Neo-con tunnelvision

Such is the selective memory and tunnelvision of the neo-con that they can be wrong, even when they're right.

Today's example comes via an LA Times op-ed by Max Boot.

Boot's thesis is that the alarm expressed by the non-kool-aid drinking world over the possibility of a BushCorp™ attack on Iran is redounding to the benefit of the Bush administration. That by focusing attention on Bush's bellicosity the reality-based community will force Iran to compromise it might not otherwise be open to.

My hope is that Boot's thesis proves true. Though paths he takes to his conclusion are irritatingly misguided.

His first imprecation is that our alarm over the potential for irrational BushCorp™ belligerance is somehow unwarranted:

You would think that the United States was Nazi Germany preparing to launch a war of aggression on Poland based on a fabricated provocation.

No, we think that Bush, having started a war of choice under false pretenses in Iraq, might be starting to build the case for another war of false pretenses against Iran.

And I'm not even getting into the latest sham intel about IEDs.

Suffice it to say that the very public alarm over Bush has indeed had a beneficial effect, public awareness usually does. If it has the effect of assisting Bush in negotiating with Iran, so much the better.

The main pont is that appropriate skepticism about this administration's judgment is a good thing for everybody.

Even Max Boot.