Forest for the trees
I count myself as a cautious admirer. I admire because I’m confident that he’s pointing the way towards the future (has been for some time); cautious because while we’ve never met and I’ve never heard him speak, something in his written words sets off alarms.
One of those alarms is ringing right now (3/19 post) . . .
Strange that he is so quick to laugh off the effort and endorse the counter-effort. How is it that the proponent of open and collective attacks on problems can be so quick on shoot down the start of such an effort? Perhaps because it isn’t being done in the preferred method?
The underlying issues here are beyond politics and have implications beyond Iraq. From the beginning I stated that I’d be happy to shed the same kind of light on these issues to any outlet regardless of where they stood on the spectrum. Total number of takers? Exactly 0. So is this a Rovian plot to use right-wing blogs to spread disinfo, or a case where the other camp can’t be bothered to look? This info is going public, not to the Kristol house and then public. There is nothing stopping those of any political bent from doing their own work and drawing their own conclusions.
Picking nits might make entertaining fodder for either “base” but it isn’t particularly constructive. We are all about to be dropped into the middle of a nearly impenetrable forest and instead of figuring out how we’re going to get out; we argue about whether the forest is primarily deciduous or evergreen.
Granted, there is not much of an effort to date given the lack of adult supervision (its collective not chaotic intelligence) but given that this is only days old is it too much to hope for that a responsible entity will stand up and rally all who are interested? Call me a sucker, but I’m not giving up hope.
See you at I2O ’07. ;-)