Blogfather on the war
Glenn Reynolds opines:
WAR CRITICS want to mark the anniversary of the war -- there will be an "antiwar protest" at my local mall tomorrow and there are all sorts of events planned worldwide -- but a proper way of marking the date would be with a mass apology to the Iraqi people, and to George W. Bush, for taking the wrong side at a crucial moment in history.
Sackcloth, ashes, and signs reading: WE WERE WRONG, SORRY WE TRIED TO BLOCK ARAB DEMOCRACY, and WRONG ABOUT AFGHANISTAN, WRONG ABOUT IRAQ -- DON'T LISTEN TO US NEXT TIME would be appropriate.
I'm not expecting that. But at least some people are marking the occasion in suitable fashion. It may be premature to gloat, but it's not premature to point out the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the "peace" movement, which has been apparent since the very beginning.
posted by Barney at 8:39 PM
2 Comments:
I have read your link to Instapundit, as well as the Krauthammer column. I have come to the conclusion that Mr. Bush is a moron, and a world-class moron at that. But to say this is not to disparage him in any way; quite the opposite, in fact. As I have noted before, he shares some common characteristics with Truman and Reagan, both of whom were likewise written off as hopeless morons and dunces by the mainstream pundits and opinion-makers of their day.
And so, with that in mind, I make this important announcement: With the help of some statisticians, numbers-crunchers, and fellow Tories whom I shall hereafter designate for this important task, I propose to develop a useful and reliable reference tool, to be known as the Moron Quotient, or MQ for short. This is to be in place no later than 2006, when the next election campaign will be starting to heat up, and will be used in evaluating a Presidential candidate's overall suitability for the office. The threshold consideration, of course, will be a candidate's reputation for honesty and integrity, but the MQ score will also be based on such factors as his or her adherence to faith-based moral principles, the extent to which the candidate aggravates the MSM types with Politically Incorrect tendencies (such as a fondness for quoting the Bible in the public arena, or, heaven forbid, actually taking the Book seriously), and the frequency of disparaging references to the candidate on CNN, or in op-ed pieces written by the likes of, say, Molly Ivins or Maureen Dowd. (Come to think of it, perhaps one of the factors used in computing the MQ could even be based on Ms. Dowd's blood pressure readings before, during, and after a candidate's speech). I still need to flesh out this plan, so I don't know what other factors should go into computing the MQ, but I think you get the general idea. The maximum possible score would be 100. Once I have the MQ measuring system solidly established, in all future Presidential elections, a candidate's MQ score will be a crucial, if not decisive, factor in my decision to vote for or against him or her. The higher the MQ score, in other words, the more likely it is that I will vote for the candidate in question.
Meanwhile, although I have not yet figured out everything that will go into computing the MQ score, I would guess that Mr. Bush's has to be somewhere in the high 90s. In contrast, William Jefferson Clinton, who of course possessed enormous gifts of leadership and intellect and thus was not a moron at all, would probably have scored around 25 or 30; and his wife, The Smartest Woman in America, about 15. Wouldn't you agree?
Agree.
Post a Comment
<< Home