It's not really a surprise, of course. Digby, of course, supported Wesley Clark's bid for the presidency in 2004, which was based entirely on him using his status as a four-star general to challenge the authority and execution of Bush's wars (and back then, much of the tepid criticism of the wars was that they were being waged "incompetently"; apparently, mass murder is fine for some people as long as it's done efficiently with a minimum of fuss and bad press). The entire pwoggie blogosphere spent the rest of that year stroking themselves into an jizzlobbing frenzy over what a "war hero" John Kerry was in Vietnam, and how serving as a foot solider in a national shame of a war made him the best choice for being Commander-in-Chief of two others. And when those efforts were all for naught, they spent the next few years desperately hoping for any other dissidents in the military brass to come out and openly denounce Bush and Cheney, while railing against them as traitors for outing a brave, honorable CIA agent (!) who was only trying to protect us from Iran and their nuclear weapons by gathering legitimate intelligence. Now that Republicans are out of office, the rhetoric has shifted away from the immorality of our foreign policy toward what Digby likes to call "the optics": how does this play in Peoria? How does it affect Obama's re-election chances? Does this reinforce the media narrative about Democrats being wimps and hippies? Oh, if only the Villagers would quit being mean to Democrats! Lost in the shuffle is any concern for what, exactly, we're doing still stumbling around in the Graveyard of Empires to begin with.
As Glenn Beck might point out, there's only thirteen letters separating "D" from "R", which is the same number of letters in the word "authoritarian"! Coincidence? Or numerological truth?!
2 comments:
The only angle that interests me in the kerfuffle (which I believe is several snafus beyond a hubbub) is that this general was appointed by this president whose judgement he questions - a self-defeating position, if you ask me - and then behaves very unprofessionally, which sort of proves his point that Obama's judgement is in fact questionable, but only because he is acused of the same by an appointee who also shows bad judgement. Is this a chicken and egg problem? A self-reference paradox? I thought the military had enough meritocracy to prevent dopes from getting appointed to positions of such responsibility. I guess I was naive.
Several snafus beyond a hubbub, perhaps, but still a couple brouhahas short of a full-on clusterfuck.
Post a Comment