« MEMORIAL DAY | Main | 0s AND 1s »

May 31, 2004



Opponents of this war want to treat the various reasons for it as if they subtract from one another or cancel each other out. One reason is better than two, and three is worse yet. They seem to believe that a table balanced on one leg is preferable to a table resting on many legs. I can't find any sense in that way of thinking. Put that together with an unwillingness or inability to think in terms of short-term and long-term rationales, and you have a recipe for a peculiarly incoherent opposition, one that cannot produce a serious and systematic critique. The problem, of course, is that it's really all about Bush, not about the war itself.



Above is the link to the study itself, it's lengthy but has a summarized section as well. Following line from the WaPo article, reflecting one of the twenty-three rationales, is one that isn't discussed much in print or on the pundit circuit.

"... compensating for international institutions so ineffectual as to render the phrase 'United Nations resolution' an oxymoron."


I wish I could write a thesis that got coverage like this.


i meant: *gets coverage like this*

maybe i should learn proper english first


It had occured to me (hint hint) that somebody could build on that thesis in very interesting ways to proxy the work Winkler did until the classified files become open. Thanks for the cite on the thesis itself.


See that's the difference. I think those first two premises are true not false as you claim. It's a classic example of moving the goal to fit the formula. As a scientist that doesn't cut it and it shows. Bush loses because of it. I didn't make the calls. He did. You bought the ticket you take the ride. Home, in this case for him.

The comments to this entry are closed.