The news is that the port-deal publicity is dying down, Iraq's not in a civil war, and we need something to fill the headlines with anti-Bush stuff.
And is there anyone else who has the urge to punch Harry Reid's semi-comatose countenance as he drones on and on about a congressional investigation? Honestly, knocking the man unconscious would be a completely superfluous act. Desiring something besides hysteria and opportunism from a Democratic leader is obviously wishful thinking/fantasy on my part.
I need a break from this insanity. I will be watching the first season of House
In the meantime, neo-neocon has an extremely well-written post that analyzes the fears of the left versus those of the neocons. Here is an excerpt:
There's an interesting cyclical process going on here: the publication of the Pentagon Papers was one of Nixon's motivations for Watergate, which in fact did represent an abuse of power by the executive branch, which led to further checks (such as the firewall) on that power, which in turn hampered the government's capability to conduct surveillance of terrorists, which then was part of the reason 9/11 wasn't prevented, which later led to Bush's decision to implement the so-called "domestic spying program" in question, which has taken us to the present-day lawsuit by the Times to compel the release of the NSA documents.
So, how does this all tie into the accusation that neocons and Bush-supporters are motivated by fear? The accusers cannot afford to concede that there are bona fide national security concerns involved, or their argument would begin to collapse. That collapse might even end up reaching back in time to events such as the Pentagon Papers lawsuit--which could end up at least partially exonerating the evil arch-enemy Nixon (for his attempt to stop their publication, not for Watergate). Thus we have the need for Clymer's airy dismissal of Rudenstine's research about the Pentagon Papers lawsuit. The collapse might also reach back to the famous firewall, and implicate those who erected it in at least partial responsibility for the failure to prevent 9/11...
If you really want to hear fear talking, you can hear it in the voice of appeasement. This appeasement can be seen most clearly in Western Europe today, although it is not confined to it. It bows down--in the name of "tolerance"--to forces that would weaken freedom of speech and a host of other Enlightenment values so dearly won and highly cherished...
Of course, it's not only fear operating--some of the motivation for appeasement is hope (naive and often misplaced, I'm afraid): the conviction that talk, trust, and kindness will prevail, that all people are reasonable and good and don't really have in mind what they say they have.
And then there's another hope, the one Churchill labeled as "feeding the alligator in hopes it will eat you last." At least that hope is a bit more realistic: it recognizes that sometimes you're dealing with an alligator.
Perhaps the whole disagreement between right and left boils down to this one: who are the alligators, and how hungry are they?
Check it all out.
Meanwhile, as I mentioned, I need a short break from the insanity (did I mention that?). The philosopher Jagger once noted, you can't always get what you want. But as it turns out, if you try sometimes, you get what you need.
See you tomorrow.