Semi-Daily Journal Archive

The Blogspot archive of the weblog of J. Bradford DeLong, Professor of Economics and Chair of the PEIS major at U.C. Berkeley, a Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Jacob Weisberg Is the New Andrew Sullivan (This Is So Not a Compliment Department)

Remember Andrew Sullivan back in his salad days, busily prostituting himself to George W. Bush as a member in good standing of the circular firing squad of flying attack monkeys?

Bush will not do a Clinton. This will not be a surgical strike. It will not be a gesture.... [T]he neglect of the military under Bill Clinton... must now not merely be ended but reversed.... Bush has already assembled the ideal team for such a task: Powell for the diplomatic dance, Rumsfeld for the deep reforms he will now have the opportunity to enact, Cheney as his most trusted aide in what has become a war cabinet. The middle part of the country - the great red zone that voted for Bush - is clearly ready for war. The decadent left in its enclaves on the coasts is not dead - and may well mount a fifth column...

Well, today the new Jacob Weisberg turns out to be nothing but the old Andrew Sullivan:

Why Lamont's victory spells Democratic disaster. By Jacob Weisberg: Lieberman's opponents are not entirely wrong about the war. The invasion of Iraq was, in ways that have since become hard to dispute, a terrible mistake. There were no weapons of mass destruction to be dismantled, we had no plan for occupying the country, and our troops remain there only to prevent the civil war we unleashed from turning into a bigger and more horrific civil war. Just about everyone now agrees that the sooner we find a way to withdraw, the better for us and for the Iraqis. The problem for the Democrats is that the anti-Lieberman insurgents go far beyond simply opposing Bush's faulty rationale for the war, his dishonest argumentation for it, and his incompetent execution of it. Many of them appear not to take the wider, global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously. They see Iraq purely as a symptom of a cynical and politicized right-wing response to Sept. 11, as opposed to a tragic misstep in a bigger conflict. Substantively, this view indicates a fundamental misapprehension of the problem of terrorism. Politically, it points the way to perpetual Democratic defeat...

Not only do I not know of many, I do not know of a single anti-Lieberman insurgent of note within the Democratic Party who does not take the global battle against terror and mass-murder by religious fanatics deadly seriously. I know of no anti-Lieberman insurgent of note within the Democratic Party who appears not to take the global battle against terror and mass-murder by religious fanatics deadly seriously.

Jacob Weisberg names no names and gives no examples because he has none. All he has is neo-McCarthyite slime.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home