And Your Point Is?
I have seen in the comment arguments of several blogs a train of logic that is starting to bug me. Stick with this carefully, the train of the discussion goes something like this.
Blogger: Invading Iraq was certainly a good thing; we freed oppressed people.
Rude Commenter: George Bush is an idiot forever, he never does anything right!
Supportive Commenter: Well, he has liberated fifty-odd million people in the last couple of years, and that was good, correct?
Rude Commenter: But W doesn't understand complexity! Why didn't he invade Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Burma, Liberia, Malaysia, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands Antilles? If invasion is good once it should always be good everywhere or it is a bad policy and Bush is an idiot!
Supportive Commenter: All those places are different situations and the President is dealing with them differently. There are a lot of complex issues and the administration is using a variety of methods to deal with them.
Rude Commenter: There, you said complex, so I'm right and Bush is an idiot!
Have other people seen this? The accusation becomes: Bush is an idiot and a liar because he is not giving all people freedom immediately and is attempting to avert thermonuclear exchanges on our allies' territory. According to this logic, Lincoln lacked moral fiber because the Japanese were planning to subjugate Korea during his Presidency and he did nothing to stop it while fighting the Civil War. Is it just me or is this insane?
There seems to be an impression that attitude and repetition replaces convincing logic in a discussion. Their only real complaint about current trends in foreign policy is the leadership accomplishing it, but for some, that's all that seems to matter. I would be bothered less if I didn't suspect that a lot of people are going to make a Kool Aid dissent after the election in 2004 keeps Bush in power.
P.S. I'll be getting back to arguing with Sean soon, life got in the way.
