Playing catch-up at the Watcher’s Council
Bookworm on Mar 08 2007 at 7:41 am | Filed under: Watcher of Weasels
Between kids at home in the first part of the week, and all of us gone in the second part of the week, President’s Week slipped by me entirely, which is why I forget to tell you about the Watcher’s Council articles that won that week (February 23). You’ll want to know because, having read them, I can assure you that they are well worth the time.
The winning council authored article, from Right Wing Nut House, was A Rock, A Hard Place, And The Deep Blue Sea. Second place went to Joshuapundit’s I’m Tired Of “Supporting The Troops.”
On the non-council side of the spectrum, the winner was Islamist Historiography, at Cross-Currents, with second place going to Wizbang’s No Blogging Is An Island.
Email This Post To A Friend
2 Responses to “Playing catch-up at the Watcher’s Council”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You know Book, I was stunned at how much pop there actually is in Pakistan when I bothered to look it up during those cartoon jihad riots.
They have a lot of cannon fodder in that country. A lot. And not just compared to Afghanistan either in direct pop comparisons. It will be interesting to see what occurs if Musharaff dies. Then the box on pandora will really be out there. What will the Left and whatever new President we have, do about it then? Iran combined with Pakistani sunni nuclear abilities… hrm always an interesting pot luck situation our world is in.
Yes Rick we do bash GWB, probably more than what he deserves. But him being arrogant, abrasive, and that “decider” thing only opened him up to more bashing, deserved or not.
I’ve noticed something book, and it has to do with how many people incorrectly analyze Bush’s character, behavioral model, and basic psychology. The one thing Bush isn’t, is arrogant. And yet… people are under the mistaken impression that he is, and they base their analysis upon such flawed assumptions.
I just cannot understand why these guys are still alive, and – “God forgive me” – sometimes I start going to that dark place where I wonder if Bush – for propaganda purposes – does not really want them dead.
Again, what do we have here. People who believe Bush can ever and has ever done propaganda or things for propaganda purposes? It is just not in the cards for this specific individual we call Bush. Bush doesn’t do propaganda, it has been one of his flaws since forever. If people want to see him as he truly is, then they certainly must understand Bush for what Bush is, not for what they fear is true.
What rankles this liberal is Bush’s abolutist rhetoric on virtually every other topic. Newspapers – newspapers! – are “aiding the enemy”, but a country that actually is aiding and harboring al-Qaeda gets a pass.
One might expect that there would be foreign enemies and allies of convenience, but there’s still this innocent expectation on Bush’s part that domestic politics and Americans internally, would not attempt to sabotage America’s safety. Bush has always been an optimistic concerning this topic, unlike perhaps Rudy G or Arnold.
Lawrence Crawford Said:
9:57 am
If Bush had actually won the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, would we even be having this conversation?
It is now 4 years, half a trillion dollars plus thousands of American casualties later, and we have nothing to show for it.
What will it take for some people to finally admit that this administration has failed?
I guess it all more or less comes down to that, Book. Which is. Why do people think that sabotaging the war effort is a superior replacement for actual victory? They know they complain because they haven’t won, so do they want victory or do they want something else…
If Bush had not been in such a hurry to invade Iraq, and had kept his attention (and this country’s resources) focused on Afghanistan, DEFEATING the Taliban and al-qaeda (not just running them out of town), Pakistan would have had almost no one to give sanctuary to.-windrider Said:
10:10 am
It is precisely this kind of idiotic beliefs that I tend to think is the reason Bush doesn’t have any really good advisers in his inner circle. Because certainly his political advisers are not anymore wise or numerous than such people as wrote that Bush spent a year or so at the UN because he was in such a hurry. Such a hurry that even Saddam was able to come up with a counter-insurgency plan and initiate enforced sabotage of infrastructure.
Then there’s the rather ridiculous Alice in Wonderland belief that Afghanistan would have gone nearly as well if they put the Army in charge, in order to seal off the border. The Army was in charge of Iraq, and the SF was in charge of Afghanistan. The SF operates on guerrila type models, recruiting and training local forces to do the fighting. The Army operates on the opposite model. But this means that SF will never have all the manpower that they require, either in quality or in quantity, but it also means that the Army’s manpower comes with a price, that price is called “inexperience”. We are after all, talking about 2002 Afghanistan. Do people really think that a peace time Army could go in with 250,000 into Afghanistan, find and kill every Taliban, as well as prevent them from escaping? Give me a break, these people are smoking crack.