From the fact that I comment on Steven Den Beste frequently, (though not as a cheerleader) regular readers would rightly gather that I highly respect him and his output. He has a justified reputation in and out of the blogosphere. The fact that I'm posting on a forum under Bruce Rolston's control when I certainly have the technical skill and resources to do otherwise speaks to my respect for him (born out of his OIF coverage). This leaves me in a bit of a pickle with these two crashing against each other.
I think SDB has defended himself well and given a rational reason for differentiating between Australia and France in the two instances of not dropping bombs. Unless SDB's not relating the true facts of the two situations, they are different and there's no fault in treating different behaviors differently.
On the other hand, there's the larger issue of Bruce's neologism jingopundit. In his first post using the term, I believe that he made things pretty clear that this is an attempt at political hygiene. That is to say, that the jingopundits do harm by getting essential details wrong no matter how right they may be on the larger questions like whether it was a good idea to go after Saddam.
I happen to think very highly of the idea of policing our own side. It is essential for us to survive as a free nation to refuse to get as sloppy as our opponents have been in characterizing issues. As the conventional political poles morph and change in odd and unexpected ways it is even more important that we not only get the big questions right but as many of the details as possible.
I do wish Bruce would take a bit of time out to rigorously define this neologism. Who is a jingopundit and what gets you on or off the list?
Posted by TMLutas at April 16, 2004 01:04 PM