'The dismissive attitude toward the whole WMD issue'
: Hey, Hub Blog hasn't lost all of my readers. Brighton Reader writes in regarding my WMD semi-rants:
"The dismissive attitude toward the whole WMD issue by the administration and many of the war's supporters on the right is damaging their credibility.
"I supported the war even though I felt the diplomatic strategy the administration used was awful, waiting far too long to enlist the support of allies and other nations. It really seemed disdainful of the US post-World War 2 policy of creating and leading coalitions whenever possible. One of the reasons I supported the war were the arguments made by Blair, which I frankly found more persuasive than most of what came out of the White House and Pentagon. If this Tony Blair Democrat feels mislead, I wonder how the prime minister feels? What foreign leader or Democrat will support George Bush the next time he looks for help on an issue involving terrorism or WMD?
"The occupation is going to be tougher -- bloodier -- than the administration had anticipated. More foreign support and involvement would be welcome, but the eroding credibility of the primary justification for the war makes it tougher for other governments to commit.
"This Tom Friedman
column make some excellent points.
: "Too bad the Greenbush and Fall River/New Bedford lines are in such trouble. If budget considerations are going to delay both lines, better for Romney to announce it with a definite, revised schedule. Right now it seems that they both may end up being eliminated. The Greenbush line in particular may die a death of a thousand cuts given the ferocity of opposition from some quarters."
Hub Blog's response
: Don't remind me of the abomindable pre-war diplomacy of the administration, when it was drunk with its own righteous (and vastly misplaced) sense of Churhcillianism. ... 'Tony Blair Democrats.' I like it! ...
The Romney administration's commuter rail policy is extremely depressing and dumbfounding. Again: Blame Foy. He has a utopian -- or an apparent utopian -- idea that he can herd the masses into future Hobit Villages where the peasants will dance around May Poles and live happily ever after. He doesn't want new rail lines because they will cause 'sprawl' in nondeveloped areas. But some of us view new rails as a way to direct future, inevitable growth into as little
undeveloped areas as possible. He's living in lala land if my guess is right about his mindset. Growth in undeveloped areas will happen. The question are: How much? How do you limit the damage? He's dealing with idealist scenarios (no growth). I like to think I'm dealing with realistic scenarios (some controlled growth).