Watcher’s Council Results
Bookworm on Jun 13 2008 at 8:30 am | Filed under: Watcher of Weasels
The results are in at the Watcher’s Council, and they are good. As always, the submissions were superb, which made voting very difficult. Nevertheless, vote we did, and I can now give you the results.
I recommend every article, but have no quarrels at all with Joshuapundit’s blow-out victory for a post in which he examines the way in which pure Islam (unaffected by modern Western mores) is inextricably intertwined with violence. Wolf Howling made something of the same point with regard to Pakistan’s demand that the West stop picking on it (”only when you stop picking on us, Dude”), so it’s a real double whammy.
On the non-Council side, I submitted the winner: Thomas Lifson’s warning that, when Obama becomes president, for the first time in American history, the purges will begin. Scary stuff that.
So check it all out. It’s all good.
| Votes | Council link |
|---|---|
| 3 | The Chicken or the Egg? Joshuapundit |
| 2 | Dear Pakistan Wolf Howling |
| 2 | For Once, It Really Is About the Children Bookworm Room |
| 1 2/3 | Caring Is Not Enough The Glittering Eye |
| 1 1/3 | The Global Warming Cult The Razor |
| 1 | I’m a Fuel, Fuel, Fuel for You Soccer Dad |
| 2/3 | Omaha Beach Done With Mirrors |
| 1/3 | Quote of the Day: Gas Wars Edition Cheat Seeking Missiles |
| Votes | Non-council link |
|---|---|
| 2 2/3 | What Kind of War Crimes Trials Does Obama Plan? (Updated) American Thinker |
| 2 1/3 | Wake Up and Smell the Soup! Melanie Phillips |
| 1 2/3 | Obama and Khalidi — What We Know So Far Daled Amos |
| 1 1/3 | Have You No Shame, Sir? Winds of Change |
| 1 | When Worlds Collide The Weekly Standard |
| 2/3 | Jimmy Obama, Meet Barack Carter Big Lizards |
| 1/3 | Shooting Down the Enemies of Progress Spiked |
| 1/3 | Noted Imbecile Mark Morford: Obama Is a “Lightworker,” an “Enlightened Being” Hot Air |
| 1/3 | Air Is Free Eternity Road |
| 1/3 | Arson Supected at Texas Governor’s Mansion UrbanGrounds |
Email This Post To A Friend
7 Responses to “Watcher’s Council Results”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Scary stuff that.
The logical extension of Leftist fake liberal revolutionary zeal, BOok.
You should read the comments on that link, Book, given that they mentioned how the Left’s current position will ineivtably lead to civil war in America
Since the comments are closed there, I’ll have to post what I have already written here. It’d be a waste to delete it, after all.
Arguably, yes, but we still got hit first, and as a result, those presidents had a far greater range of options to pursue the war than Bush did.- #165 from Chris at 5:36 am on Jun 08, 2008
I never thought that there existed an American believer in the US Constitution that would sacrifice their neighbors simply in order to generate a greater political unity and support for aggressive bombing of enemy civilians and military forces.
I suppose the world needs all kinds of people to function.
Sure, but the core argument for war - they attacked us first, and they threaten our very existence - was still legitimate. But in the Iraq war - as opposed to the war in Afghanistan - that’s not the case. And when Bush’s core cause for war is basically a purposeful fraud - which was never the case with the Civil War or WW2 - then we’ve got a real problem.
It is extremely unethical and murderous to create a problem and then going in to take advantage of the people with such problems by giving them the solution to a problem you yourself created.
Bush’s case was that Iraq would prevent WMDs from falling into enemy hands and being used on Americans. That has come true in the 8 years he has been office. This is not a fraud. A fraud would be giving Saddam wmds, letting him use it, while being internationally against Saddam and calling for his head, and then going in and invading Iraq after Saddam had used a WMD on Americans.
Sacrificing a few hundred or thousand Americans in return for political support and a “non-fraud” like case, may seem optimal to some people but not to me.
As it is, however, Bush misled us into war and we have a loss on our hands because of it.
Given your logic, the ends justify the means. If we win, then we will be forgiven as Lincoln and FDR were. If we have the political support, then things change. Since we don’t have the support and aren’t winning in your view, our actions are not justified
Given your amorality about things, I don’t think you should be talking about anyone “misleading” people.
Yes, Andrew, they did - because they believed what Bush said about WMDs.
In that case, you guys are the ones that fooled yourselves and thus shouldn’t lynch somebody else because you can’t look yourself in the mirror and face your own mistakes.
Beating on others just because you can and because you feel uncomfortable with your own mistakes is very Middle Eastern. It is certainly not Constitutional American, although it is Western given the state of the West now.
Nortius, “everybody” didn’t talk obsessively about Saddam having nukes when there was virtually no evidence of such
Then obviously people who got fooled by Bush into thinking there were nukes, maybe should have done their homework instead of calling for Bush’s head after the fact.
But the Bush admin - and only the Bush admin - is to blame for getting us into this war in the exact manner and circumstances that we did.
Displacing your own responsibility unto some elected leader is not really going to solve anything.
Governments and nations get the leader they deserve, and Bush was a far better leader than those with your views deserved. You deserved a leader that would be a master at deception, like Obama. Somebody that can keep you folks strung along forever and ever with numerous excuses and manipulations.
That way, you will never have to break out of the illusion, Chris, and then having to deal with being “misled”. People who have shattered fantasies or world views tend to take things harshly. It is better for them to stay in the land of utopia and honey.
This is followed by five paragraphs talking about WMDs before we get to even one paragraph that talks about humanitarian concerns.
Saddam’s use of gas on the Kurds wasn’t a humanitarian concern? You might want to tell a Kurd that his family wasn’t part of humanity then, cause I think they are still being “misled” on that score.
this is merely the plain and simple facts of the matter that really aren’t open to interpretation.
Every fact is open to an interpretation, that’s how facts are processed by human beings. Humans aren’t computers that deal in only ones and zeroes.
The comment section is long and involved. In summary we essentially have several people, Democrats and Leftists, that want to prosecute Bush for war crimes or stealing money to fund a private war in Iraq.
The defenses against such is what makes up the rest of the comment thread, with outliers being comments about the original post, personal anecdotes, or summary analysis comments like this one.
A sub thread takes the prosecution of your political opponents and takes it to the logical conclusion, which is civil war. If the current party knows that they will be jailed and executed if they give up power, will they ever give up power? And how would this affect America’s political stability, peaceful transfer of powre, and economic security?
The one lone Democrat trait is ruthlessness. They actually prefer America to be hit first, sacrificing untold number of families, simply so they could get a better “justification” for war and keep their hands clean by telling themselves “we didn’t attack first”. Obviously the logical conclusion of “we didn’t attack first” is “they attacked us first and killed us because they weren’t worrying about us attacking them”.
Apart from this, the Democrats are more or less mercurial, except in cases of slavery and exploitation of blacks and other minorities that can’t fight back. In one decade, Democrats might be in favor of overthrowing Saddam and against Iraq’s blockade. Then in the next decade, they do everything to continue the blockade and support Saddam.
Btw, Book and others, there is a disturbing correlation with Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon. Caesar had conquered much of Gaul (Spain was conquered in the 2nd/3rd Punic Wars) and was essentially proconsul of the province. Some inaccuracy on the exact bureaucratic name.
Caesar did not want to go back to Rome without an army at his back because he was afraid of what would happen to him personally. Given that Roman Senators had long ago foisted the cost of raising and maintaining legions on the generals, the legion owed their loyalty entirely to the generals because it was the generals that paid their retirement and looked out for their families.
This is exactly the same thing the Left proposes to create. A climate where successful military or political leaders must hire “muscle” in order to safeguard themselves from being persecuted by their political enemies. In the end though, Caesar made one huge mistake which was to trust the Senators of Rome and his friend Brutus not to stab him in the back; and the front as the case may have been.
It is a sad day in the history of the human race when the greatest nation in human history may be brought down by petty dictators and tyrants, not from without, but from within.