Bloodless Coup

I've got just the guy for the job.

There's also the bit about the Islamic world still being pissed over the Crusades (and seeing a replay in Iraq, etc.), but if he doesn't get the Israel dimension he ain't gonna get the rest.

Oh well. 29 more months, give or take.

Lots can happen in 29 months. An invasion of Syria, Iran, or both remains possible (though insane). Moreover, 29 months out, I'm not confident of the candidates that seek to replace him. No one looks good.

There's looking good and there's being actively bad. Romney or Edwards (or HRC for that matter) aren't impressive but probably wouldn't make things too much worse, at least internationally, whereas some of the others might well preside over the final failure of the American experiment.

The U.S. has a long history of supporting Israel. Whoever was president after 9/11 was going to up that support. Its pretty easy to understand why Bush would be frustrated, he gave the Iraqi's and the arab/persian world more credit than they deserve and now he looks like the sucker. But calling the president stupid is itself small minded. Call him naive, and then we're getting somewhere. You should give some thought to raising your discourse above those you criticize.

Uh, stupid is what stupid does. Bush has had six years (more, if you count the time he was candidate) to associate himself with the complexities of the Middle East. The fact that he has resisted reality this long is no longer a sign of stubborness or perseverance, but clearly something bull-headed and, well, stupid.

As for Israel, you are correct that the US has long been tied to that state, but history doesn't determine the future. Any US president/administration could choose to put some distance between us and Israel (and could do so without failing to be an ally to Israel). Bush chooses not to. I think it is pretty clear that any permenant solution to the long-standing Israel/Palestinian problem will involve trading land (on Israel's side) for political/economic/military concession (on the Arabs' side). However, so long as Israel has unswerving US support (no matter what), Israel has no incentive to genuinely compromise (though partners for compromise must genuinely be found on the Arab side, and the US has no real influence with those states in part because of our tight connections to Israel). Thus, the US could be seen as a roadblock to any permanant solution.

As for the tone of my "discourse," I'll only note that the Republican party has led this country for six years in part by demonizing those that criticize their positions. And they've used worse language than "stupid." I feel no great need to change my tone.

I guess I wouldn't mind his being stupid so much if he didn't put so much effort into remaining so poorly informed. If anything comes out of the raft of books on this presidency it's that he's not a detail guy, doesn't want to be a detail guy, and if someone brings up something he doesn't want to hear he'll often make that very clear - and that's so ingrained at this point that he's living in an echo chamber filled with a handful of aides who've shown dangerously poor judgment. January 2009 can't get here soon enough.

On a different note, but also in this general area, I've been in a land of relaxation for the last several days, and have had the opportunity to peruse all types of media at my leisure (from The New York Times to the cable "news" shows). I'm simply astounded at the degree of coverage Israel/Lebanon has gotten compared to Iraq. Masses of column inches and minutes to the former, shockingly little to the latter - particularly given 1) the fact that there are more than (way more than) 100,000 US soldiers in Iraq and 2) the death toll is much higher in Iraq.

My #1 example doesn't even come from Fox or whatever but from the Times. In the Monday paper there's lots on Lebanon and Israel in the first few pages, stories of devastation etc. - Iraq doesn't get a story until page 10, below the fold, even though the death toll on Sunday in a single Baghdad neighborhood was over twice that in all of the fighting in Lebanon and Israel.

what do you expect from the Jew York Times?

of course, ironically, in this case, to the extent that appellation fits, it serves rather than disserves conservative ends.

as for stupid, i think you nailed it, Armand. it's not like we're smearing a decorated veteran as cowardly or traitorous without nothing more than his policy disagreement as support for the slur. there's very little out of the White House that doesn't suggest that Bush is guilty, at a minimum, of willful ignorance. and the only difference between that and stupidity, is that the former is far more sinister in context.

Even though you are mocking the mockers of the NYT, I don't see how that apellation serves anything positive.

i'm not much for political correctness. and in most contexts, neither are you. don't know why this one got under your skin, but i stand by the barb in context.

Mostly because it's a nasty phrase created by nasty people to accomplish nasty goals.

. . . who conspicuously omit to deploy it, when it seems most true, because to do so would be to call attention to other things they like even less.

it was a rhetorical point. cryptofascist isn't the nicest term either, but it has its moments. and while i recognize that this term lacks vaguely anti-semitic or racist overtones, the fact remains, slurs are at their most powerful when they are mystified and left undeconstructed. i don't like conferring on "nasty" terms the power we subconsciously afford by making them taboo.

the fact remains, slurs are at their most powerful when they are mystified and left undeconstruct

what do you expect from the Jew York Times?

of course, ironically, in this case, to the extent that appellation fits, it serves rather than disserves conservative ends.

Not quite deconstructed.

oh please. saying there can be no deconstruction by implication or simple contrast is one step away from decreeing that deconstruction will be the exclusive province of the intelligentsia. and that would be a shame (not to mention a deathblow to the larger blogosphere and commentariat generally, since there's really no MSM whatsoever that grants the sort of time/column inches "proper" deconstruction requires).

beyond that, if you think i'm a bigot, an anti-semite, a great hater of the Newspaper of Record (in point of fact, only when the neighborhood kids steal my saturday or sunday editions before i crawl out of bed, and the anger then is clearly misdirected), or whatever else you're insinuating, have at me. i guess i've made myself an easy target.

No, I thought in a moment that you were sloppy with language, such that a casual reader might not see the deconstruction. This is the problem with "cred" as it were, assuming that people assume the best about what you say, knowing the kind of person that you are. I know we are below z-list, but people who don't know you do read this blog.

you're not below z-list. i'm just not worried about what the other people think. :-)

in any case . . .