Middlebrow Democrat sites such as Daily Kos tell us the "antiwar" legislation just passed by the US House is good because it makes Bush look bad, or something. Justin Raimondo at antiwar.com notes that "the bill gives more money for the military than requested by Bush." In a blog post today, Raimondo responds to David Sirota, "the resident 'radical' over at the HuffPuffPost," who thinks the legislation, which Bush will veto if it ever gets to his desk, is just grand.
In a veritable cascade of Orwellian doublespeak, Sirota claims:Why should we accept a "compromise," anyway? The majority of Americans want to end the war and disagree with Bush's handling of it; every day that passes means more money spent and more lives lost in the 52nd State.It is a courageous move because it is never, ever easy to swallow a compromise, even if it is clearly the right thing to do to achieve long-term goals. These Members of Congress played hardball from the beginning, and that hardball made sure this bill included strong, binding legislation to end the war.If this is "strong and binding," then one can only wonder what would be weak: read it and you'll find that the actual wording of the legislation leaves it up to the White House to "certify" whether "progress" is being made in Iraq -- in which case none of the requirements, including a withdrawal of our forces from Iraq, have to be met. Itís true that such a certification would only delay "redeployment" of our troops, but then all the President has to do is assert that forces remaining in Iraq after March 1, 2008 are specifically in pursuit of Al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups with "global reach" -- which is the argument heís been making since Day One -- and they can stay -- indefinitely.
i would say your middlebrow crack is unnecessarily derisive although i wouldnt blanch were i to be considered among them. and dkos is hardly monolithic in their opinions. heres one voice on the front page that expresses misgivings over the bill.
As could be seen here yesterday on the Daily Kos Front Page, in the Diaries and across wwwLand, the debate over the supplemental has generated considerable dissent among people who are usually strong allies. Well-known bloggers who might normally be expected to come down on one side surprised readers by coming down on the other.that said, raimondo may very well be correct in his deeper reading of the bill and its consequences. and the political class is still lagging behind public opinion as they so often do, and the consequences stemming from that are not trivial. but then at one point 70% of the american public thought saddam was at least in part responsible for 9/11 so i dont exactly have absolute faith in the middlebrows in our midst either.
Any site that banishes you for suggesting there was something fishy about 9/11 is stolidly, squalidly middlebrow.
Were you banned too Tom? I got banned for talking about AIPAC. The folks that got purged from his blogroll are starting a new type of dkos type blogs...it involves My Left Wing and the Booman Tribune.
i cant believe they are banning people for that shit. i think mydd has a similar policy regarding 9/11. still doesnt strike me as particularly middlebrow but i cant think of a more artful term at the moment.