Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Economist article.
|
Lovely article. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
The Economist was one of the earliest supporters of invading Iraq. Even after it became obvious that there were no WMDs (and the Economist was calling Bush and Blair "Eager Deceivers"), the editors maintained that the invasion was the right thing to do.
Are they having second thoughts yet? Or still maintaining the illusion that you can evaluate a policy in the abstract, without considering how it is likely to be, and actually, implemented?
