It was nice to see that our AOL Journals chief John Scalzi gave this Weblog a link in his comment on Bush's speech last night.
Being the worrying sort, I also couldn't help but notice he linked my comment along with those of Andrew Sullivan and Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds). I'm happy to have my more critical comments contrasted to theirs.
But, since those two guys are well-know conservative "bloggers," and my Weblog is around three weeks old, I couldn't help but wonder if this was a bit of the "fair and balanced" Fox News type treatment, where you match a couple of well-known pro-Bush types against someone nobody's ever heard of. :)
So, to satisfy my suspicious streak, I'll add some more balance to the Bush speech commentary by linking to Josh Marshall:
The president has turned 9/11 into a sort of foreign policy perpetual motion machine in which the problems ginned up by policy failures become the rationale for intensifying those policies. The consequences of screw-ups become examples of the power of 'the terrorists'.
And to Juan Cole:
The biggest logical failure of the speech was its attempt to situate the Iraq War in the War on Terror. Although eccentric billionnaire reactionaries like [media baron] Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife have managed to bamboozle 69% of Americans into believing that Saddam had something to do with September 11, he did not. And any informed person knows he did not. High al-Qaeda officials have told the US that Bin Laden ordered them to have nothing to do with the infidel, Saddam. Now Bush seems to be saying that because the US knocked the Baath out of power and made Iraq a magnet for al-Qaeda wannabes, the US military has to stay in that country for 7 years to fight a terrorism that did not exist last February. ????
And, John, Ido appreciate the link.
- Bruce Miler
No comments:
Post a Comment