I refer to this passage:
Conservative Christians have been the exploited stooges of the Right long past their sell-by date (just look at the fantastic amount of excuse-making for torture from Christian administration supporters that we've seen).
Would that include Pat Buchanan, Mark's preferred foreign policy guru, who if memory serves from the earlier torture debates at CAEI also supports torture? After all, we know that the only reason that anyone could ever have to disagree with Mark on this issue would be that they're some kind of shill for the administration.
Coming from an individual who (rightly) gets mad whenever he is accused of shilling for the Democrats because his Bush Derangement Syndrome, it seems that double standards are alive and well at Chez Shea.
5 comments:
JOSEPH D'HIPPOLITO SAYS...
Of course, Torquemada, you forget (?) that Mark once described Andrew Sullivan as "right on the war on terror; befuddled about the Church (or something like that)."
Mark Shea supported the war before he opposed it. In that sense, he's Catholic blogdom's John Kerry. And given Sen. Kerry's general intelligence (or lack of same), why shouldn't we expect Mark to support a stalking horse for jihadism like Pitchfork Pat?
Don't think Mark S. wants to goat gotten. Have you noticed how little he has commented on the 'torture debate' on his blog?
Blosser and others have put plenty of bait out there. Something seems to have been deflated since the mid-term elections. But, than, maybe he's exhausted like the rest of us.
But he can sure stir things up - without collecting all the dust he kicks in the air.
But, than, maybe that's blogging for you!
I too have noticed how little Mark has blogged about torture since the elections. One reason perhaps is that he was being emailed a lot of MSM reports on torture. These in turn being sent by people with a political objective in mind.
Now that the election is over and the the political objective gained, there is no need for people like Mark to convert an audience.
What was it that Lenin said about "useful ..."
That implies that Mark was too stupid to realize that a lot of the outcry over torture was politically motivated. While I'm sure he believes in his position, I won't insult his intelligence. IMO, I think at least part of the reason that he went so crazy on this issue was that it was a convenient club to beat the administration with that he was angry with over the war in Iraq and would cite the fact that he has completely conflated the two as support for this view.
I don't doubt his intelligence. Likewise I don't doubt the intelligence of many of those that have been useful tools of the media.
In Mark's case, he admitted one day when he had posted perhaps ten torture/"Bushie" articles in short order, that these were sent to him by others. I agree that it fit his view of Bush and the War, but this is in part what makes anyone a useful idiot.
Post a Comment