Excuses 2.0

K-Drum wonders (well, not really, he knows the answer) what Bill Kristol will do now that Bush has started taking his advice: "So if it doesn't work, Bill, what are you going to do? Will you admit that the strategy you endorsed was wrong? Or will you just regroup and blithely insist that it was never implemented the way you wanted?" The latter, obviously. The striking thing is that Kristol is already laying the groundwork for this:

The key is the urgency, the speed and the full bore commitment that the U.S. government, across the board, puts on implementing this. Don't slow-walk the troops in. Front-load the surge. Get Petraeus over there. He's the commander who has to execute it. It's crazy to have Casey execute the first month of the plan and then have a transition then.

Kristol also reveals during the same exchange that he doesn't know the difference between blackjack (where you can double-down) and poker (where you can't) and offers fresh material for the right's inevitable stab in the back narrative. The economy with which all this is achieved is truly impressive; you need to read it for yourself. Victor Davis Hanson would expend 37,000 words making these points.

UPDATE: Even dumber excuses from New York Post columnist and fabricator Amir Taheri. This last, incidentally, is why it doesn't make sense to wonder why hawks don't suffer from being wrong. Rightwing pundits don't suffer under any circumstances -- you can make things up, get busted on drug charges, whatever, and it all works out fine.

1/15/07 1:44PM del.icio.us this incoming links

Comments

To be fair though Kristol did call for a hell of a lot more troops than Bush is supplying. And now I'm hearing that most of the so-called 20,000 aren't going in all at once.

But speaking as one extremely skeptical of Bush's plan, I think it fair to give it a chance.

Posted by: Clark Goble on January 15, 2007 02:16 PM

Kristol may not be a military genius, but I don't think there's any evidence that he's getting his excuses in early. It's pretty clear he's just enthusiastic, concerned, and wants the surge to succeed.

That Kristol doesn't know the rules for poker is probably to his credit, rather than a criticism.

We may as well ask what MY would do if Kristol turns out to be right. Or even what would I do if MY turns out to be right...

Posted by: Warren on January 15, 2007 02:24 PM

How is it that this clown Kristol still has a job? Why the f*** does anyone give a damn what he says, about anything? He has been wrong on every point regarding this adventure since what..2001?

Oh, and just as a pleasant reminder we had the +20k troops there just awhile ago, and the whole thing was still in the shitter.

There are no ponies, just the choice of the lesser really unpleasant outcome.

Posted by: Thunderlips on January 15, 2007 02:37 PM

On the other hand, it is generally considered wise in poker to raise no less than the amount already in the pot if one is trying to make one's opponent fold. In other words, one doubles the pot. So he's sort of close on his card game verbiage.

This is the only part of his tremendous crap that I will treat as defensible.

Posted by: jhupp on January 15, 2007 02:49 PM

Kristol is a great propagandist, while Hanson is ponderous, stuffy, and limited. That's why the movement puts Kristol on TV while VDH is relegated to the small magazines and rallying the war-bloggers.

People respect Kristol's views because he is a great propagandist who has proven his ability to influence power. Being "right" has nothing to do with it. Your concern with that sort of thing shows you are a nerdy, geeky type who is not close to power.

Posted by: MQ on January 15, 2007 03:07 PM

Oh, please. Kristol called for "a hell of a lot more troops." Has Kristol called for a DRAFT? If he hasn't, then he hasn't called for more troops. Because, um, enough troops won't exist without a damn draft.

It's like calling for an army of Arabic-fluent robot soldiers armed with lasers that can tell the difference between insurgents, terrorists, and regular citizens. If they don't exist, it's not really credible to blame our loss on their lack.

Didn't some conservative get busted on kiddie porn and fall off the radar? Or is that just Republican congressmen? Also, how ridiculous is it that Hastert et al are still in Congress, given what they knew about Foley? Seriously, what do these guys have to do to be beyond the pale?

Posted by: anonymous on January 15, 2007 04:33 PM

I'm pretty sure that right-wing pundithood is the inverse of virtue: it is its own punishment.

(Actually, there's probably a wide range of hacks that this applies to).

Posted by: Hodge on January 15, 2007 05:57 PM

"Rightwing pundits don't suffer under any circumstances -- you can make things up, get busted on drug charges, whatever, and it all works out fine."

Juan Cole explains why.

http://www.juancole.com/2007/01/maliki-said-to-have-pledged-mahdi.html

Jebediah Reed at Radar Magazine makes the point that pundits who were wrong about the Iraq War have been well rewarded, whereas those like Bob Scheer and others who warned about its dangers have been fired or marginalized even though they were right.

This is because punditry is not about being right or wrong or exhibiting good judgment. It is about producing and reproducing elite American political discourse for the masses. It is more important that they can continue to justify changing elite policy than that they supported past policies that didn't work out very well. All the real reporters I know at all well are deeply unhappy at their workplaces, where they typically have wealthy far rightwing bosses who interfere from time to time in the newspaper or magazine and make the reporter's life hell. That is why it is unfair (as I have been reminded when I fall into it) to criticize reporters for where they work. Good reporters work for the Washington Times or UPI, i.e. for the Rev. Moon. But ultimately it is the Rev. Moon who decides who gets to be pundits for his media outlets. Apparently almost everyone in the news business is in pretty much the same position.

-----------------------------

These pundits reflect the view of the Ruling Class. Which makes their views "safe", regardless of how things turn out. The Ruling Class tilts to the right. You are not going to lose your job reflecting their views. More likely you will get promoted and rewarded in all kinds of ways. The risky position is challenging the perceived wisdom of the Ruling Class.

So Matthew, if you want a hot career with job security, turn right young man. Or, if you are not going to turn right at the very least don't challenge the conventional wisdom too agressively. Settle into a Richard Cohen stupor.

Posted by: DonB on January 15, 2007 06:28 PM

I'm convinced that Taheri has something on his editors.

Posted by: Jackmormon on January 15, 2007 06:30 PM

Is there a site listing the number of troops in Iraq since the war's beginning? I'd really like to see how it has changed over the last couple of years.

Posted by: eriks on January 15, 2007 07:28 PM

I think it can't be emphasized too much that the 20,000 men that Bush is sending (as per Thunderlips above) is just a return to previous levels.

In case you weren't depressed or cynical enough about Bushian intelligence or motives.

Posted by: Jeffrey Davis on January 16, 2007 11:21 AM

Re the metaphor: I don't play a lot of blackjack, but my understanding is that you generally double down when you've been dealt an auspicious first couple of cards. One doesn't double down in desperation. Same goes for doubling the bet in poker, unless you are bluffing (which wouldn't work in the Iraq context; if Bush announced a draft and a callup of 200,000 troops, the insurgents probably wouldn't fold).

When people use "double down" in the context of Bush and his failed foreign policy, what they really mean is "double or nothing": i.e., you lost the first (even) bet, and you are proposing to double the bet, even though 'winning' will only take you back to zero. It wouldn't hurt to insist on the more accurate "double or nothing", though "double down" will probably acquire this meaning anyway outside the context of blackjack.

Posted by: kth on January 16, 2007 01:08 PM

sohbet
chat sohbet
mynet sohbet
kızlarla sohbet
sohbet siteleri
islami sohbet
sesli sohbet
kameralı sohbet
sohbet odaları
sohbet net
kelebek sohbet
alem sohbet
canlı sohbet
bedava sohbet
dini sohbet
ideal sohbet
erotik sohbet
internet sohbet
almanya sohbet
bol sohbet
yazgülü sohbet
seks sohbet
isvec sohbet
sohbet odasi
chat sohbet muhabbet
chat mynet sohbet
almanya sohbet chat
zurna sohbet
sex sohbet
canli sohbet
cet kelebek sohbet
sohbet com
ingilizce sohbet
gay sohbet
cinsel sohbet
mynet odalari sohbet
35 sevgi sohbet
sohbet gen tr
kahkaha sohbet
istanbul sohbet
odasi sohbet turk
chat.tc sohbet
sevgi sohbet
yonca sohbet
makas sohbet
cinsellik sohbet
kraltv sohbet
turkce sohbet
ara sohbet
chat cinsellik sohbet
lesbian sohbet
sohbet cet
chat muhabbet sex sohbet
sohbet et
hotmail.com sohbet
keriz sohbet
izmir sohbet
sohbet sohbet
cam sohbet
islam sohbet
sohbet tr zurna
bayan msn sohbet
sohbet sohbet.com
seviyeli sohbet
sohbet sitesi
yazili sohbet
sohbet ankara
kardelen sohbet
konya sohbet
7 islami kanal sohbet
web cam sohbet
java sohbet