5 ms·
> There is no defensible set of priorities and principles by which invading Iraq can be supported as not "stupid" I like how the word "defensible" here makes t
by kobeya 10y ago
> There is no defensible set of priorities and principles by which invading Iraq can be supported as not "stupid"
I like how the word "defensible" here makes this entire claim take on subjective meaning instead of being readily testable. It is quite easy to find a set of priorities, principles, and (I would add) core values that makes GWB's actions make perfect sense in the context of the time and without hindsight bias. But whether such a position is "defensible" is up to your own prejudices.
- jessaustin 10y agoThanks; glad you like it! I've already offered the example of, "It is our priority for the Pentagon to spend more money." If it's "quite easy" to come up with a more defensible priority or principle, why don't you give it a try? If I had to come up with something to support both of the disastrous decisions that bookended his administration, it might be something like, "Listen credulously to the self-interested crooks that Dad told me to hire," but I'm sure you can do better than that!
- kobeya 10y agoI have no interest in engaging in political conversation where not all participants are interested in having their mind changed.
- jessaustin 10y agoI don't believe that; it's a roundabout way of saying that you have no interest in political conversation at all. Yet here you are.