When is a first strike not a first strike?
When it's Anticipatory Retaliation.

September 02, 2004

Saletan, Slate = Silly

Bravo Romeo Delta

Rather than disassembling this article in the thorough fashion it needs, I just wanted to note a specific part of this apologetic by Slate's William Saletan:

So they're going after the patriotism of their opponents. Here's what the convention keynoter, Miller, said tonight about Democrats and those who criticize the way President Bush has launched and conducted the Iraq war:

To wit, I note this excerpt from another part of that self-same Zell Miller speech that Mr. Saletan was getting so ready to quote:

"It is not their patriotism - it is their judgment that has been so sorely lacking."

But don't let this dissuade you from the absolute righeousness of Mr. Saletan's spirited defense (of course, as an impartial observer from the media) of Mr. Kerry's campaign...

I was originally going to use the speeches given by Sen. Miller and Vice President Cheney to refute the points made by Mr. Saletan. But frankly, as I started to read through his long and tortuous article implying that Republican Party is so determined to stomp out dissent that this is a referendum on democracy itself. Well, there are simply some arguments so damned juvenile, baseless, and stupid, that I simply can't respond.

For if nothing else, I get the impression that any counterargument I make to the accusations against the administration or any critique of Sen. Kerry's record will be seen as 'stifling dissent', 'chilling free speech', or 'questioning the patriotism' of a 'war hero'.

At this point, drawing attention to the outstanding hypocrisy of this situation is pretty silly, since those who don't see it aren't going to be persuaded by statements written in ten foot tall letters of fire placed on the National Mall by the hand of God. So I'm willing to bet that a short post in an obscure blog isn't going to turn the trick either.

And that's a fact I find truly depressing.

Launched by Bravo Romeo Delta at September 2, 2004 08:18 PM

Retaliatiory Launches

I thought Miller's speech pretty damning, and his defense of it later on Hardball very telling of the opposition's strategy. Their whole point (after having given the sly nod to the Mooreists' claim that Bush is an idiot/savant/criminal/Nazi/fraidycat is that any attempt to demand a policy of consistency amounts to foul play. Which is pretty much what you'd expect of institutionalized truth-stretchers. (Defined as getting the most out the smallest increment of truth.) Well, you know the other word for it, right?

Posted by: Demosophist at September 2, 2004 10:48 PM


Debates and Op/eds are not really for the participants of either side. Rather, they're for the swaying of the previously uncommitted. So don't be too dismayed by the blindness of the Left! Silence always grants a default victory to the other side but a good exposure of their hypocrisy will cause neutrals and seekers to turn away from them. ^_~

Posted by: The Snark Who Was Really a Boojum at September 3, 2004 08:33 AM

Where can I find a blog software? Hmm.

Posted by: Jeremy Markon at November 12, 2004 02:40 AM

free hit counter