Anne Applebaum Looks Also Into You
This is the stupidest column anyone has ever written for any venue. I sure am glad Anne Applebaum returned to Washington in time to let us all know that, like Madeleine Albright’s America, she sees farther than others. I know just where “a dose of humility” is missing: Applebaum’s column.
There’s an implication lurking underneath the self-regard – that since all the Iraq options have downsides, what we happened to be doing at the exact moment Anne Applebaum started paying attention again is the sensible course. Needless to say, there’s no argument in favor of, to coin a phrase, staying the course.
Meanwhile, the funny part . . .
No troops? Though deeply appealing to the “we told you so” crowd, this plan is clothed in the greatest degree of hypocrisy. How many of the people who clamor for intervention in Darfur will also be clamoring to rush back into Iraq when full-scale ethnic cleansing starts taking place?
Um, who cares? Look, you don’t even need to be as hard as I am on enthusiasts for intervention in Darfur to notice that despite their enthusiasm we still don’t have troops in Darfur. That suggests to me that Darfur hawks do not hold the whip hand in American politics. I think we could make an Iraq withdrawal stick if they’re the only issue. But what Applebaum is really up to here is the old “Prove your compassion . . . by hurting other people!” dodge. I’ve long since built up an immunity.
Comment by wade —
July 17, 2007 @ 7:51 am
personally, i’m clamoring for the French to intervene in Darfur. They have the bases in Chad, and it’s gotta be their turn by now…
Comment by Thoreau —
July 17, 2007 @ 8:25 am
This is akin to the “But Michael Moore is fat! And Al Gore uses a lot of electricity!” non-argument.
Comment by Hogan (not matthew) —
July 17, 2007 @ 8:53 am
You mean presidential candidates actually have proposals for dealing with Iraq? And actually sound like they believe in their proposals? Gosh, why can’t these presidential candidates talk more like airhead WP columnists? That is truly the road to the White House.
Comment by SP —
July 17, 2007 @ 10:22 am
July 10: “Soon our only goal in Iraq will be: To have, at any given moment, exactly as many troops in Iraq as we then have in Iraq.
Comment by Eric Jaffa —
July 17, 2007 @ 10:31 am
Anne Applebaum compared Saddam to Hitler before the Iraq War.
http://www.slate.com/id/2071670/entry/2071806/
“It is to assume, in other words, that Saddam would never make use of his weapons of mass destruction, simply because he would be too frightened of the possible consequences for his country. This is a big assumption, given that not every dictator in history has always had his country’s best interests at heart. As you might have guessed, Hitler, the man in the forefront of my brain, comes to mind here: Faced with defeat in 1945, he refused to let his countrymen stop fighting. He preferred, instead, to see them die in suicidal last stands, actively willing the devastation of his country. As his capital city was turned into a wasteland—the ground zero of its day—he hailed the arrival of Armageddon and committed suicide, leaving the rest of Germany to its fate.”
====
Why should we listen to Anne Applebaum now? Why should she have a column in the Washington Post?
Comment by Dr. Wu —
July 17, 2007 @ 10:38 am
C’mon, Annie, we just want to see a modicum of consistency from our leadership. Since the neoconservative prime directive is to insist that Darfurians, women, children, New Orleanians, immigrants, minorities, small business owners, the poor and the infirm take care of their own problems, we fail to see why the Iraqis should be the lone exception to the rule.
Comment by Phoenix Woman —
July 17, 2007 @ 11:22 am
Oh, yeah, righties are good at the bogus-comparisons game. For one thing, Darfur is a touch easier to police than is Iraq; for another, helping Darfur is something most of the rest of the world agrees should be done.
Comment by porgy tirebiter —
July 17, 2007 @ 11:23 am
To paraphrase Roy: It’s the stupidest thing ever written, until Applebaum writes something else.
Comment by QuentinCompson —
July 17, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Hitler’s capital city turned to wasteland was NOT the ground zero of its day.
(Please pardon my shouting.)
-
Comment by abc —
July 17, 2007 @ 11:48 am
Actually the worst column ever was the time she declared that paper trails for voting machines were silly, because she doesnt take receipts from her ATM
Comment by tom —
July 17, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Applebaum writes for the Washington Moonie-Post-Times because–with the exception of Froomkin, Priest, & Ricks–the WP has become a collection of deluded hacks. If I had a dollar for every time Hiatt, Kraphammer, Broder, Applebaum were right, my wallet would be empty. Maybe the Wp should trade Brooks for Froomkin, Priest & Ricks, and then the WP will be the Wanker Post.
Comment by headinmyhands —
July 17, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
Isn’t Ms. Applebaum the one who was found swooning on the pages of the WP in the immediate aftermath of Powell’s infamous (and BS) presentation to the Security Council in Februray, 2003?
I couldn’t believe that anyone with two brain cells could look at his presentation and do anything but laugh. But, I’d forgotten the hiring criteria for WP editorialists–no brain cells allowed.
Comment by myheadhurts —
July 17, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
What the Darfur interventionists are proposing right now are a U.N.-mandated international peacekeeping force and overflights. The first element is exactly what opponents to how we messed up Iraq proposed in the first place, i.e., international consensus; the second is the Clinton-Blair Iraq policy that turns out to have actually worked.
So what exactly is hypocritical or even inconsistent?
Comment by Justin —
July 17, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
Apropos the first line of your post, Jim, you may want to check out the featured article on the WSJ op-ed page today.
Comment by John —
July 17, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
Applebaum writes for the Washington Moonie-Post-Times because–with the exception of Froomkin, Priest, & Ricks–the WP has become a collection of deluded hacks.
What’s wrong with Meyerson and Dionne?
Comment by Rembrandt Q. Einstein —
July 17, 2007 @ 3:40 pm
Maybe not entirely relevant, but when Applebaum writes actual *books* instead of columns, she’s good. Is there something about column-writing that dumbs writers down?
Comment by Tom Scudder —
July 17, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
14 – my favorite unintentionally humorous line so far from that piece: It was an electrifying moment that allowed one to imagine Mr. Giuliani as a forceful, articulate president.
Indeed. President as visualization aid.
Comment by Me_again —
July 17, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
Everybody’s a old world Europain these days, but NOT worry Ms. Applebum, Hillary will have a much better time getting NATO and the UN to help with Darfur – you know – and not use Bush’s trash and burn polices before invading without a hint of diplomacy.
And really when it comes to Iraq -they have to have a dog in fight and they don’t, they don’t know what Freedom is so why did Ms. Applebum advocate trashing Colin Powell?
Applebum, like Bush – was WRONG at ever turn, I don’t care what she thinks, nobody should bother listening – she was an advocacy for gross incompetence. She followed pure Bushism – deride Colin Powell and ANYONE with common sense.
I DON’T CARE WHAT SHE THINKS.
Comment by Gary Farber —
July 18, 2007 @ 12:49 am
Dan Froomkin doesn’t write for or work for the Washington Post; he writes for and works for washingtonpost.com, an entirely separate company, with different editors, in different buildings; this is a common confusion. But if one is lumping the two together, than William Arkin would have to be included.
I’d also stick up for a long assortment of lesser-known reporters and writers and critics the paper employs, but, then, they do employ hundreds of those, making such generalizations nothing more than exhorations.
Comment by piotr —
July 18, 2007 @ 1:20 am
This is not stupidity but mendacity IMHO.
Now, when Anne got all huffy because a liberal bloger let herself photographed (a) with Bill Clinton behind her, (b) in a sweater that while not tight was not very loose either (c) one could figure the contour of her bosom, and, the worst of it (d) the said bosom was not flat! It was just sheer silliness, all her own, not a variation of a talking point making rounds, and she kept harping on it for days.
Comment by Jim Henley —
July 18, 2007 @ 4:35 am
piotr. that’s a different Anne.
Comment by lower tiberius —
July 18, 2007 @ 5:29 am
lemme guess, next Judy Miller will resume her fact-hackery at the helm of her elevated toadstool for the New York Times
Appleblum can merely make up anything she wants to say because the Washignton Post has absolutely no scruples or standards for veracity, instead choosing to compete with sensationalist tabloids whom by this time are gaining a substantial lead in actual factual content and who’s commentary and human interest stories and essays seem light years ahead in their legitimacy.
Like the Bush administration, Washington Post chooses to recycle their journalistic felons for repeat peformance pundancy.
Act II Scene I: Enter Iran