# Contact info submission url: exile-blog.blogspot.com site_owner: address1: address2: city: state: country: postal_code: phone_number: display_email: site_name: site_description: The Exile

E-Mail Me

My Twitter

Top Blogs


Campaign 4 Public Ownership



Mothers For Justice

Ian Josephs

UKSecretCourt's Videos


Chris Paul

David Lindsay

Heresy Corner


Martin Meenagh

Neil Clark

Organised Rage

Renegade Eye

Serb Blog

Splintered Sunrise

Star of Vergina

Unrepentant Communist


British Politics

Censorship 01






New Britain 01

New Britain 02


Social Work Industry


Working Class

Atom Feed

XML Feed

12 December 2005
Just an idea: are the warmongers going to blame us for their defeat?
One of the nice things about blogging is that you can put forward an idea that doesn't really amount to a full blown argument, just to see how it looks. An idea has been bubbling around in my head for a day or so and I'm going to try it out here. The idea that I have is that the warmongers have stopped trying to argue that the war against Iraq can be won and instead have switched to looking for scapegoats to explain why it was lost.

Let's take Harry's Place, one of the main sites of hand shandyism for war. Two postings in particular have caught my attention. The first was about Cindy Sheehan, the American mother who s clearly still grieving for her dead son. The posting itself is a fairly typical 'monger offering, taking as it does the standard 'monger line that Mrs. Sheehan should basically shut the fuck up and cheer on the Chimp. The second posting is rather more confused. It tries to link Howard Dean, Tony Benn and George Galloway, but it just doesn't manage it very well.

What I think these two posting are about is laying the groundwork for post-bellum recriminations in the USA. These are the guilty men, the people who prevented America's glorious army from fully subjugating the sand-niggers. If you read the comments, especially to the first posting, that conclusion becomes more plausible. The way the 'mongers howl at anyone who objects to their neat little fantasies is quite amazing. I am pleased to report that I was one of those who got to enjoy a good 'monger howling, but others had it as well. Yes, well it was good fun, but that is not the point, is it?

With these thought in mind, I went off to see if anyone else had any similar ideas kicking around in their heads. It took me all of five minutes to discover one Richard Reeves who argued that the Chimp was the worse president in American history. The response from 'mongers was highly entertaining and basically consisted of repeating the line that if the war against Iraq was lost, then it was lost by people such as Mr. Reeves.

To a certain extent this is very much an American debate, and if looking for scapegoats keeps them happy then who am I to object? On the other hand, I quite like the idea that some 'monger will point to my work and tell himself that your truly is partly responsible for America's lost adventure. Dear reader, you have no idea how entertaining that thought is.

rote this below in the comments:

Anonymous said...
The brit blogs are too
domimated By the "pro war Left" including this one
how trying this blog out

The "pro war Left" only supports the Iraq war because of the oil and is concerned of Britains overall strategic position as regards other powers such as Russia and China.

Comandante Gringo, Exile,
Don't cheer too loudy thats very, very bad news. There surrendering to a paper exerise in the "green Zone". All that government is, in fact a few seats in an assembly hall and nothing more.
The American "ambassador" has all the control over iraqs oil and money through the
middle America hated UN sanctioned "Iraqi development fund".The money from Iraqi oils goes straight into a New york bank account, so much for Iraqi sovereignty.

Some good news from britian

Sir, How can a “dyed-in-the-wool” Conservative feel at home with the Liberal Democrats (letter, Dec 9)? I can answer that.
As an active Tory under Macmillan and Heath I reject a party led by a man who was the protégé of Norman Lamont and Michael Howard, is secretive about his involvement with drugs, favours vouchers — renamed passports — for secondary schools, voted for the invasion of Iraq and is a dogmatic Eurosceptic.
For me, the Lib Dems have that all-important factor that the Conservative Party finally lost in 1997: a liberal conscience.


12 December 2005 at 11:24  

Bring `em ON.
If they want a fight, they'll get it. I'm getting really sick of their Low-Intensity Fascism plans for North America, myself.

16 December 2005 at 05:17  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home