The Straw Man

Perhaps the worst thing ... er, scratch that

One of the many awful legacies of the disastrous, failed presidency of GW Bush is his undermining of the potential for moral considerations to play a significant role in US foreign policy. His many apologists (hypocritically) and the bumptiously macho Tom Friedman type rubes who went along with them (moronically) asserted the "Saddam's a bad guy" argument for invading Iraq. Now they assert the asinine "would you rather have Saddam" defense against those who point out the ongoing disaster that the Bushies have made Iraq.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that is utter bs.

First off, Saddam Hussein is, clearly and unequivocally, evil. There is no other word for a man who looks to Stalin for inspiration on how to run a country. And of course, he certainly wanted WMDs (though he did not have them), and was potentially (though not actually) a danger. All conceded.

None of this, however, answers the question of whether the world (and the Iraqis) are better off now.

Fact is, the right and responsible answer is the one Gerorgie's dad came up with years ago: Better to have a contained and impotent Saddam (which we unequivocally had) than a chaotic, anarchic breeding ground for anti-americanism and terrorism (which we unequivocally have). Granted, what we have wasn't the inevitable result of an invasion. It was, however, the inevitable result of an invasion run by our present gang of irresponsible incompetents.

And by f---ing up so massively, they have probably erased the lesson of Bosnia and Rwanda - that sometimes it is right, necessary, and constructive to confront the bad guys militarily.

... and the world will be paying the price for a long time.

Hizzonadamayah

Admittedly, I don't get out much. I can't say that I have my finger on the pulse of Anchorage, or that I can even comprehend the world view of a citizenry that could elect mean-spirited buffoons like Tom Fink or Chris Birch to any public office.

So I'm nervous about this mayoral election. We have in Mark Begich a clearly competent, public-spirited guy - political to be sure, but he's slashed budgets, improved city services, and focused on the infrastructure necessary for the long-term economic growth of the city. And on the other side is Jack Frost - callow ad-man with no public management experience and a bag full of recycled sound-bites that substitute for ideas. Who will this city choose?

I'd like to think the choice is easy and clear ... and then I see all of those Jack Frost yard signs [Gulp!]

There is no question but that Frost would be an absolute disaster as mayor. His lack of any real nuts-and-bolts ideas about how government should do its job (as opposed to ideological opinions about what that job is - which I'm sure he has in spades) combined with the lack of real management experience and good-ol'-boy business experience will lead to pure croneyism. Services that are "essential" to his type (things that involve manly toys, like big trucks and welding equipment) will increase in cost and decrease in efficiency, leading to cuts in services that are not "essential" (things that actually improve quality of life, like park maintenance and social services). To distract people from this, there will be a lot of chest-thumping about divisive social issues that have nothing to do with running a city.