VE Day- May 8, 1945
After six years and millions of lives lost, the Nazi scourge was crushed and the war in Europe was finally over.
Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
Saturday, May 08, 2004
David Brooks on Iraq as it stands I believe David Brooks is a closet-realist
From Brooks' latest column:
David Brooks is slamming the realists he seems to ideologically fear, yet here he is crying out for their help. You know what? The realists are the only ones who've seen matters clearly all along. Brooks may consider their debates as "old"....but there can be no productive progression unless the "old" is gradually and intelligently transformed and calculatingly refined to the "new".
Bush, Rumsfeld, and the Neocons never opened the American floor to any kind of debate whatsoever. It was THEIR way or the "anti-American" highway. They stormed their way through Iraq like blind and charging rams abandoning reason for territorial challenge. Rams, as we know, are caring creatures, much like the Neocons, and will charge until the other is incapacitated. It's their animal-drive upon which the ram's natural reason is based. If we are, indeed, savage creatures and believe in nothing save the law of the uncivilized, then I suppose we can justify the drive behind the goals of Bush and the Neocons. The America the Founders decided upon looked mightily different to me.
Bush has been telling you and me that we HAD a global alliance all along...a tight coalition of willing nations. We didn't need anyone else, so he said. Is David Brooks now admitting that Bush has been a failure? I think Brooks' head is in the right place and he's beginning to see the light of reason. I'm still not sure about his heart, though. I mean, he just said he still wouldn't trust us...the disastrous "realists" who know there are always going to be limits to power. If Brooks' intuition based upon recent events still isn't helping him to see those limits, no one can help him except himself. I think he should meditate some more and get back to us.
From Brooks' latest column:
"It's hard not to be appalled by the Pentagon's blindness to the psychological catastrophe these photos were bound to create."
*it's positively unforgiveable....the likely fact that the practices were privatized and institutionalized makes it so.*
*it's positively unforgiveable....the likely fact that the practices were privatized and institutionalized makes it so.*
"Believe me, we've got even bigger problems than whether Rumsfeld keeps his job."
*it doesn't mean he shouldn't lose it...he should. Pronto.*
*it doesn't mean he shouldn't lose it...he should. Pronto.*
No matter how Iraq turns out, no president in the near future is going to want to send American troops into any global hot spot."
*how "hot" was it before we stormed in....really???*
*how "hot" was it before we stormed in....really???*
...the "realists" of right and left are... a recipe for disaster..."
*oh, really? and we're not seeing a disaster occur before our eyes now?*
*oh, really? and we're not seeing a disaster occur before our eyes now?*
"We've got to acknowledge first that the old debates are obsolete.....We've got to reboot. We've got to come up with a global alliance of democracies to embody democratic ideals, harness U.S. military power and house a permanent nation-building apparatus, filled with people who actually possess expertise on how to do this job."
David Brooks is slamming the realists he seems to ideologically fear, yet here he is crying out for their help. You know what? The realists are the only ones who've seen matters clearly all along. Brooks may consider their debates as "old"....but there can be no productive progression unless the "old" is gradually and intelligently transformed and calculatingly refined to the "new".
Bush, Rumsfeld, and the Neocons never opened the American floor to any kind of debate whatsoever. It was THEIR way or the "anti-American" highway. They stormed their way through Iraq like blind and charging rams abandoning reason for territorial challenge. Rams, as we know, are caring creatures, much like the Neocons, and will charge until the other is incapacitated. It's their animal-drive upon which the ram's natural reason is based. If we are, indeed, savage creatures and believe in nothing save the law of the uncivilized, then I suppose we can justify the drive behind the goals of Bush and the Neocons. The America the Founders decided upon looked mightily different to me.
Bush has been telling you and me that we HAD a global alliance all along...a tight coalition of willing nations. We didn't need anyone else, so he said. Is David Brooks now admitting that Bush has been a failure? I think Brooks' head is in the right place and he's beginning to see the light of reason. I'm still not sure about his heart, though. I mean, he just said he still wouldn't trust us...the disastrous "realists" who know there are always going to be limits to power. If Brooks' intuition based upon recent events still isn't helping him to see those limits, no one can help him except himself. I think he should meditate some more and get back to us.
When government becomes lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law
Anthony Lewis has returned to write A President Beyond the Law.
Anthony Lewis has returned to write A President Beyond the Law.
How could American men and women treat Iraqi prisoners with such cruelty -- and laugh at their humiliation?
...something much more profound underlies this terrible episode. It is a culture of low regard for the law, of respecting the law only when it is convenient.
Again and again, over these last years, President Bush has made clear his view that law must bend to what he regards as necessity. National security as he defines it trumps our commitments to international law. The Constitution must yield to novel infringements on American freedom.
...something much more profound underlies this terrible episode. It is a culture of low regard for the law, of respecting the law only when it is convenient.
Again and again, over these last years, President Bush has made clear his view that law must bend to what he regards as necessity. National security as he defines it trumps our commitments to international law. The Constitution must yield to novel infringements on American freedom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)