Very few things are more useless than old news, but one of them is old opinion about old news. Old news fades; old opinion tends to rot much faster. And when the opinion is from someone like Ted Rall, i.e., rotten to begin with, well you can imagine the smell emanating from old, unrecycled papers.
These thoughts, or smells, are prompted by my having stumbled upon a Ted Rall column Wednesday morning, “The Moron Majority,” dated March 18. (I saw the column in an old issue of C-Ville, one of Charlottesville’s free papers, but my link to the column is to Yahoo News, where I found it online.)
Having just witnessed — live, thanks to the miracle of Fox News and MSNBC — the toppling of Saddam’s statue, there was something surreal about picking up an old paper and finding a column whose subhead is “An American Warlord Races to Waterloo,” and which begins, “Now it’s official: most Americans are idiots.”
It was all down hill from there, with references to the “increasingly tenuous grasp on reality” of the Bush administration. And, of course, the people in general are “the moron majority” because they support these “pinheads.” Rall, perceptive as he is, knew the war was coming — “Sure, we’re about to begin killing innocent men, women, and children over in Iraq” — but he saw “some good news in all this.” Good news?
… the war on Iraq is likely to lead to the political demise of the man whose evil and illegitimate rule currently represents the greatest threat to stability and peace in the world: George W. Bush.
Well, I suppose anything is possible.
Another point, or something, worthy of note:
no one really believes that the GOP is interested in liberating the oppressed people of Iraq. America’s role in the world, after all, typically involves funding dictators–as Bush is currently doing in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan—not democrats.
Don’t even pause to sort out why Rall thinks “stupid Americans” are such morons if he also believes they don’t believe Bush. Since Bush is well on his way to liberating the people of Iraq, saying that no one believes he is interested in doing so is rather like Baghdad Bob, the charming ex-Information Czar who announced that there were no Coalition forces in Baghdad.
On that point, though, driving home last nightI heard a radio interview with Rep. Barney Frank (D, Mass), who is, among other things, articulate and smart. Still arguing that the war was a mistake, Frank’s main objection before, and still his main fear, is “increased instability” in the region.
Hmm. Isn’t preferring Saddam to remain in power out of a tender concern with regional stability just like the reasoning, and the morals, of those Rall targets who always support dictators? Could it be that Rall and Frank oppose only dictators tolerated by Republicans while preferring Republican-toppled ones to stay atop their pedestals? Nah.
Rall is an idiot, but to be fair, he specifically mentioned a CNN poll in which 51% said they believed Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks.
You’re right. He did cite that poll, and that doesn’t put the 51% in a good light. BUT … he also cited other poll data which, in his view, was not so idiotic:
By a two-to-one margin, Americans think their country should adhere to its tradition of attacking other countries in self-defense only, never preemptively. Thirty-seven percent say that they support an invasion of Iraq only with U.N. approval.
Rall obviously approved of the above conclusions. Thus it would appear the “stupid Americans” are “moronic” only when we disagree with him
I think the charitable interpretation is of Rall is that a fair number of Americans (now shrinking) agreed with him on some specifics about war despite a massive disinformation campaign to link Saddam and 9/11. And I find well-taken think Rall’s implication that this campaign took place because Saddam’s hideous despotry did not, alone, explain why we invaded and removed him. (If it were, our armed forces would now be sailing to Burma or Zimbabwe.)
That said, in general, Rall is an idiot.
“America’s role in the world, after all, typically involves funding dictators–as Bush is currently doing in Saudi Arabia….”
We fund a dictator in Saudi Arabia? Really? I thought with all that oil they probably paid their own way.
Laura, US troops in Saudi Arabia protect their #1 asset (the oil fields), and have since the FDR Administration. I don’t think we’re reimbursed for this expense, so we are making an in-kind contribution.
It would be interesting to find out if we’re reimbursed. If we’re not we should be. They can certainly afford it. Especially since they wouldn’t permit us to use their bases during the current conflict (unless I’m confused about that which is certainly possible.)
We are mostly but not entirely reimbursed for obvious expenses.
There are certain also hard to quantify costs, such as the presence of Jewish American women in these troops infuriating Osama bin Laden.
Andrew, thanks for the link. The Q&A is very interesting. I’m going to go back and look at the rest of the site.
Very O.T. The article brings up the question of whether we should pull out of Saudi Arabia, and fast-moving events have overtaken this answer: “But other experts argue that the American presence is still important to deter Saddam and prepare for any future conflict with Iraq, which U.S. military planners say would probably entail major U.S. forces operating from Saudi bases. After September 11, moreover, some Middle East analysts note that a U.S. withdrawal from Saudi Arabia would hand bin Laden a victory.” This was true up until a few days ago (except the part about operating from Saudi bases). Maybe it is time to take another look at moving out. I’m squeamish about having very much to do with a country that has so little regard for human rights (“morale centers” instead of churches and synagogues, for instance) and making our soldiers live there in peacetime.
Thanks for the service you provide regarding Rall-bashing. I count myself among liberals, and think this guy does a complete disservice to us intellectually, morally, and, erm, his drawings kinda suck. You knew he was a cartoonist before being a columnist, yeah?
I have links to your page at my blog: http://blogs.nonbusiness.surpassant.com.
Cheers!
Glen