Which side are you on?
Nov 15, 2009 Orient, Politics and Poker, Stragety
Instapundit links to IraqPundit (sigh), who says like this:
Will [Khalid Sheik Mohamed] beat the Americans at their own game? This is what Iraqis are asking about the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. It’s hard to say how many are paying close attention, but some Iraqis are watching the developments. The most common answer I’m hearing is that yes, KSM will win.
Ah, so that’s how you get onto the front page of the biggest right of center blog these days: Anonymously quote anonymous foreigners of no particular (known) credentials to the effect that something will go badly — very badly — for the United States in foreign policy.
Not hoping that it happens that way, mind you. Not at all.
Well, I will say this much. If the Obama Administration really wants to make political points, they will do so by making their tactic pay off big for American interests, because the knee-jerk right has certainly set the stage and indeed leaked the script (i.e., that it is the Bush Administration that is being put on trial here, with a war criminal as proxy for the American left) for a disastrous finale.
Which outcome should Americans hope for, again? Which “side” are we on?
November 15th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
IraqPundit has been around for quite a while, and he’s been personally vouched for to me by journalists I trust. He’s not just some random anonymous source, as you make him appear to be.
My own take — I’ve got a post on this schedule for first thing tomorrow morning, in fact — is that when a Chicago politician does something that looks iffy, you should consider that the fix may be in. Not sure which way that cuts under your analysis.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Glenn, I should have acknowledged that. Iraqpundit is indeed a known entity — kind of. While I understand, especially in his case, why he would want to remain anonymous, I don’t really ever know who he is, or what his agenda his, or if he is the same “he” — if a “he” — he was in the past. That’s an occupational hazard of anonymous blogging which, in the case of Iraqpundit, is a damned stretch better than the alternative.
But this was a flabby post by Iraqpundit. I get why you want to support his efforts and help him get his voice heard by linking, or perhaps amplify your own coming post with his bona fides, but it was flabby all the same.
My point is this: I think the right (including me) has to be honest here about when we’re hoping for a bad thing because we believe, politically, it might be a good thing. We certainly hate and hated it when the shoe was on the other foot, because, well, it’s wrong — very wrong.
At such junctures “identity” (right vs. left) becomes a central part of the inquiry… a hard thing to do when one of the players is anonymous. So I don’t know that affects my analysis!
As for your Chicago point, well, as a former Chicago voter myself… I know when to shut up, ya know.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
If their impoverishment and embarrassment of America are not enough in themselves to give the President and his ruling party a bad name, I doubt any trial will.