[lit-ideas] Re: Quds forces
- From: JimKandJulieB@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:45:40 EST
Couldn't we all just have photographic memories?
Julie Krueger
wishing upon a star
========Original Message======== Subj: [lit-ideas] Re: Quds forces
Date: 1/31/2007 5:06:55 P.M. Central Standard Time From: _atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(mailto:atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) To: _lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(mailto:lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) Sent on:
Thanks to RP for correcting me. I "sped read" the article until I came to
the justifications for the war part, and my speed reading is not the best
gauge of clarity, moral or otherwise. I should have gone back and school
zone read the intro part once I realized the disconnect between what Lehmann
was saying and Liberalism, but you all know how lazy I am and how
disinclined to put myself out.
Mike Geary
still tired after all these
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Paul" <rpaul@xxxxxxxx>
To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 3:45 PM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Quds forces
Mike wrote:
> I don't know this Nicholas Lehmann. But I read the article you cited.
> If he's a liberal, I'm a Maoist. Possibly in his defense, the article
> was written in 2003 when even the NYT and the WP were supporting this
> fiasco. I couldn't any justifiable cause for invading Iraq in his
> article. I found a bunch of Neocon bullshit,
Mike and I seem to disagree about the thrust of Lehmann's article. But
neither of us has any wisdom or moral clarity (thank God), so what
would you expect? The article has a lot of Neocon bullsihit in it
because Lehmann was reporting on Neocon bullshit. Brian sees the
article--wrongly--as a liberal's defense o(or justificaation) the
justifications for the invasion being given out beforehand.
Here's a paragraph from a later New Yorker article by him.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/041018fa_fact?041018fa_fact
'The long period of preparation for the war in Iraq now appears to
have been devoted more to justifying a foregone conclusion than to
actually preparing--except in the case of the invasion itself. The
Administration's hawks relentlessly pushed for higher intelligence
estimates of the threat that Saddam Hussein represented and for lower
military estimates of what the invasion and the occupation would
require. Haass, who was frozen out by the hawks, said, "There were a
lot of loaded assumptions about the analysis: The aftermath would be a
lesser included case of the war. The Iraqis would see the coalition as
liberators and they'd be welcomed. Those who didn't buy in were
excluded. People who raised implementation questions were seen as
backdoor critics of the war."
Robert Paul
Reed College
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
