In Defense of the Left

This may be an example blogorhea, but I feel strongly about it and think it is reasonable.

[Link] Jim Geraghty isn't impressed by the response to the Danish cartoon controversy by the left regions of the blogosphere:

I read that on Terrestrial Musings, an interesting right of center blog I found whilst perusing the TTLB leaderboard. All the main post does is link and quote. It's the comments to which I was really replying. I don't like callin' people out, just because it often results in more ~BS~ than actual dialogue, so I hope I wasn't too much the jerk.

The Union Leader article itself makes some sense but, of course, misses some key points. I try to address those in the following.

nahny nahny boo boo, stick your face in doo doo.

Heheheh.. I never saw the 2nd part o' that before. Coolish.

Commenter Cecil is right vis-a-vie our modern times. He may need to check his History though, if he doesn't think (and I'm not completely sure he doesn't...) Christianity is capable of equally heinous and vicious acts. THAT is why lefty bloggers (an admittedly hyperbolic bunch) do such equating. They (we) are stretching, but not as idiotically as Cecil suggests.

President DubyaBu certainly is not the root of all evil. He's just an incompetent example of the evil of irresponsibility which results when using fear and ignorance as a rally point.

I'm anti-war. Certainly anti-This-War. And I still don't think we should pull out right now. THAT would be irresponsible. It would have been a hell-of-a-lot more efficacious to have finished up in Afghanistan, caught bin Laden, and then cracked the military whip over a couple of the actual responsible nations' heads.

Does anyone on the Right OR the Left really think a quagmire in Iran would be much worse than what's going on in Iraq? I don't think that anyone who isn't ruled by their emotions does.

A truly rational understanding of the whole mess makes it clear that the US would likely have suffered some terrorist attacks had we invaded Iran instead. We'd also be closer to bringing the issue of the "Clash of Civilizations" to a head if we'd done so. The enormous difference is that Iran, and thus any terrorist quasi-organizations, would NOT be as close to having Nukes as they are today.

Regardless of the likely events spawned by that alternative approach (ie, relevant instead of ridiculous) the Admin would NOT have had to lie through their teeth about WMD's and Hussein sponsoring terrorism to get America behind such a horrifying mobilization of material and human resources. There also would likely have been a LOT more world-wide support (even if no more assistance) for that invasion. THAT would have been better for our United States in both the short and the long terms.

I'll take Honest Ineptitude (ala Carter) over Brutally Self-Serving Lies (ala Cheney's Admin) any day. The consequences of knowing are always more resolvable than those of lies and ignorance.

Sorry for the length of this comment. I just hate seeing otherwise intelligent folk miss the, ahem, Fundamental Point that disingenuity inevitably leads to more problems than it resolves, and disingenuous is the one word that most fully describes this neo-con regime.

Too bad my damn Dems have evidenced next-to-nothing with which to oppose it.