Tuesday, December 10, 2013

I don't understand The National Review

On the left, we have The Progressive which started in 1929 and can loosely trace itself back to 1909 (the 'hundredth' anniversary issue should have put to rest the notion that the magazine had been around since 1909) and The Nation magazine which began publishing in 1865.  On the right, there's The National Review.  There are other magazines but in its time span (it started in 1955), it's gotten a great deal of attention possibly due to being founded by TV personality and noted homophobe William F. Buckley Jr.

Buckley might have been gay himself, he certainly freaked when called gay  -- and it happened many times throughout his life  Bette Davis' then-husband Gary Merrill, for example, loved to bait Buckley by calling him gay.  Buckley, who threatened to punch Gore Vidal, would respond to the much more physically imposing Merrill by, for example, screaming for the security at the Maine airport.

On TV, Buckley was sort of a hung over and less knowledgeable Arlene Francis  in a perpetual snit. But all the TV time did allow him to promote the magazine he edited.

And we bring all that up because they've published Ramesh Ponnuru's "Obama's Iraq" online.  Four different e-mails to the public account noted the article.

By the title, I wrongly assumed I'd be reading a critique of Barack Obama's actions regarding Iraq, a critique from the right.

Wrong.

It's another comparison of Iraq to ObamaCare.

As I've noted before, it's not a connection I would make.

But the right can make whatever critique they care to.

I do find it ludicrous, however, that The National Review, of all publications, would be serving up Iraq War comparisons -- and that it would run so quickly from the actual topic of Iraq -- who knew they were such cowards.

Surely, it is cowardly to spend years selling an illegal war and then to drop the topic because it's no longer popular even on the right.

I think it's a portrait of intellectual cowardice.

Equally true, once upon a time the magazine had a snit fit anytime comparisons were made.  For example, comparisons of  the Iraq War to Vietnam reduced The National Review to the text equivalent of apoplectic fits.

Today, the illegal war they worked so hard to sell -- not just initially but throughout Bully Boy Bush's occupation of the White House -- no longer registers.

When it does come up, it's used as a weapon to beat the Democrats in Congress and Barack up with.


That's fine, there's nothing illegal about it.

It is unethical.

They're far from the only ones who are unethical.

The Progressive and The Nation are a joke as they flee from Iraq coverage.  They were against it but they just don't have the time to do any real coverage or critique today -- as they pretend that the illegal war has ended.

I'm going to quote something but alter it just a bit.  Then I'll explain what I've altered.

 Most Americans think the Iraq War is over.  Our problem begins with letting Americans know that thousands of Iraqis are still being killed every month with American arms and American money.  How do you end a war that people don't even know about?


That's Jane Fonda speaking, I've changed "Vietnam" and "Vietnamese" to "Iraq" and "Iraqis."

Not about Iraq, of course, she can't say a word about Iraq because Barack's in the White House.  But, once upon a time, she could call out the funding and arming of a puppet government.  Not unlike the one the US created in Iraq with Bully Boy Bush installing Nouri al-Maliki in 2006 and Barack Obama insisting in 2010 that the will of the Iraqi people, their votes and the country's constitution be ignored to keep Nouri for a second term.

The US government didn't just install him and keep him for a second term, they arm him, they provide him with money, they do everything they can to keep him in place.

That's why it's so irritating when a Jason Ditz working at supposed Antiwar.com wants to reduce opposition to Nouri as 'terrorism.'

Who's the terrorist here?

The exile the US put in place who's stealing money from the people?

Who's attacking the people, arresting them, killing them?


Nouri al-Maliki.  The April 23rd massacre of a sit-in in Hawija resulted from Nouri's federal forces storming in.  Alsumaria noted Kirkuk's Department of Health (Hawija is in Kirkuk)  announced 50 activists have died and 110 were injured in the assault.   AFP reported 53 dead for several days now -- indicating that some of the wounded did not recover. UNICEF noted that the dead included 8 children (twelve more were injured).

And the US government keeps propping Nouri up.

But we got silence, non-stop silence (excepting only Tom Hayden) when Tim Arango's September 25th New York Times report appeared noting, "Iraq and the United States are negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of American soldiers to Iraq on training missions.  At the request of the Iraqi government, according to [US] General [Robert L.] Caslen, a unit of Army Special Operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and help with intelligence."

Another unit of Special-Ops goes in back in the fall of 2012, after the 'withdrawal.'

Billions sent to Iraq after the 'withdrawal' and Special-Ops sent as well.  But, on the left, we're supposed to pretend the Iraq War is over because a Democrat is in the White House and on the right they're too busy wasting everyone's time to note the reality of Iraq.

The lack of ethics, the lack of integrity, is the main reason the Iraq War continues.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

















 

















 

















iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq
iraq


Posted by at