Wednesday, November 29, 2006

The Remarkable World of McBride

The Brew City Brawler usually does a bang up job exposing Jessica McBride’s mockery of professional journalism. But after reading the entire McBride piece, I can understand why the Brawler doesn’t take the time to launder the entire mess, rather resorting to steam cleaning. His frustration oozes from the printed word as he responds to McBride’s lengthy attempt to cover up for a corrupt administration. I imagine the Brawler as he types the following paragraph, each subsequent keystroke heavier and with more emphasis, the last so forceful that the keyboard considers ending its life and jumping off the edge of the desk:

Umm, yellow cake? Aluminum tubes? Relying on sources who we had reason to believe were full of shit? These are just off the top of my head. Has she read a book about Iraq? Watched a newscast?

I can forgive the Brawler this brief foray. McBride is perplexing. How she can take the talking points provided to her and still prove unable to piece together a cogent argument is mind-boggling (Perhaps not, it would explain much about the current administration). And it’s mind-boggling that a major university continues to pay her to instruct students.

Nonetheless, as I was rested, I decided to continue for the obviously exhausted Brawler.

Her first few paragraphs are meaningless drivel regarding the innocence of the Bush administration's motives. As the Brawler correctly noted above, where has McBride been all this time? How can she say with a straight face the Bush administration has not dishonestly manipulated information? They’ve been doing it for four years.

She examines the process of hallucination when she writes that the reason we went to war in Iraq was because “… we’d decided that our national security mandated that we preempt threats before they are directly upon us.” How in the world was Iraq a threat? There were no WMDs. There was no army. It had been devastated in the previous war. It is true that Saddam was a tyrant. But if being a tyrant is enough reason to garner a response from our military, then why aren’t we writing up plans to invade one third of the nations on this planet?

A McBride piece would not be complete without a mention of 9/11. This time she out does herself. She was there she says … the day after. What was she doing there, one must ask? I'm sure she bandaged and comforted the wounded, gave blood twice that awful day after, advised the President and helped develop the administration’s subsequent course of action. And, she had tea with Condi.

Actually, we don’t know why she was there. She doesn’t say. There’s no reason to. Isn’t it enough for us to know she was?

Just asking, but was she in New Orleans the day after Katrina?

Anyway, she then places this amazing piece of nonsense for us to digest. Saddam was bluffing the world about his WMDs.

Huh? There might have been a time before Desert Storm that this was true, but since then he had been stating loudly for all to hear that he had no interest in WMDs. It was a rare moment in his life to be telling the truth. To be sure, Saddam put up roadblocks to U.N. inspectors, but doing so was certainly not enough reason to invade.

And when it was discovered that the rationale for our assault was so much hocus pocus, a new rationale was slipped in before our distracted eyes and "whallah," (inside joke for those who do not know McBride ... her spelling of the French word voila) planting democracy is the reason for being there. For McBride, this sleight of hand brings no confusion … nor is it a problem. Hmmm, the real reason we went to war never really existed so now this is the real reason for going to war.

Actually, in the words of McBride, the reason we went to war was to foment revolution. And she’s right (this happens occasionally) revolution is not easy ... to sell. I’m sure the parents and siblings of the 3,000 American servicemen and women who have given their lives for the Iraqi revolution will be relieved to know this is the REAL reason their loved ones were sent overseas.

I’m beginning to understand the Brawler’s reasoning. The more I type, the angrier I get. Conservatives like McBride are quick to trot out the “angry left” mantra as a means to color their views objective and reasoned. Sadly, it’s just another sorry attempt at deception and distraction. One wishes conservatives were more thoughtful.

So, I think that I too, have reached my fill of McBride. However, not before dissecting this silly statement:

I also believe that Iraq has made monumental progress in a few short years. I don’t believe those stories are emphasized enough by the media.

Monumental progress?

Monumental progress towards what … civil war? More innocent Iraqis have been killed in the past four years than in all of the time that Saddam was in power. The country is split along religious fault lines more than ever before. The insurgency is everywhere and getting stronger and Iraq has become the focus of terrorist groups around the globe. Additionally, we have alienated the people of more than half the world with our arrogance.

There was a time that America was looked upon as that shining beacon of hope. In six short years, conservative policy makers (serious people, you know) have taken any good will people might have had for us and thrown it away in useless partisanship and disregard.

McBride wants the Democrats and media to reframe the debate toward one of victory, not failure. Is McBride saying that what has been wrought through Republican intransigence must be solved with more of the same?

UPDATE: The Brawler recharges.

UPDATE: The humble folkbum lets us in on what McBride really missed.

2 Swings of the bat:

Dad29 said...

I have no problem with the following:

1) Saddam Hussein was a monster to his own citizens.
2) SH attempted to procure and/or did procure some WMD's.
3) SH aided, abetted, and/or financed AlQuaeda at one or more points in time.
4) SH provided cover for AlQuaeda which in some cases allowed them to travel into the US.
5) SH knew his time was getting short and moved a lot of WMD's into Syria (or perhaps Jordan.)
6) GWB & Co. had reason to believe that SH retained some WMD's, that SH had aided AlQuaeda figures, and that SH was going to continue being a monster. It's entirely possible that the WMD info was inaccurate--but that does not mean that GWB was lying--it means the informants were wrong, or that THEY were lying. Big difference.

GWB did not get a signed confession from SH. Surprise!!

HOWEVER--I do not think that the citizens of the US bought into "emplacing Democracy" in Iraq. We bought into wiping out SH and his cretins, snatching the WMD's, and blasting AlQuaeda to smithereens.

Thus the current difficulty.

Other Side said...

Daddio, you confuse yourself. You can't have it both ways. In point number 2 you state that SH attempted to procure and/or did ... Not a very definitive statement. You seem iffy.

Later, though, in points 5 and 6, Saddam-baby has WMDs. So which is it?

Come on ... the fact is that he made a lot of noise about WMDs but not a one has ever been found. Nor has any evidence been found that WMDs were manufactured or maintained. And there is no eveidence that Syria is babysitting them.

That's pipe dreams daddio ... smoking some good stuff though.