a berlin blog
|
a berlin blog |
|
|
Wednesday, January 14, 2004 Liberal Hawks ReconsiderSlate has a terrific piece up today and tomorrow consisting of mini-essays by liberal hawks, or liberals who found themselves in favor of pitching Saddam, no matter how they felt about Bush. Paul Berman, Tom Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, Fareed Zakaria, et al. revisit their arguments, now that those pesky weapons of mass destruction have proven so undiscoverable. Regular readers know that the last few months have witnessed the massive reconsiderations at Radio Free Mike of our own, resident liberal hawk.On one point Tom Friedman is crystal clear: "The real reason for this war -- which was never stated -- was to burst what I would call the 'terrorism bubble,' which had built up during the 1990s. This bubble was a dangerous fantasy, believed by way too many people in the Middle East. This bubble said that it was OK to plow airplanes into the World Trade Center, commit suicide in Israeli pizza parlors, praise people who do these things as 'martyrs,' and donate money to them through religious charities. This bubble had to be burst, and the only way to do it was to go right into the heart of the Arab world and smash something -- to let everyone know that we, too, are ready to fight and die to preserve our open society... "Why Iraq, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan? Because we could -- period. Sorry to be so blunt, but, as I also wrote before the war: Some things are true even if George Bush believes them." Maybe so. But, one problem, Tom: Bush was never that blunt. He lied, shifted, and lied again. So why should we craft his arguments for him? posted by Michael Scott Moore | 5:27 AM | |
|
|
 Too Much of Nothing, a novel  Politics and Prose  about our editor 
The Underground Grammarian  current Berlin blog page  |
