« Raise the Minimum Wage. Raise It Now. | Main | Soccer Surge »

June 14, 2006

Enjoy This

As I very rarely say it. But yes, what Derb said.

June 14, 2006 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83498401c53ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Enjoy This:

Comments

Right. Sadly, liberals have been saying this for 3 years.

Posted by: Adrock | Jun 14, 2006 5:21:05 PM

I wonder how many still-conservative defectors it will take on the Iraq debacle before their consensus completely implodes.

Posted by: Kylroy | Jun 14, 2006 5:50:54 PM

If Derb isn't careful, the NRO bosses are going to cancel his complementary subscription to Teen Vogue.

Posted by: Farinata X | Jun 14, 2006 6:03:48 PM

Surely that so-called John Derbyshire post was a mis-post at NRO instead of from dKos or some other shrill liberal blog where it was intended to go and would nicely fit the commentary since 2002-03.

It makes one wonder what the NRO penalty is for speaking sanely in public.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jun 14, 2006 6:05:19 PM

Like fellow Brit Andrew Sullivan, John Derbyshire is interesting because he is not a partisan foot soldier, but the follower of an interesting if ultimately flawed ideology.

Derb is a tory-imperialist. He believes in something like a laissez-faire liberalism, he believes in science as the backbone of that liberalism, he believes that science shows the (racial) superiority of hte West. He's a modernist in the 19th century sense of the term.

As such, some of his views will overlap with those of contemporary liberals - not as often as Sullivan's do, but sometimes. And when his views don't overlap, they tend to be more interesting than, say, Rich Lowry's, because Derb can explain them via a basically consistent ideology.

There are, of course, ways in which Derb's ideology is far nastier than the amateur partisanship of the rest of the Corner - which is why you see things like Podhoretz or Goldberg taking Derb to task, hilariously gently, for being an unreconstructed racist.

Posted by: DivGuy | Jun 14, 2006 6:19:02 PM

If you were interviewing for a job and the owner asked you what you would do to improve his business if hired, would you say "That mess is the fault of the last guy."? Do you think you would be hired?

Isn't that what the Democrats are doing when asking to be elected? Why should anyone hire them?

Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 14, 2006 6:36:31 PM

Shrillblog has bestowed the degree: "Grand Heresiarch of the Order of the Shrill" on Derb for his post linked by Ezra.

Meanwhile:

Here's some more Derb from 6/12/06, which seems to be more along the lines I expected:

So why am I eating crow? Because I think it was foolish of me to suppose that the administration would act with the punitive ruthlessness I hoped to see. The rubble-and-out approach was not one that this administration, or perhaps any administration in the present state of our culture, would be willing to pursue. The universalist dogmas that rule unchallenged in our media and educational institutions have fixed their grip on our foreign policy, too. When the Founders of our nation said “all men” they had in mind Christian Anglo-Saxon men. Our leaders, though, want to bring the whole world under the scope of those grand Lockeian principles.

Perhaps this will work, or perhaps it won’t. My belief is, and always has been, that it won’t. My fault was in not grasping the scale of the administration’s multiculturalist ambitions. (Of which, to be fair to them, they had given plenty of hints, and even one or two frank declarations of intent.) George W. Bush believes that, to borrow and adjust a line from the colonel in Full Metal Jacket: “Inside every Middle East Muslim there is an American trying to get out.” The effort to stabilize Iraq, and the reluctance to just leave the Iraqis to fight each other among the rubble, followed inevitably from that belief, which is, according to me, a false belief. I see all that now. I didn’t see it then. I am sorry.

Emphasis added by me.

Shorter Derb: We weren't willing to commit genocide, as we should have, so we shouldn't have gone to Iraq.


Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jun 14, 2006 6:44:41 PM

Fred Jones, not a convincing analogy. When a new manager takes over a business, it is common for him to cancel some failing projects and blame the previous manager for the resulting writeoffs. Iraq looks like a typical failing software project, overly ambitious, way late, over budget and nowhere near finished. It's time to pull the plug.

Posted by: James B. Shearer | Jun 14, 2006 7:59:27 PM

Ezra is still linking to and engaging the character assassinators, prevaricators, and now genocidal pedophiles.

Next up, Nazis and KKK, just because, well, he's not a hack and a good argument is independent of its source.

Have your fun, dude.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 14, 2006 10:00:44 PM

"Character assassinators"? Good grief, where do these things come from. Character assassins.

Posted by: bob mcmanus | Jun 15, 2006 12:07:41 AM

Derb writes, "There are terrorists all over... I'm in favor of killing them all, by any methods we can devise, and as long as it takes. Totally in favor. No doubt."

Do you concur with this, Ezra? Anyone?

Posted by: Dan | Jun 15, 2006 3:35:28 AM

Dan, I don't concur with killing people by any method available for as long as it takes. I thought we believed in something called due process in this country (oh yeah, with the exception of Guantanamo, to our great shame.) Thwart their plots, yes. Intervene. Imprison, charge, interrogate, put on trial. Killing indiscriminately is exactly what we're criticizing them for doing.

And Fred says: If you were interviewing for a job and the owner asked you what you would do to improve his business if hired, would you say "That mess is the fault of the last guy."? Do you think you would be hired?

Which is eerily similar to the right wing meme that circulated (and still goes around) after Clinton left office. Never mind the terror plots Clinton thwarted; never mind the terrorism task force Clinton set up--9/11 was somehow Clinton's fault, despite the fact that the Bush administration had systematically set aside and ignored warning after warning.

Posted by: litbrit | Jun 15, 2006 5:55:42 AM

If you were interviewing for a job and the owner asked you what you would do to improve his business if hired, would you say "That mess is the fault of the last guy."? Do you think you would be hired?

Isn't that what the Democrats are doing when asking to be elected? Why should anyone hire them?

Posted by: Fred Jones.

I'm sorry, I guess you were too fast for me. What does this have to do with Derbyshire, or his comments on invading Iraq? Please, enlighten me, I just don't see the connection.

Posted by: Cyrus | Jun 15, 2006 7:12:18 AM

"Never mind the terror plots Clinton thwarted"

Litbrit, can you elaborate please?
I personally don't recall any he prevented.

Thanks, Regards, HM

Posted by: HM | Jun 15, 2006 8:22:24 AM

Derbyshire fails to recognize that the Forever War in Iraq is not a war, it's the world's most expensive campaign commercial.

Posted by: Davis X. Machina | Jun 15, 2006 10:17:47 AM

Litbrit, can you elaborate please?
I personally don't recall any he prevented.
Thanks, Regards, HM

Start by looking up The Millenium Plot.

Posted by: sprocket | Jun 15, 2006 12:31:41 PM

http://www.globalsecurity.org/security/ops/millenium-plot.htm

Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jun 15, 2006 12:34:41 PM

HM says: Litbrit, can you elaborate please? I personally don't recall any (terror plots) he (Clinton) prevented.

Happily.

Let's start with Clinton's aggressive pursuit of the '93 World Trade Center bombers, led by Ramzi Yousef. After Yousef et al committed their crime, Clinton responded by capturing, trying, convicting, and imprisoning those who were responsible. (Hey, anyone seen Osama yet?) By acting immediately to put Yousef and his cohorts Abdul Hakim Murad and Wali Khan Amin Shah away for life, it could reasonably be argued that a number of potential acts of terrorism and violence were prevented.

But I'm sure you want some specific plots that Clinton and his administration prevented. You can find a pretty comprehensive list of these at Mike Hersh's website.

For example, President Clinton:

-- Developed the nation's first anti-terrorism policy, and appointed first national coordinator.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up 12 U.S. jetliners simultaneously.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up UN Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up FBI Headquarters.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the Israeli Embassy in Washington.

--Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Boston airport.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up Lincoln and Holland Tunnels in NY.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the George Washington Bridge.

-- Stopped cold the planned attack to blow up the US Embassy in Albania.

.

Furthermore, President Clinton sent legislation to Congress to tighten airport security, and this was before 9/11. Unfortunately, this legislation was defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the airlines. He (Clinton) also sent legislation to Congress to allow for better tracking of terrorist funding, but this, too, was defeated by Republicans in the Senate due to opposition from banking interests. Finally, Clinton sent legislation to Congress to add tagents to explosives, to allow for improved tracking of them; you guessed it, this was also defeated by the Republicans because of opposition from the NRA. (See above link).

Let us not forget that President Clinton created a national stockpile of drugs and vaccines--including 40 million doses of smallpox vaccine, resisting misguided worldwide pressure to destroy all remaining samples of vaccine for the lethal virus that was wrongly thought to be eradicated.

Moreover, Clinton regularly pressured other world leaders to join the fight against terrorism.

Finally, from a January 20, 2002 article in The Washington Post:

"The U.S. government can only manage at the highest level a certain number of issues at one time – two or three," said Michael Sheehan, the State Department's former coordinator for counterterrorism. "You can't get to the principals on any other issue. That's in any administration."

Before Sept. 11, terrorism did not make that cut.

Army Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, who had come from top posts on the Joint Staff and the Defense Intelligence Agency to manage Clinton's National Security Council staff, remained at the NSC nearly four months after Bush took office.

He noticed a difference on terrorism. Clinton's Cabinet advisers, burning with the urgency of their losses to bin Laden in the African embassy bombings in 1998 and the Cole attack in 2000, had met "nearly weekly" to direct the fight, Kerrick said. Among Bush's first-line advisers, "candidly speaking, I didn't detect" that kind of focus, he said. "That's not being derogatory. It's just a fact. I didn't detect any activity but what Dick Clarke and the CSG were doing."


Posted by: litbrit | Jun 15, 2006 1:20:20 PM

holy crap! is oxygen leaking into the bubble of the rightwing noise machine?

and holy crap! the corner folks are star trek fans? ugh, makes me want to chuck all my megos.

Posted by: mencken | Jun 15, 2006 2:18:31 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.