World War N+1

James Wolcott (whom I have not been reading recently, my loss!) weighs in on The Newt's fatuous assertion of The War Against Terror being "World War 3":

"There is a public relations value, too. Gingrich said that public opinion can change "the minute you use the language of World War III. The message then, he said, is 'OK, if we're in the third world war, which side do you think should win?'"

So Gingrich wants to roll out World War III as a bugle call to give Republicans a Viagra injection and force Democrats to slink behind the cavalry in mealy-mouthed agreement, for fear of being called appeasers and peaceniks by useful fools like Michael Goodwin.

Well, yeah, only given that they're doing that ALREADY, why bother? I mean, it sure has hell hasn't taken any official designation of George's Excellent Adventure In Iraq to roll out the accusations of "treason" and "sedition" and "giving AID and COMFORT to the ENEMY, you know, wink wink, THAT KINDA THING".

Of course, as Wolcott points out, the "World War 3" label would also enable Newt and company to argue for even greater, more unrestrained military spending and action, using the precedent of the last two World Wars. Newt basically argued for this kind of thing in "his" book 1946, and ever since I read that load of tripe I've been waiting for him to try to apply the idea to the real world.

And to top the crap sundae with a rotten maraschino cherry, Wolcott includes this nugget of idiocy from The Doughy Pantload himself:

The post also provides a helpful glimpse of Goldberg's thought processes at work, which resemble Horton trying to hatch an egg:

"Domino theory and public diplomacy had fairly minor roles in World War II. But such considerations are central to our understanding of today's challenges. . . "

"Domino theory"... hmm... you mean, the stupid incorrect load of crap that got us involved in the LAST pinheaded quagmire is to be floated again this time around?

This is what we get for not teaching history, folks.