A National Review Trifecta

If National Review did not exist, it would be beyond the wit of humanity--beyond the wit of all intelligences in the universe--to invent it:

Matthew Yglesias watches Jonah Goldberg:

The New Journalism | TPMCafe: Jonah Goldberg misquotes John Murtha, truncating his statement in a manner that substantially alters the meaning. Following up, he justifies his action by noting that The New York Times did the same thing later. We're not even in "two wrongs don't make a right" territory here.

Meanwhile, Rich Lowry appears not to know that "crucial" means "decisive: will settle things one way or another":

The Corner on National Review Online: Tom Friedman['s saying] "the next six months will be crucial." When his repetition of that phrase over and over was pointed out in The Corner, I said I would have agreed with him every time he said it. Some readers asked why. Because every time Friedman said it, it was true. It was and is true because Iraq has never decisively tilted one way or the other. ..

And Iain Murray makes me sorry I named John Derbyshire the Stupidest Man Alive:

The Corner on National Review Online: A meteorite hit a remote area of northern Norway yesterday. The explosive force of the impact was equivalent to that of the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima. I wonder if they'll try to blame this on global warming?

Comments

[P O'Neill]

You could go for the grand slam with K-Lo
--

I just had a brief chat with our David Pryce-Jones, whose spirits couldn’t be higher this afternoon (in England). He calls Zarqawi’s demise both a “collassal morale boost” for all of us but says it also has “big operational significance.” “When you get rid of a leader, it’s very hard to replace him.” The Israelis have proved this time and time again

[derek]

I wonder if Iain Murray is having a gay relationship with John Bolton? I wonder if they're defrauding the National Review and stealing from the federal budget? I wonder if they sacrifice small babies to Satan and eat their soft, lightly pan-seared flesh?

These are just questions I think it's legitimate to ask; I don't mean to imply anything by them, or inject rumors into the discourse.

[Ari]

Derek is Remo Williams, a trolling vicious rotter who is trying to destroy each thread on the blog and who despises every poster on this wonderful blog. Brad removes all these visious posts.

[BroD]

Iain Murray's cognitive confusion is clearly the result of global warming.

[RedCharlie]

Don't you see, the distinction between "we can't win this militarily" and "we can't win this" is one of nuance. The far right neo-cons have already made it clear that they don't do nuance. I mean, c'mon, what other way is there to win anything? (Yeah, yeah, yeah, diplomacy scheplomacy. This is why we have Bolton at the UN, remember?)

[anne]

John Murtha understands above all how destructive in physical, psychological, moral and material terms the war and occupation in Iraq have been for Americans. There is no member of Congress who has worked so forcefully and continually to bring American soldiers from Iraq, and there is no member of Congress who we deserves more respect. Here is what heroism is in a political leader, and I only wish Murtha had a significant following in the Congress.

[anne]

Interesting that a decorated Marine Colonel, a conservative Congressional Democrat, would become an anti-war leader and refuse to give way no matter the minimal support even from Congressional Democrats. When the President speaks on the war amidst hosts of political support, John Murtha holds a news conference to answer the President, no Congressional support is present, and almost no press.

[anne]

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/opinion/08herbert.html?hp

June 8, 2006

Other People's Blood
By BOB HERBERT

For the smug, comfortable, well-off Americans, it doesn't seem to matter how long the war in Iraq goes on — as long as the agony is endured by others. If the network coverage gets too grim, viewers can always switch to the E! channel (one hand on the remote, the other burrowing into a bag of chips) to follow the hilarious antics of Paris, Britney, Brangelina et al.

The war is depressing and denial is the antidote. Why should ordinary citizens (good people, religious people, patriots) consider their role in — and responsibility for — the thunderous, unending carnage? Enough with this introspection. Let's go to the ballpark, get drunk and boo Barry Bonds.

The nation is in deep denial about Iraq. For years the president and his supporting cast of arrogant, bullying characters have tried to put the best face on this war. They had no idea what they were doing when they ordered the invasion of Iraq, and they still don't. Many of the troops who were assured that the Iraqis would welcome them with open arms are now dead. And there's still no plan.

Paul Wolfowitz, who fashioned the phony intellectual underpinnings of this catastrophe, told us that Iraqi oil revenues would cover the cost of reconstruction. He was as wrong about that as the president was about the weapons of mass destruction. (And as wrong as Dick Cheney was last June when he said the insurgency was in its last throes.)

Here are the facts: The war so recklessly launched by the amateurs in the Bush White House has already taken scores of thousands of lives, and will ultimately cost the United States $1 trillion to $2 trillion.

No one has been held accountable for this. While Mr. Bush's approval ratings are low, the public has been largely indifferent to the profound suffering in Iraq. This is primarily for two reasons: Because most Americans have no immediate personal stake in the war, and because the administration and the news media keep the worst of the suffering at a safe distance from the U.S. population.

The killing of American troops is usually kissed off with a paragraph or two in the major papers, and a sentence or two, at best, on national newscasts. (Imagine if someone in your office, sitting at a desk across from you, were suddenly blown to bits, splattering you with his or her blood. You wouldn't get over it for the rest of your life. This is what happens daily in Iraq.)

The many thousands of Iraqis who are killed — including babies and children who are shot to death, blown up, or incinerated — remain completely unknown to the American public. So not only is there very little empathy for the suffering of Iraqis, there is virtually no sense among ordinary Americans of a shared responsibility for that suffering.

Despite the frequently expressed fantasies expressed by President Bush and some of the leading politicians of both parties, the idea of a U.S. victory in Iraq is an illusion....

[anne]

Oh, the next 6 months will in Iraq will be crucial for every America or Iraqi harmed in a needless war and more needless and endlessly tragic occupation. We must leave Iraq immediately, but we will not leave these 6 saddening months to come.

[andres]

"If National Review did not exist, it would be beyond the wit of humanity--beyond the wit of all intelligences in the universe--to invent it:"

Brad, again you have a wildly overoptimistic view of human nature. If you bothered picking up any right-wing rags from early 20th century Italy and Germany, or even 19th century USA, you would realize that there is nothing new or abnormal about National Review.

"Oh, the next 6 months will in Iraq will be crucial for every America or Iraqi harmed in a needless war and more needless and endlessly tragic occupation. We must leave Iraq immediately, but we will not leave these 6 saddening months to come."

I sympathize with this anne, but surprisingly enough I cannot agree for one single reason. Bush will not order a unilateral withdrawal even if hell freezes over. And if President Gore unilaterally orders a troop withdrawal from Iraq in January 2009, the Republican machine will be validated in its cries that Democrats are soft-on-war traitors and backstabbers of this country's military. There will follow the usual attempts at impeachment, swift-boating, even calls for a military takeover.

It will more politically expedient to our country if Iraq were to hold a popular referendum on the presence of US troops. If the answer were to be a resounding NO, as I expect, that would give the US politicians ordering a pullout the legimacy needed to tell the National Review crowd to STFU and be glad we don't try their favored politicians as war criminals.

Oh well, that's just a fantasy on my part. Most likely, even with a Democratic president in 2009, the government will wait until there's an overwhelming consensus for a pullout even if that means more lives are lost. Once a supposedly democratic country has become corrupt enough to launch a war of aggression, the degree of inertia against reversing the process will be huge. Mark my words.

[Matt McIrvin]

Oh, those wacky They who live inside Iain Murray's head! What will they say next?

To be fair, it probably will be possible to find somebody somewhere on the Internet who blames giant meteorites on global warming. However, they will be vastly outnumbered by the people who blame the voices they hear on orbital mind control lasers.

[anne]

Andres, sadly, I understand.

[Continental Drift]

The quote you're looking for is

" Such an excess of stupidity, Sir, is not in nature"

Dr. Johnson (who had a vision of the National Review one ale-infused night).