Sunday, April 17, 2005

More of the Same

Someone who evidently thinks I'm in need of education and enlightenment thrust upon me this link.

I don't know why I follow these things. Politeness, I suppose, but it's more reflexive than heartfelt. I always know what I'm going to find there, and I always find it: Raging bullshit.

I chose the piece called "Liberal Hawks."

Just a sample from the last few graphs:

"But why is a military offensive the holy grail of options? In their rush to see the sheriff run Saddam out of town, many liberal hawks overlooked Bush’s refusal to heed international opinion and exhaust diplomatic channels. Some mimicked the president’s air of conceit. Prominent liberal hawk Christopher Hitchens even gave the impression that he took pleasure in taking shots at his leftist colleagues. It’s as if he’s so enamored by his move stateside that he needs to match the bully posturing of his hosts.

"This starry-eyed love affair with the US may explain why Hitchens and others supported Bush’s rushed military timetable. And this is the crux of their failure. If they had devoted their power of persuasion to removing Saddam through diplomacy, 100,000 Iraqi lives could have been spared. The liberal hawks still claim the war was worth it."


A few observations:

  • No other "options" are described in the piece, except more "diplomacy" and "persuasion," which of course were sooooo effective against Saddam in the past.

  • Poor leftists! Hitch is mean to them and he likes it! Waah, waah, waah. Somebody send the Waaambulance.

  • "... bullying posture of his hosts." All bullies are on the right, of course. Michael Moore doesn't like doing what he's forced to do. He'd much rather take a vow of silence and live on bread crusts and cold water in a monastery.

  • News flash: President's "air of conceit" is only perceived by his sworn enemies. The majority who voted for him in November tend to see confidence and assurance and unflappability. But people who don't recognize that, or understand why voters find it appealing, are not on the fast track to escape from their minoritarianism.

  • 100,000 civilian dead figure quoted as scripture, without the slightest hint that the methodology behind it has been seriously questioned, and even the people who came up with it took pains to point out that it was a very broad calculation based on very limited and flawed data.

Basically, when I see a writer embrace the 100,000 as an etched-in-stone number, and try to wield it as a cudgel, I know I can't trust anything that person writes without double-checking it. Fortunately, in this case there were plentiful red flags before that number arose.