These people - Graham, Hiatt, Thiessen, etc., ad nauseam - are beneath contempt. It was obvious to many people at the time that the Bush gang's war in Iraq was unjustified and probably would end badly for the USA, to say nothing of all the Iraqis who would be casually slaughtered. I remember the evening when Dubya did his song and dance for the nation, preposterously declaring, "The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now." (It would have been preposterous even if Saddam Hussein actually had possessed a fission bomb or two.) During the broadcast, I was strolling around Madison, WI, and I was confident that a debacle would ensue. The arrogance and incompetence of the Bush gang would have assured as much even if the war had been justified. That the region is a seething cauldron of entrenched animosities would have made any effort at "nation building" after the removal of Saddam Hussein highly challenging for even judicious and capable leaders. With Dubya, Dick, Rummy, Wolfie, Perlie, and other such strutting, mendacious fools in charge, failure was a foregone conclusion. (And I strongly suspect that some of them never cared much about success anyway. The war was personally profitable for them, and that may well be all that really mattered to them.)
Any so-called pundit who cheered for that war is thereby permanently disqualified from being taken seriously by intelligent people. It simply isn't a mistake that decent, thoughtful, and well-informed people made.
"Under this formulation, if Hiatt had survived to see Trump return to power in a coup in 2024, he would have been obligated to hire three more columnists who supported the regime."
My mind raced ahead of this sentence assuming Scocca would use a Nazi analogy (three Hitler apologists). Obviously his analogy is more relevant, but no more plausible. Dark times.
These people - Graham, Hiatt, Thiessen, etc., ad nauseam - are beneath contempt. It was obvious to many people at the time that the Bush gang's war in Iraq was unjustified and probably would end badly for the USA, to say nothing of all the Iraqis who would be casually slaughtered. I remember the evening when Dubya did his song and dance for the nation, preposterously declaring, "The security of the world requires disarming Saddam Hussein now." (It would have been preposterous even if Saddam Hussein actually had possessed a fission bomb or two.) During the broadcast, I was strolling around Madison, WI, and I was confident that a debacle would ensue. The arrogance and incompetence of the Bush gang would have assured as much even if the war had been justified. That the region is a seething cauldron of entrenched animosities would have made any effort at "nation building" after the removal of Saddam Hussein highly challenging for even judicious and capable leaders. With Dubya, Dick, Rummy, Wolfie, Perlie, and other such strutting, mendacious fools in charge, failure was a foregone conclusion. (And I strongly suspect that some of them never cared much about success anyway. The war was personally profitable for them, and that may well be all that really mattered to them.)
Any so-called pundit who cheered for that war is thereby permanently disqualified from being taken seriously by intelligent people. It simply isn't a mistake that decent, thoughtful, and well-informed people made.
"Under this formulation, if Hiatt had survived to see Trump return to power in a coup in 2024, he would have been obligated to hire three more columnists who supported the regime."
My mind raced ahead of this sentence assuming Scocca would use a Nazi analogy (three Hitler apologists). Obviously his analogy is more relevant, but no more plausible. Dark times.
a cursed marry fuck kill is thiessen safire noonan