A Mind That Suits What doesn't kill me, makes me laugh... usually.

Thursday, May 13, 2004 :::
You know, it is nice that perhaps the three most popular conservative writers--Mssrs. William F. Buckley,Jr., George Will, and Bob Novak-- represent an older, less triumphalist view of conservatism, and so those of us who dissent from Administration war policy have had a voice. It is bizarre beyond mentioning that younger writers have not had enough respect for them to at least engage themselves in a discussion. But combined, those three probably have higher readerships than talk radio has listeners, so we less enthusiastic types have had a voice.

Mr. Novak does signal service again this morning with a column--which for some reason does not appear on the Washington Post's website--quoting a speech by Sen. Pat Roberts. The column is very good, the speech appears to be epochal.

Which brings to mind a thought that has been brewing in the back of the mind. There was a moment when it became clear that the conservative intellectual elite had, by and large, thrown its weight behind Donald Rumsfeld, and that was around the time when the Post reported that Mr. Rumsfeld was persona non grata among Republican committee chairmen in Congress. The Constitution grants ultimate authority in all legal matters to the Congress, it must be noted, and Mr. Rumsfeld is merely one of those advisors mentioned in the text who must be confirmed by the Senate.

So did most conservative commentators seek the reason why those with constitutional authority were so distressed by someone who is subordinate to them? No. They stopped quoting members of congress. (See comments on the nature of reporting on May 10.)

So, too, with the veterans whose testimony appeared on the pages of conservative journals. Inspiring and honest, to be sure, but representative? Were conservative journalists seeking out a representative range? This writer has met veterans whose opinions would scandalize those who have shaded their eyes.

Mr. Rumsfeld found out what representative meant just after he cracked this morning in Baghdad about how much more fun it was to be questioned by troops than by the press. Whereupon our inspiring young people drilled him with questions about such things as why they have the unarmored Humvees. As friend Richard at Ye Olde Neighborhood Pool Club reminded him indignantly last night, the decision to send unarmored ones was ideological, in service to the bizarrest theory of warfare ever propounded.

But asking questions about "preparation" has been, according to many of our elite, a sign that you do not understand how rough warfare is. Mistakes get made, etc, etc, etc.

Indeed they do, and more of them get made if you have a really idiotic view of how to run a war.

But that may sound a tad bitter. Want bitter? Just ask the parents whose boys died in unarmored Humvees. You'll get bitter.

Unarmored Humvees that were sent over there for purely ideological reasons.

Real conservatives are not ideological.

::: posted by A Mind That Suits at 1:54 PM



Post a Comment


A Related Website on Christian Spirituality
The Fullness of Him
The Easiest Way to Keep Up With the News:
Best of the Web
Links to Web Friends
One Good Turn
A Dog's Life
Power Line
Rambles and By-ways

What doesn't kill me, makes me laugh... usually.

Powered by Blogger