Friday, March 03, 2006

Backing the Wrong Horse?

Any kind of 'back down' by Col. Myers is (or should be) blogworthy news, particularly when it involves matters military. While yesterday's Irishman's Diary (2 March, 2006) didn’t exactly see the good Col. popping out to hug the armies of peaceniks and feminists that camp (at least in Myers's imagination) on his front lawn, the tone of the piece was equivalent to a tame, Myersian version of "War, huh, what is it good for?":
But I concede. Since the invasion led to the present appalling state of affairs, my principled support for the invasion was in practice wrong. I backed a horse which had been trained for seven furlongs, when ahead of it lay a grand national.
Of course there was plenty to offend/exasperate certain Irish Times readers in the rest of the "Diary", but perhaps we’re finally seeing a cuddlier, more chastened Myers emerging from the wreckage of "Bastardgate". He even had time to 'humorously' send up his own predilection (noted by EWI) for rampant inconsistency:
Some letter-writers - apparently expecting intellectual consistency of some kind, always the sign of a boring mind - have been contrasting my opinions over the Easter Rising and the Iraq war. Why not?
I've never, I should add, bought Myers as a humorist (despite the hallowed newspaper ground in which he resides) for his brand of 'humour' always reeks of smug 'preachiness' and self-satisfaction...but perhaps the above hints at a jollier, more self-deprecating Myers (trapped within)?

Hmm…maybe not…

5 Comments:

Anonymous copernicus said...

Isn't consistency the tyranny of feeble minds? That must be why I'm so fucking dumb.

10:21 p.m.  
Blogger fústar said...

Well I'm all for mutability and change in terms of 'identity', one needs to keep moving forward (or at least, sideways) to avoid stagnating, but Myers would be the first to point out how inconsistency on the part of 'tree-huggers' (like me) is a sign of 'fuzzy thinking' (something endemic, he would have you believe, on the 'left').

He's even inconsistent about inconsistency...

What a guy.

10:31 p.m.  
Blogger EWI said...

As the Phoenix noted a few years back, Myers changed his mind on Iraq a few times even before the actual (and we all knew it was coming) invasion itself.

8:35 p.m.  
Blogger Laughman said...

Principled support for the invasion? I think not.

In August 2002, Myers wrote a piece outlining the reasons why the US should NOT invade Iraq.

A few quotes from the article:

"For those who support a US war against Iraq, the issue is very simple, the argument immune to destruction, argues Kevin Myers. Not being such a person, I don't understand it at all. For all else aside, in the event of a dead heat between the arguments for and against, logic and morality must dictate: no war."

"It's as if, with its war fevers still engaged, and with Al-Qaeda routed but not extinct, and unlikely ever to be, the US is still looking for a legitimate target to exercise its full and righteous anger against. US rage could properly be directed at Saudi Arabia, the fons et origo of Islamic fascism, but that isn't possible in the shorter term; so in the meantime, Iraq must fit the bill."

"Yet the US hasn't shown us any convincing evidence that those "weapons of mass destruction" are much more than demonic fantasies. Instead, one senses that Iraq is simply in the general line of US fire; and that's not a good enough reason for war."

"Admittedly, the pious bleats from Europe's mongrel lambs against war almost convince me that whatever they say, the opposite must be better: for these noises are emanating from the lazy, fat continent which chooses not to defend itself, even as it sermonises sanctimoniously to its defenders. But even being in such disagreeable company can't persuade me that war is the right option."

A few months later, in the immediate aftermath of the "successful" invasion, Myers was jeering at the "appeasers" who had opposed the war.

He conveniently omitted to mention that he was one of them.

12:46 p.m.  
Blogger Fence said...

I'll admit I don't read Myers as much as I used to. More often than not he is more annoying than amusing.

quoted, btw

1:54 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home