|
|
|
January 12, 2007
Why I hate war blogging
For the umpteenth time, war blogging is an exercise in the unreal. Not the surreal (which I can handle, even enjoy). It's because in war, unless you are "there," there's no there there. Information is inherently suspect. Even if you trust a reporter, how can you ever be sure that whoever gives him his information is trustworthy? Opinions on war are one thing (yes, I am pro-war, and I also vote), but trying to analyze suspect data in support of your opinion is a colossal waste of time. No one is likely to be persuaded, as people's opinions are what they are, and I am in no particular position to offer anything new. I have no security clearance, nor access to any information other than what any other blogger has. As if the shifting sands of the "Jamil Hussein" saga weren't enough (and I still don't know what to conclude), I now see that the top al-Qaida terrorists who were killed a few days ago weren't killed at all: The controversial US air strike in southern Somalia missed all three top al-Qaeda members Washington alleges are hiding out in the country, a senior US official said on Thursday."Official"? On "condition of anonymity"? My, isn't that helpful in my "analysis"? Fortunately, I didn't sound off about this. If I had, what should I have said? "I'm glad we appear to have maybe killed some bad guys, and if it turns out that we haven't, I'll be glad when we do!" Otherwise, I might have had to issue a pompous "retraction" about things I was never in any position to know. (Sorry, if I can't take myself seriously enough, but I just can't. In my defense, I never made it my goal to replace the MSM; only to say what I think.) Isn't war blogging great? I'm reminded of the old lawyer's expression, "If you don't have the facts, argue the law, and if you don't have the law argue the facts." I think I'll just substitute war for both. "If you don't have the war, argue the war, and if you don't have the war, argue the war." Sigh. I wish I found this more emotionally satisfying. posted by Eric on 01.12.07 at 09:09 AM
Comments
I thought it went: Rob · January 12, 2007 09:25 AM I thought it went: I mention this becuase "just aruging" seems to be the Democrats basic mode. After all they have neither the facts or the law on their side. Rob · January 12, 2007 09:27 AM Rob: lee · January 12, 2007 09:44 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
January 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
January 2007
December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• War Talk
• Iran Answers American Moves • NEWS UPDATE? Castro still alive? • Iraq Comes To Gaza • free isn't always free • The year that dare not speak its name? • This may be my last apology • Strict Scrutiny Doctrine • Unwanted emanations of free association? • Always full of it here
Links
Site Credits
|
|
I agree. There is no use trying to report all the details of the days events.
I prefer to analyze the events (that may or may not have occured) and discuss the ramifications of them. I prefer to analyze our strategies, tactics, motivations, leadership, etc. and discuss the reality of it all.
I can't keep up with the news that fast anyway - but I can keep up with ideologies.