which reality?

Wolcott pointed to this:

We are now at the start of a long process of rationalization over the US defeat in Iraq. The most common of these rationalizations include: if only we had “…not disbanded the Baathist army,” “…sent in more troops,” or “…become better at nation-building.” However, in each case the approach is one dimensional, since we tend to view ourselves as the only actors on the stage. The actions and reactions of the opposition are discounted and explained away as fluff and background noise (those pesky terrorists…).

Anyone remember this?

The New York Times > Magazine > In the Magazine: Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush:

guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Study it or clean up afterward?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *