Tas and Litbrit Mock Silly Bloggers
Tas remembers Mr. T Experience front man Dr. Frank once was one of the internet's leading warbloggers. And yes, these people actually refered to themselves as "warbloggers". A quick search of Dr. Frank's archives and found this gem.
It's too bad he hasn't been giving speeches like this all along, but it's welcome nonetheless. After weeks of "leaks" and trial balloons about proposed scenarios for post-Saddam Iraq, the administration seems to have, at last, committed itself to the pro-democracy, neo-con program, or at least something along those lines. At the very least, any further waffling, wobbling, or backtracking, any hint that our efforts at Liberation will be less than sincere or thorough, any nod to the stability-at-all-costs mantra of Foggy Bottom and the GHWB alumni, can now be criticized fairly powerfully with a playback of the President's own words.
Yes, I had thought that to be the case after the 2002 State of the Union Address, as well. That was a good speech, too. How could he face the nation in 2003 with Saddam still in power? He did, and he could. And when he did, he gave pretty much the same speech, almost as though the intervening year hadn't even happened. In effect, anyway. That's the thing about speeches. You can say any damned thing you want. There's good bluster, and there's bad bluster, and there's bluster whose virtue waits upon events, but it's all never more than bluster until somebody does something. The hawkish commentariat and the supporters of "regime change" were singularly ineffective at pointing that out in such a way as to hold him to those words. The ditherer-in-chief got a free pass. If they're at all sincere about this Democracy stuff-- as many of them are-- they will have to do much better this time.
If Bush keeps speaking in this idiom, some of the non-partisans, the "loyal opposition," reasonable skeptics, unconvinced idealists and the like may even be swayed by it. As to the disloyal opposition (if it's permitted to use such an inflammatory term) nothing he could say or do would have any effect. For within the ranks of reasonable skeptics, honest Democratic partisans, and informed worry warts, there is a small sub-sector whose strident opposition to Bush's policies, regardless of what they may be, has solidified, atrophied, engraved itself in granite. This rigid antipathy is personal, emotional, sentimental and, it seems, quite intoxicating. If someone had loaded the AEI teleprompter with a McGovernite speech, or a Nader campaign press release, or a chapter of "Stupid White Men," or the lyrics to "Imagine," they'd still be calling him Hitler. (And, to be fair, it must be conceded that many of the partisans in the AEI audience would still have applauded.) It is interesting to speculate whether these hearts and minds would have ended up quite so impervious to persuasion if Bush had been giving this kind of speech all along. I have no idea. But I do know that if this was just a case of putting on the neo-con hat for a special occasion, he will have given this skeptic grounds for further cynicism.
Dr. Frank argued Bush needed to be more neoconservative to win the public's support.
I remember blogger Ken Layne advocating the invasion of Saudi Arabia. (Too bad his archives aren't online.) The other lefty war-bloggers Matt Welch, Armed Liberal and Jeff Jarvis. They were so difficult to read. Former conservative Iraq war hawk Andrew Sullivan was wrong, but he wasn't boring. The lefty hawks can't make the same claim.
What these warbloggers have in common is they were on Glenn Reynolds' blogroll. Josh Marshall was more hawkish then. Oliver Willis and Reynolds struck up an online friendship. That explains why they were on the blogroll. With the exception of Sullivan, Reynolds is the only reason people took these keypad warriors seriously. Marshall and Willis publicly disavowed Reynolds.
Atrios did a great service by bashing these lefty hawk bloggers. They have fallen into irreverency. A just world would have these bloggers read their pro-Iraq war posts to an audience. The bloggers would then participate in a Q and A session with war correspondents and retired military officers. The media would cover the session. I would love to see them explain their posts to people that experienced the war firsthand.
Litbrit has fun with an easier target: Michelle Malkin. The latter defends her appearance in a mink coat calendar with her usual tactful eloquence.
It’s a light-hearted calendar for conservatives by conservatives. Yes, wearing fur. Gasp! And make-up. Horrors! For the folks out there with Conservative Calendar Derangement Syndrome, here’s my prescription: Get over it and go back to ogling The One’s tight jeans and Michelle O’s backside. You’ll feel better in the morning.
In case your wondering, Malkin did use the word "moonbat." A google search documents 1,980 times the word has been used on Malkin's site. Conservatives fail to grasp that the Left isn't bothered by the term. Wingnut has a nice ring to it. The average person hears "moonbat" and think it's an exotic pet.
The mink calendar is to offend liberals for the sake of offending. That sums up the purpose of Malkin's blog. I watched her video pretending to be Amanda Marcotte. Besides it being bad, I thought Malkin was in serious need of a hug. The Daily Show this is not.