worst post title ever?
"How did he get a copy, visiting Pyongyang, North Korea?"
--------------
Rev Sun Myung Moon dropped a crate of HITS off at the Washington Times, along with the weekly delivery of North Korean Kimchi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverend_Moon
Who do you think OWNS half the conservative movement?
Well, maybe 40%.
For those who don't know, in 2004 roughly 12 Members of Congress crowned Rev Sun Myung Moon KING during a ceremony on Capitol Hill.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Myung_Moon_coronation_controversy
Somewhere in the Seventh Circle of Hell, Alexander Hamilton was laughing his ass off.
Wise up kid. He's damning with faint praise.
Why is Alexander Hamilton in Hell? He wasn't a bad guy. More than any other founder he's the architect of the USA you and millions of other shmucks live and prosper in. Only thing: he should've busted a cap in Aaron Burr's ass when he had the chance.
Yeah, Don, I heard about that crowning bit. All those involved should have been impeached the next day.
And you're right - never thought about Moon sabotaging my "send HITS to North Korea" program. Hey! Maybe MATT IS A CLOSET MOONIE! That would fit, given his ignorance about just about everything.
Another big section of the conservative movement is owned by "The Family". Very cozy with right wing death squads all over the world, that group is. Been around for decades. Founder had connections with ex-Nazis as well.
And Hillary is a solid member. Goes to their sex-segregated "retreats" and everything.
Hey Matt ... no comment on Hillary's challenge to an unmoderated debate?
That could be very enlightening. The debates so far have been all about grandstanding talkingheads. Would be nice to see what questions the candidates could come up with on their own.
But apparently Obama's too much of a girly man to go up against Hillary without a moderator to protect him. He's keeping his head in the sand.
Wow, you just seem so undecided, Undecided.
Yeah, Obama is a girly man, and Hillary is a Bride's maid. Maybe we should start calling her runuppery, since she's got second place all wrapped up. How many ways can you say 'second place?'
nolaboyd: Undecided has explained, more than once, that he is keeping the name so you know it is the same person.
Seriously, given Obama and his supporters view of the Gibson/Steph debate (a view I share), this should be a no-brainer for the candidate of hope. Yes I Can!
Unless, of course, if HRC is allowed to debate BHO's fairy-tale rhetoric directly scares you...
|
Call Hillary "the woman Obama's afraid to debate without a moderator". How many ways can you say lacking confidence? Not what most of us are looking for in a President.
If I'm a superdelegate, Obama is not impressing me much lately.
Runuppery is entering the debate-me-I'm-losing phase of her campaign.
I'm sorry, that's the debate-me-I'm-losing-you're-a-coward phase of her campaign.
I can't tell you how much I welcome the Clinton campaign's return to the process-based attacks of the run up to Wisconsin. Call us scared. Call us chickens! In nine months, call us for a government job.
Yeah, that's a worthwhile way to waste more time and money, a 29th debate. Maybe she can spend that time to say which other random countries she'll nuke and cause more international incidents. Mozambique? Hell yeah! Papau New Guinea? They better not look cross-eyed at Israel!
It's becoming fairly clear that many Clinton supporters are nearly as big scumbags as Clinton herself.
Big surprise.
If they can't tell that this bitch is a lying, corrupt piece of shit, then clearly that means they are.
Meanwhile, she can whine all she wants. She's still lost the nomination - unless Bill can have Obama assassinated by some of their scumbag supporters - which I wouldn't put past either of them.
"In nine months, call us for a government job."
Are you using the royal "us" there, or do you actually plan on being in a hiring position in an Obama administration?
I actually think VerBruggen makes a decent point about the election of 2002 especially. It's not clear that the go along approach helped us that much, but it's not like there were a host of great options. That's why Rove scheduled the vote before the election, military action in Iraq (or anywhere) was broadly popular post-9/11, but not in the Democratic base, so it was going to be an effect wedge.
I think on the other hand Democrats would have been in a somewhat stronger position in 2004 if they'd shown more backbone on the AUMF.
do you actually plan on being in a hiring position in an Obama administration?
nah, he can't afford me.
Worst post title ever?
Hey, it beats another reprise of "Working for the Clampdown".
"this bitch"
Let's cut the misogynistic language, please. There are innumerable problems with Clinton - her gender is not among them.
Uh, the UN was totally doing it's job. The righties just didn't like that the facts were not what they wanted them to be.
@Kalkin: So is it wrong to use "bastard" in descriptions too?
"Uh, the UN was totally doing it's job."
If you count accepting bribes from Saddam Hussein as part of "doing its job", than yes.
"this bitch"
Let's cut the misogynistic language, please. There are innumerable problems with Clinton - her gender is not among them.
Posted by Kalkin | April 27, 2008 11:33 AM
You're right Kalkin, Hillary is one of the boys now. She should be referred to as an asshole or a dick head.
Comments closed May 10, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"one of the Left’s most logical, insightful, and independent thinkers, but he struggles, with only mixed success, to mold his ideas into a detailed, forceful argument."
WOW. He says you're smart but can't write well.
"In the days before the Iraq war — when the case for attack hinged mainly on WMDs and the U.N. was refusing to enforce its very own resolutions — how would this argument not have held up? . . . but his own outlook might not have prevented the war given what we knew at the time."
This is where he gets his facts clearly wrong. The inspectors were in Iraq and doing their job, hence, the resolution to allow inspectors was indeed being enforced. (UNLESS, VerBruggen is talking about the sanctions and all that left over shit from 1991, which the Bush adminstration had tried to use as cover and authorization for the invasion. But that's also BS.)
The inspectors left Iraq because of the impending invasion by the United States. And what is this revisionist "given what we knew at the time" BS. That's why we had the inspectors in there - to find out whether he had WMDs. This was all a pretext. The Cognitive Dissonance amongst the Right is incredible.
1. We had inspectors in their to search for WMDs
2. We went to war b/c of WMDs. Although, we wouldn't let the inspectors finish the job. So how the fuck can any serious person not acknowledge this circularity.
3. We didn't want to let the inspectors finish their job b/c if they did not find WMDs then we wouldn't have been able to claim WMDs as a reason to go to war.
Nevertheless, he closes with "It has a number of worthwhile insights. Unfortunately, Yglesias’s blog has a higher hit-to-miss ratio, and it’s free."
That's a pretty favorable review considering it's the NRO.
I'm probably not going to buy the book, just yet, because I fear it'll be a rehashing of a lot of shit I already know, albeit, presented in a nice, and clear manner. Because when I read these books/articles on how we lost our way in Iraq and our standing in the world, and the Dems acted like Repubs b/c they were afraid of appearing soft on terror, I just get depressed.
Posted by nattyb | April 26, 2008 5:36 PM