<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Blogcritics: Comments on History will again prove them wrong</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/</link>
<description>A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously.</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2005 by the authors</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:19:43 EDT</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://backend.userland.com/rss</docs>
<generator>Blogcritics.org custom software</generator>

<item>
<title>Comment by Pilot</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/06/104317.php#comment-67703</link>
<description>This type of &quot;more spending is better&quot; in defense thinking is no better than &quot;more spending is better&quot; in social welfare policy. Indeed, many military leaders thought that some of the systems listed were more DOD bureaucratic boondoggle than anything else -- weapons designed by committees. Take the B-1 for example. Has is even been used in either of the wars with Iraq? No. And for good reason.

Try again.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67703@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 7 Jun 2004 09:19:43 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Shark</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/06/104317.php#comment-67664</link>
<description>Bob Woodward: &quot;How will history judge the war in Iraq?&quot;

President Bush: &quot;It won&#039;t matter; WE&#039;LL ALL BE DEAD.&quot;

(Fer once -- I&#039;m with Bush.)

BTW: Please explain how MX Missiles, B-1 Bombers, anti-satellite systems, SDI, and the Tomahawk Missile are prepared to stop a 19 guys who get on airplanes with box-cutters?

PS: Hope those systems include a setting for &quot;Crop Duster&quot; and &quot;Briefcase&quot;.

Thanks in advance,
Shark
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67664@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 6 Jun 2004 21:06:47 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by David Fiore</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/06/104317.php#comment-67651</link>
<description>I don&#039;t really have much to say here except, Tom--&quot;history&quot; doesn&#039;t do &lt;i&gt;anything&lt;/i&gt; all by its lonesome. History is &lt;i&gt;written&lt;/i&gt; by historians--and historians (even me!) have their biases.

Dave</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67651@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 6 Jun 2004 19:01:22 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Mac Diva</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/06/104317.php#comment-67648</link>
<description>The entry reads like far Right boilerplate to me.  As Michael so accurately points out, the facts belie Tom Bux&#039;s opinion.   If anything, the GOP&#039;s stances are a bellweather of what is overcome against their resistance.   Nor do I buy the claim Reagan destroyed the Soviet Union.  It imploded mainly for internal reasons.  The horrible, frightening Evil Empire was more a thing of myth than reality all along.  Now that the USSR is gone, the Right  needs new &#039;evil&#039; countries, so. . . .

I have been too busy to blog some of the things I clip and save lately.  However, this &lt;a href=&quot;http://naproom.mu.nu/archives/030382.html&quot;&gt;photograph&lt;/a&gt; is so telling I want to share it whether I get around to blogging the entry or not.</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67648@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 6 Jun 2004 18:10:56 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by boomcrashbaby</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/06/104317.php#comment-67636</link>
<description>Right on, Michael Croft.

&lt;i&gt;But people like John Kerry were then on the wrong side of history, as I believe that they are again now on the wrong side of history. They don&#039;t see the big picture of what we are doing. They don&#039;t see now that by planting Democracy in a middle eastern Muslim nation we are creating feedom, a freedom which will make a safer place for us and our children.&lt;/i&gt;

Actually. They are on the right side of history. If you look at the past. So a democratic Muslim Iraq, will make us safer? Hmmm. Al Queda thrives in Germany, Africa, Spain, the U.S., (did you hear they just found what was going to be a training camp in Oregon?), Canada, the Phillipines, etc. Al Queda is everywhere, including in democratic countries where it is alive and well. So Al Queda can&#039;t get funding by Saddam anymore. They get it from everywhere else, including unknowing American consumers. Far more people hate us now than ever before. A warning is out that an attack of major proportions is set for this summer, apparently. Intelligence still isn&#039;t good enough to know where, when, why or how. Why isn&#039;t intelligence good enough yet? Cuz we&#039;re fighting an enemy, infiltrated throughout the world, with tanks. You don&#039;t get much info with a tank.

Ah, yeah. A safer place for us and our children. I swear to God, the bar is so low for this president, how can I have faith anymore in the American people? What&#039;s happened to this country? Where did the ability to think for ourselves go? Half of the country could get decimated in a nuclear holocaust, this president will appear on tv and ramble on about &#039;staying the course&#039;, and people will fall at his feet for doing such a good job.
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67636@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:55:20 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Michael Croft</title>
<link>http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/06/06/104317.php#comment-67629</link>
<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;History will again prove them wrong&lt;/blockquote&gt;--Great subject and interesting piece.  It&#039;s nice for me to see where the other side is coming from, because I&#039;ve always considered the history of conservative thought to be a long-term rearguard action against improving and expanding the fundamental american experience.  Look back 50-60 years and see what the conservatives of that generation were fulminating against.  Integration.  Look back another generation and it&#039;s the same.  Alcohol.  Just keep looking at what conservatives have opposed and you&#039;ll see the pattern.  Birth Control.  Free speech for foreigners.  Immigration from &#039;undesirable&#039; countries.  Abolition.  Voting rights for women, for men who were poor, for blacks.  5 day work weeks.  unions.  8 hour days.  government food inspections.  

Now, it&#039;s just lazy to say &quot;if a new idea makes conservatives get angry, then it&#039;s a good idea.&quot;  I fight that impulse whenever I hear &lt;a href=&quot;http://vernonrobinson.com/radio.shtml&quot;&gt;Vernon Robinson ads&lt;/a&gt;.  It&#039;s better to have some arguments in mind other than &#039;c&#039;mon, did you listen to what that loon said?&#039;.

In general, I think it&#039;s worthwhile to have conservatives around, because they help progressives and liberals by making us build strong arguments for good policy and making us focus on what&#039;s important.  

However, it&#039;s hard to believe that, having been wrong on so many issues in the past, the conservatives would suddenly come into the right just now.  Why should I trust conservative thought when the historical tradition it comes from has such a miserable track record?</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">67629@blogcritics.org</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 6 Jun 2004 15:05:35 EDT</pubDate>
</item>

</channel>
</rss>