Alex's misc.
Those Daily Kos headlines are interesting. I think they're less reflective of the changes in Bush, than the changes in American politics at the meta-level, in the wake of 9/11 and Iraq War II. Would anyone have believed in 2000 that both parties would be actively talking of a global war, global engagement, destroying international terrorism, and promoting a democratic Middle East? Looking at American history, it really boggles the mind that there's not a single isolationist voice in this election (or for the foreseeable future.). I guess Kerry's railing against "outsourcing" might count, but really, both parties are committed to Team America.
As for The Fantastic Chore...
('Cause that's what it will be to sit through! Get it?!)
Um, the costumes look, how do I say this... cheap. Yeah, they look cheap. Yeah, I know these aren't even official production stills, but hey, when you can barely equal the craftsmanship of the Corman costumes (and those can only be seen on 12th generation VHS) well, that's gonna send up red flags with fans. I shiver to think what Dr. V von Doom will look like.
And by the way, has anybody actually stopped to wonder why the hell Tim Story is directing this movie? Sure he's a fellow Trojan, and yeah, Barbershop was decent, but Tim Story? For the Fantastic Four? The World's Greatest Comic Magazine? This just has mistake written all over it.
As for The Fantastic Chore...
('Cause that's what it will be to sit through! Get it?!)
Um, the costumes look, how do I say this... cheap. Yeah, they look cheap. Yeah, I know these aren't even official production stills, but hey, when you can barely equal the craftsmanship of the Corman costumes (and those can only be seen on 12th generation VHS) well, that's gonna send up red flags with fans. I shiver to think what Dr. V von Doom will look like.
And by the way, has anybody actually stopped to wonder why the hell Tim Story is directing this movie? Sure he's a fellow Trojan, and yeah, Barbershop was decent, but Tim Story? For the Fantastic Four? The World's Greatest Comic Magazine? This just has mistake written all over it.
3 Comments:
But 9/11 really has nothing to do with our being in Iraq, I mean other than giving Bush an excuse to go. Iraq didn't have ties to Al Qaeda, and didn't have WMDs (which we could have found out if, once the inspectors had returned Bush had just let them do their work). The irony of the nation-building comment is that now the only excuse for our involvement in Iraq is that Saddam was evil and we saved everyone from him. But that's not how Bush campaigned, and not even how the war was intially sold.
George W. Bush: Flip-flopper.
Well, based on this logic, then Lincoln, Wilson, and FDR are all flip floppers because they campaigned on keeping American out of war, but ultimately ended up as wartime leaders.
Look, here's the way I see all this.
2000
Bush: No more silly foreign adventures! We're going to concentrate on America!
2001
9/11!!!
Bush: Well, war's on. Now, we definitely have to fight overseas and go on foreign adventures. Let's invade Afghanistan.
2002
U.S. Intelligence: Sir, seveal rogue states have WMDs and all could end up in terrorist hands. Iraq probably has the most weapons, but they're also the easiest to take out. They also loosely support terror causes, but it may go deeper than that.
2003
Bush: Let's invade!
2004
Bush: No weapons, but the war was morally just. And now it's become central to the war on terror, so, uh, that's good.
* * *
As near as I can tell, your complaint is (rightfully) with the fact that the war was sold on false pretenses -- pretenses which glossed over the moral argument.
But the big complaint seems to be rather ludicrous: Bush is a flip flopper because he did not anticipate 9/11 and then invaded Iraq.
Going to Iraq after 9/11 is not a flip flop. It may have been a stupid distraction, but it's hardly a flip flop. A flip flop would be if Bush said we're gonna smoke the terrorists out and then U.S. troops never left American soil.
I'm sorry, now at this point I've lost my train of thought. Politics man, they're a bitch.
Yes, my main point was that the current justification for the War In Iraq is now exactly the thing Bush said he wouldn't do. ha ha funny.
The deeper and more serious point, though, is that Iraq never had anything to do with the War on Terror(ism). Notice how I don't take issue with Afghanistan? Remember that war? The one we didn't really finish, where we didn't catch Osama, so that we could divert our troops and intelligence forces to Iraq? And remember how Bush said he wanted the authority to declare war from congress so he could get the inspections going again and that war would be a last resort? There was a brief period there where I really thought Bush was a genius for his maneuver to get inspectors back in. Then they were back in and doing their work and Bush declared war anyway.
So I don't actually buy that 9/11 was a justification for the war in Iraq. It wa an excuse, to be sure, but not a justification.
Post a Comment
<< Home