Monday, April 12, 2004

No one states the obvious with quite the panache of Mickey Kaus:

I'm not an Iraq expert (though I have played one on TV!), but I don't completely understand the U.S. reluctance to hold quick elections, unless the Bush administration still entertains the fantasy of turning over power to Ahmad Chalabi. (Was the purpose of Bremer's June 30 transition to an unelected government designed precisely to avoid elections for another half year and give people we picked--i.e. non-legitimated people--a leg up?)

That Kaus, he's such a naive little scamp.

As though frightened by his sudden outbreak of logic, though, he quickly retreats to righthink:

It means that the Iraq War--even if we basically succeed in nation-building--could result in the creation of a new series of towns that --like the towns on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border--are a terrorist Petri dish. If that's the outcome, then in one respect at least we will have succeeded in replacing one terror threat (Saddam) with another, no?

(Emphasis mine, not his.)

Umm, yeah, in the same way that loading a rifle replaces one threat (a metal stick) with another (a loaded gun). There's threats, and then there's threats... I'd launch into a Lloyd Bentsen-ish "Saddam, you're no bin Laden" thing here but I suspect it works better in my head than on screen.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?