<$BlogRSDURL$>


Tuesday, January 13, 2004

Liberal "Hawks" 

Slate is running a much-ballyhooed discussion amonst "liberal hawks" such as Christopher "Pass the whisky" Hitchens, Paul Berman, Tom Friedman, et.al. Anyway, 2 points.
1) I don't like the use of the words "hawk" or "dove" to describe someone based totally on their view of the most recent war against Saddam in Iraq.
2) Slate's own Fred Kaplan finally asks following in response to the other panelists claims that the WMD issue doesn't matter: "At the risk of sounding like a goo-goo, I invite someone to take up the question of going to war in a democracy. How frankly should an elected leader feel obligated to outline the true reasons for war? If the reasons fail to persuade, should he go to war anyway if he feels the cause is right?"

Indeed, all of Kaplan's points are pretty damn good.

ADDENDUM: Also, Kaplan mentions the "thoroughly discredited" speech Powell gave at the UN on Feb. 5. Remember that one? With the satellite pictures of the "mobile labs" and whatnot? How has Powell not had to resign over this? Why isn't this speech used more often by administration critics to prove that the administration basically lied? Weird, says I.
|
Comments: Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?