March 26, 2005

Come Again?

Er, Laura--how is this post an apology for my anti-Rumsfeld stances or demand for accountability among higher ups beyond the assorted 'bad apples' on the torture scandal? I wrote: "thanks to the loyal Bushies who continue to hang with B.D. despite the Rummy and torture issues". I'm not retracting or apologizing for my previous criticisms--but, look, I'm well aware that I pissed a lot of people off (many emails have made this abundantly clear). Some in the "Rummy's the Man!" gang simply stopped reading me, which I suppose is their prerogative. Others have stayed and kept reading despite vehemently disagreeing with me. I'm simply saying to those last, hey: thanks for sticking around. Thanks for grappling with a blogger who often angers you but is attempting to be intellectually honest to the best of his (often limited) abilities. So I don't think it's fair of Laura to write that I feel "compelled to apologize for [my] anti-torture, anti-Rumsfeld posts." I don't, and I haven't.

Somewhat relatedly, let me mention that one of the great things about the blogosphere is that bullshit is called quickly, and your feet are held to the fire if you don't have your facts straight. And, unlike some other mediums, you find out about it mighty quick. Especially when you have a readership, for which I am deeply appreciative, that is made up of diverse points of view and independent thinkers who honestly grapple with the issues. And if they think you're full of it--unlike some blogs where comments sections often appear little more than amen choirs--they'll tell you. So, again, I'm grateful to those I've angered for continuing to come around, not least because I value their input and voice. Clear, Madame Rozen?

Posted by Gregory at March 26, 2005 10:55 PM | TrackBack (7)
Comments

You totally apologized and you have no spine.

Posted by: Lubs at March 27, 2005 03:50 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Whenever our nation can jail or impeach a government official based upon factual evidence it is a victory. It reminds them that it is the people who hold the power. It reminds them that we will not stand for corruption or abuse. It reminds them that they work for us and not us for them.

If we turn a blind eye to illegal activities by government officials for any reason then it is the people of America who lose. Regardless of political affiliation or personal feeling towards the individual, we must prosecute any questionable practices to the fullest extent of our abilities. It is our only valid choice.

So, go get 'em Gregory. It's the truly patriotic thing to do.

(no I'm not anti-Bush or French or from a big city)

Posted by: anonymous at March 27, 2005 04:02 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Greg,

I agree that there's a big difference between showing your appreciation to hopeless Rumsfeldophiliac readers like myself for "sticking around" despite your dim views on Rummy, and in any way apologizing for those views.

I actually like the fact that your views, dim and otherwise, are your own. And your spine seems fine from where I'm sitting.

Posted by: dan at March 27, 2005 04:10 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

To paraphrase Camus, I should like to love justice and win the war against islamo-fascism.

Posted by: thibaud at March 27, 2005 05:47 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Greg,
Your spine is intact!

Though I often disagree with your conclusions (though I'm coming from the left, I guess) I certainly appreciate that you state your opinion despite what effect it may have on your readers.

I will remind you that Bush is Rummy's boss. Ultimately Bush is responsible for whatever continued blunders Rummy perpetrates.

Regardless, keep up the principled work you do here.

Posted by: avedis at March 28, 2005 02:41 AM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

I agree that she misread you. And I will continue to criticize you for encouraging torture by refusing to even discuss what is the boundary between torture and what is not. You and others seem to believe that even discussing what the limit is will lead to torture, and is tantamount to condoning it. I believe, by contrast, that without a clear idea of what "going too far" is, that torture is inevitable. A look at prison systems or war the world round confirms it. (Don't blind yourself to thinking that summary executions didn't occur in WWII, for example.) Relying on "its obvious" what torture is runs into trouble because there are always things close to the boundary. Over time, people go up to the boundary and then do more and more things slightly over it, pushing the boundary more and more until they move it and are into outright torture. There must be a discussion of what is and isn't allowed, and there must be boundaries set. But you've accused all who merely make these points or ask whether something in the middle (like playing distasteful music) is torture of condoning it, saying that everyone should simply have an intuition of what is and isn't torture. If I believed your own logic, then you would be as guilty of condoning torture in my mind as you seem to think that Rumsfield is.

Posted by: John Thacker at March 28, 2005 04:46 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink

Well, I can see how she might have read it as an apology, but that's not how I understood it.

Posted by: fling93 at March 28, 2005 08:22 PM | Permalink to this comment Permalink
Reviews of Belgravia Dispatch
"Awake"
--New York Times
"Must-read list"
--Washington Times
"Pompous Ass"
--an anonymous blogospheric commenter
Recent Entries
Search
English Language Media
Foreign Affairs Commentariat
Non-English Language Press
U.S. Blogs
Columnists
Think Tanks
Law & Finance
Security
Books
The City
Western Europe
France
United Kingdom
Germany
Italy
Netherlands
Spain
Central and Eastern Europe
CIS/FSU
Russia
Armenia
East Asia
China
Japan
South Korea
Middle East
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
Syria
B.D. In the Press
Archives
Categories
Syndicate this site:
XML RSS RDF

G2E

Powered by