Tuesday, March 08, 2005
Eating Crow, Volume II
The UK newspaper, The Independent, home to far-left bomb-thrower Robert Fisk (the inspiration for the blog term “Fisking”*) has released an OpEd by Rupert Cornwell entitled, “Was Bush right after all?”
I never thought I’d see The Independent roll over this quickly, but I believe there’s a growing realization from leftists who still expect to be serious players in the future, that they just got it wrong about Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
They are, after all, presented with a choice: continue to blindly hate Bush and hope for the failure of his policies (regardless of the harm that would bring to the “oppressed peoples” they purport to support), or understand that reality has shown them that they were wrong in this regard. Some continue on with the hate; unable or unwilling to square their views and goals with the emerging changes in the Middle East, but in a world where even Senator Edward Kennedy grant’s President Bush with some credit for the recent changes, I think that the time for poking the squirming libs - pointing and laughing at their ridiculous and mean-spirited antipathy to the best interests of the “oppressed” – may be drawing to a close.
Unfortunately, half way through my writing of this post, Kirby Wilbur (KVI Seattle morning talk show host) began discussing this issue. I’ll post it anyway.
(Hat tip to LGF and National Review Online)
* “Fisking” is the process of taking another person’s published comments apart, line-by-line if necessary, and providing fact-supported rebuttals as applicable.
The UK newspaper, The Independent, home to far-left bomb-thrower Robert Fisk (the inspiration for the blog term “Fisking”*) has released an OpEd by Rupert Cornwell entitled, “Was Bush right after all?”
I never thought I’d see The Independent roll over this quickly, but I believe there’s a growing realization from leftists who still expect to be serious players in the future, that they just got it wrong about Bush’s invasion of Iraq.
They are, after all, presented with a choice: continue to blindly hate Bush and hope for the failure of his policies (regardless of the harm that would bring to the “oppressed peoples” they purport to support), or understand that reality has shown them that they were wrong in this regard. Some continue on with the hate; unable or unwilling to square their views and goals with the emerging changes in the Middle East, but in a world where even Senator Edward Kennedy grant’s President Bush with some credit for the recent changes, I think that the time for poking the squirming libs - pointing and laughing at their ridiculous and mean-spirited antipathy to the best interests of the “oppressed” – may be drawing to a close.
It is barely six weeks since the US President delivered his second inaugural address, a paean to liberty and democracy that espoused the goal of "ending tyranny in our world". Reactions around the world ranged from alarm to amused scorn, from fears of a new round of "regime changes" imposed by an all-powerful American military, to suspicions in the salons of Europe that this time Mr Bush, never celebrated for his grasp of world affairs, had finally lost it. No one imagined that events would so soon cause the President's opponents around the world to question whether he had got it right.(Link: http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=617840 )
Unfortunately, half way through my writing of this post, Kirby Wilbur (KVI Seattle morning talk show host) began discussing this issue. I’ll post it anyway.
(Hat tip to LGF and National Review Online)
* “Fisking” is the process of taking another person’s published comments apart, line-by-line if necessary, and providing fact-supported rebuttals as applicable.
Comments:
Mike asks, "Yeah JB, what did you do in the service?"
JB says, " I served six years, seven months in the U.S. Navy Seabees."
Mike says, " to (sic) bad you did not learn from it, if you did".
JB says, "I get the impression through your grammatically incorrect missive that you are trying to make a point. What is your point and what is it based on"?
JB says, " I served six years, seven months in the U.S. Navy Seabees."
Mike says, " to (sic) bad you did not learn from it, if you did".
JB says, "I get the impression through your grammatically incorrect missive that you are trying to make a point. What is your point and what is it based on"?
# posted by 
: 9:44 PM
: 9:44 PM
JB, for some reason, Mike can’t comment right now. He’s asked me to post a comment for him. To wit:
“My background, 5 years U.S.Navy, Computer Specialist.
1 World Cruise (USS Coral Sea, CV-43), 1 WestPAC (USS Carl Vinson, CVN-70).
18 years as a USAF Military Dependent. I lived in 2 foriegn counties (France and Germany)
and 5 different states in the U.S. (AZ, ID, MS, WA, NV).
During that time I lived through the two tours my father spent in Vietnam .
The second tour was during TET. He also spent one year in Greenland.
As for grammer, sorry about that but I have too many years of writing computer code.
And I did not realize that this was an essay assignment.
Hmmm, "six years, seven months". Odd term of service. I hope you are in good health.
Mike”
“My background, 5 years U.S.Navy, Computer Specialist.
1 World Cruise (USS Coral Sea, CV-43), 1 WestPAC (USS Carl Vinson, CVN-70).
18 years as a USAF Military Dependent. I lived in 2 foriegn counties (France and Germany)
and 5 different states in the U.S. (AZ, ID, MS, WA, NV).
During that time I lived through the two tours my father spent in Vietnam .
The second tour was during TET. He also spent one year in Greenland.
As for grammer, sorry about that but I have too many years of writing computer code.
And I did not realize that this was an essay assignment.
Hmmm, "six years, seven months". Odd term of service. I hope you are in good health.
Mike”
JB, to answer your question, I was never a member of the uniformed service. I have been a civilian employee of the Department of the Navy for 17 years. During that time I have performed in a variety of capacities ranging from skilled (I would hope) labor to engineering and design work. I’ll await any comments you may have that stem from this proffered information.
I want to thank both you and Mike for your respective periods of service to our country.
By the way, I enjoyed your use of the quotation formality “(sic).” I don’t know how many times I’ve had to explain its use in my own writing.
I want to thank both you and Mike for your respective periods of service to our country.
By the way, I enjoyed your use of the quotation formality “(sic).” I don’t know how many times I’ve had to explain its use in my own writing.
JB: Why is your first response not snotty? It may have been an innocent question, if it was I apologize. Normally, I post a comment to the topic at hand. Or at least I preface personal question as such.
I suppose I’ll let Mike speak, or apologize, for himself. I would hazard the guess that, to him, your question seemed to fit a pattern of a disagreeing former military member challenging the legitimacy of somebody like me to express an opinion about things military, since I’ve never been a member. Thus, “snotty.”
But, personally, I welcome questions. After all, if I can’t defend my point of view then I had better not be seen in public shooting my mouth off, so to speak. Within the bounds of reasonable privacy, if people want to ask questions, I’ll answer. That is, after all, one of the reasons I’m here.
Post a Comment
But, personally, I welcome questions. After all, if I can’t defend my point of view then I had better not be seen in public shooting my mouth off, so to speak. Within the bounds of reasonable privacy, if people want to ask questions, I’ll answer. That is, after all, one of the reasons I’m here.
