I'm a warblogger. I had no idea, but I suppose it's true. I would have guessed silliness/perversity/violence/gardening/American Idol/conservativenessblogger myself, but you never see yourself as others see you.
Rogers is kind to link to me and I'm desperately hoping he will tell me what the 2000 election looked like from Florida. As I wrote him yesterday one of the things I find fascinating about that event is how differently people remember it. While hopelessly liberal, Rogers is nothing if not intellectually honest, so I can't wait to see how screwed up my perception of Decision 2000 is, or isn't.
2 comments:
I figured warblogger fit because you're a Thomas Sowell-loving, Christopher Hitchens-appreciating, pro-pre-emptive striking conservative. Though I just found out you voted for Nader in 2000, which throws me.
And warblogger's a cool name. I'd definitely call myself one if I didn't think the war was a multi-billion-dollar boondoggle that will trade one evil but mostly detoothed despot for a hostile revolutionary Islamist government.
Are you trying to make me look up boondoggle? I agree, I'm a warblogger, I just hadn't thought of it that way until now. But I am exactly that because I see it from the 10-years-before-the-term-WMD-became-popular position, and thought we were doing the UN a favor by actually trying to enforce a resolution or two each decade or so. I just think it's silly to make us the bad guy in all this, and that the real problem is that no powerful Dem can stand to see that dumbass Bush do what they've been blathering about doing for years (the record is clear about that: quotes from all the big Dems as recently as late 2002 say as much). I won't bore anyone with mass graves vs. civilian casualties math problems, but I do believe that when Bashir Assad says, slinking out of Lebanon, that he's "no Saddam," there may have been more of a benefit to this war than you admit. The future will reveal all . . .
Post a Comment