Angry Robot


Senator rails against “administration”: Reckless Administration May Reap Disastrous Consequences. When I saw this on Blogdex (eep! culling links from blogdex, what a shithead!) I assumed it was about some geeked up Microsoft server hole, but how wrong I was. Maybe the mind-control rays are wearing off and the Dems are waking up. (He must be a Dem, right?)

6 comments on "Firebrand"

  1. nat says:

    It’s a great speach, and i agree with just abot everything he said, but I wouldn’t say that it’s a sign of the Dems acquiring a backbone. Robert Byrd has probably been the most eloquent and vocal critic of the Bush administtration for the past two years. Unfortunately, he is almost completely ignored by all but the very liberal media (he’s frequently quoted on Salon and NPR). I think that the mainstream media finds it easy to marginalize him because of his age – which i can’t remember at the moment, but he’s old – just like they did with people like Strom Thurmond or Jessee Helms. Unlike Helms and Thurmond, however, Byrd is making a valid point, and is speaking with the experience of having served in the Senate during Vietnam, and learning from the past – something that the current administration seems to refuse to do. If more Dems would follow his lead, I think the country would be headed in a much better direction, but I doubt that that is going to happen any time soon.

  2. D says:

    Well, as maybe you can tell, Canadians are often much more familiar with US foreign policy than domestic. In other words, I’d never heard of this dude before. But thanks for the clarification, Nat – you quashed my hopes! Blast!

  3. Herbert says:

    What’s your alternative to knocking off old Saddam through an invasion, I wonder?

  4. D says:

    It’s not for anti-war forces to convince everyone why war isn’t necessary, it’s for hawks to convince why it is necessary.

  5. Herbert says:

    I guess then you don’t have an alternative, you’re happy with the status quo. Why not just say this, I wonder?

  6. D says:

    Wait – isn’t the ‘status quo’ an “alternative to knocking off old Saddam through an invasion”? Wouldn’t that preclude me from saying I “don’t have an alternative”, I wonder?

    Look, I don’t mean to sound elusive, but neither do I wish to be baited into another lengthy Iraq post for the benefit of a stranger. You go first. You give me the reason why a pre-emptive invasion is suddenly justified, and I’ll cut you up, or I’ll agree, who knows.

Comments are closed.