Who's the bigger Fool...
...The fool, or the fool that loses (and loses badly) an argument with him?
From Jay Reding reporting on the latest rumblings in Iraq:
Force[s] in Iraq are seeking an exit strategy after months of deadly attacks have utterly sapped morale, shrunk the pool of new recruits, and left the movement rudderless and isolated among a large group of utterly unsympathetic people who have firmly rejected them.
That group is the Iraqi “insurgency”.
I can completely understand a principled argument against war. Indeed, I think you'd easily find that most people are anti-war. It's just that some of us accept that sometimes, war really is the answer.
What I cannot understand is the head-in-the-sand approach to arguing against the Bush doctrine on the basis of believing the very worst of President Bush and the vilified neocons and the very best of our fascist enemies.
I'd like to believe our politicians are more responsible than all that. Those like Kennedy, Kerry and Dean make it hard to hold that belief.
It's not that it's just a difference of opinion where you can agree to disagree. It's a total separation from reality. I suspect it comes from the abdication of moral principles in the pursuit of power.
Post-modern thought and the moral-relativism it advocates has wrought this. It is a remarkable theory, but what most liberals seem incapable of realizing is that, like quantum mechanics, moral-relativism works nicely at a micro (individual) level, but simply does not apply at a macro (societal) level.
Jay ends with an observation that is becoming cliched in that it seems to occur regularly:
It appears that the vision and will of the “idiot” from Texas was far greater than the narrowmindedness of his critics.