« Home | When you need dirty work done... » | Sometimes it's all I can do to hit Ctl-C / Ctl-V » | Ezra Levant complains for getting exactly what he ... » | Is it fair... » | Stephen Harper gets it half right » | The delicious taste of needless strife » | Times are good for those for whom times are good » | Has a decision been made? » | Something stinky in BC? » | Who would vote for an interim Prime Minister? »

Blogging on the dark side...

I try to make it a habit to spend at least half of my surfing time prowling the right side of the blogoshpere, partly because I think just reading posts written by people whom I agree with is kind of dull after a while, and partly because it’s nice to get into a good scrap now and then about something.

Like any other blog family, on the right I come across lots of types - blogs that are either so clueless that I’m left speechless, like say Michelle Malkin, some that are written or commented by pubescents that just love to write "fuck" behind their parents' backs and I can't get anything at all from, and others that leave me furious and frustrated like Little Green Footballs and it’s offshoots. Then there are others that I disagree with strenuously, but just love to read. For instance, Adam Daifallah is a fun read because he’s so naïve it’s almost painful. He really has no sense in the world, and as long as the conservative element in Canada keep paying attention to guys like him, I think we on the left in pretty good shape. I think that in the deepest despairs of my lefty heart, I can always go back to him for a spiritual lift - I'm not that dumb.

A recent discovery for me is Rick Moran’s blog Right Wing Nuthouse. It combines good writing and right-wing politics that make for a decidedly icky feeling with every read - I keep going back. Here’s a sample of what I hate and love:
The gamble we took in Iraq was, at the time of the invasion, a good bet. There the potential gains to our security and our overall strategy in the Middle East far outweighed the minuses of roiling the volatile Arab street and spurring al Qaeda’s recruitment. As the war has gone on, however, the tote board is starting to look more and more even. There is still much to be gained with a successful conclusion to the Iraq operation (although lowering our sights as far as what can be realistically accomplished is now part of the game) and, of course, we’ve already benefited from getting rid of Saddam. But the minuses are starting to pile up and very soon we will be faced with the prospect of Iraq becoming a zero sum game with whatever benefits accruing to our security and strategic position in the Middle East being offset by losses to our overall security posture and an actual diminishing of our influence in the region.

It actually is from an article he's written on Iran, but it really nicely highlights some of the contemporary right-wing thoughts on Iraq. What looked like a safe bet at the beginning is beginning to look more and more, umm, "even", and soon, yes, soon, it's going to start looking like it will actually weaken the overall American influence in the region. Set aside the fact that the "tote board" is a count of civilian dead and transfer tubes, can you detect that trademark optimism that I've been going on and on about? I mean, how much weaker does the US have to get, how much credibility does it have to lose before the right wing realizes that the gig is up? The zero sum game started somewhere around the time Bush showed us his military package on the deck of the Abraham Lincoln, I'm afraid.

For anyone interested in fleshing out their reading on Iraq and Iran, I recommend this website. It really is quite good - just don't take everything in it at face value.

Better you than me! :)

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link