Subject: RE: Herman responds
>Hi,
>Let's reread some of Herman's rhetoric before dismissing my criticism so glibly.
Herman:
> >Anybody on the left recognizes that the real and
> >frightening "expansionism," now in an accelerating and violent
> >phase, is centered in Washington, and Bush's war is an ugly facet
> >of it.
Chip
>So Islamic fascist expansionism is not "real" and not "frightening," although they just killed 3000 + people in a terrorist attck on the US. Anyone who worries about fascist terrorisn is apparently not on the left.
OK the above is an example of what you are doing that is so offensive. Nothing in paragraph you quote says that the Taliban was not real or frightening. It does not say it is not expansionistic either. It must be very satisfying to answer arguments you make up for your opponents -- so much easier than replying to what they actually say.
I'm not going to go case by case her -- just answer one final quote:
<...big snip...>
>is their ideology/theology. The idea of clerical fasicsm is not just some fantasy spread by non-leftists dupes of US imperialism. This is what I thought was implied in the Herman letter, with its dismissive tone.
You were really stretching to find that implication.
>Herman has now responded with some (nasty) clarifications of his postion,
Gee - and you were so polite in your origal leeter -- saying how you had "lost all respect" for Herman
>and that was useful, but there was a substantial basis for my original criticism. I have tremendous respect for much of what Herman has written over the years, but I have a serious disagreement with him and others overthis question. I read his letter to not just be about Hitchens, with whom we both disagree about the war, but a swipe at anyone who raised the issue of fascism. There is a difference between saying someone is a supporter of something, and arguing that someone is objectively serving as an apologist for something. I never suggested Herman was a supporter of these groups. His trivialization of the question of fascism serves an as apologia for these groups. He now claims that was not his intent. Fine, but I was responding to he content and tone of his original letter
No - you were responding to what you read into his orignal letter - and what you read had almost mothing to do with the orginal letter. This why I came down hard on you on this. I think you are reading Herman in bad faith (possibly) not deliberately, but nonetheless finding the worst possible interpretation of what he wrote.
I think I'm going to let you get the last word on this (that is I will not respond to your response.) I realize I made a mistake in getting involveed in this . By nature this discussion will be both nasty and boring . Arguments on the line of So and So said X and must mean Y. No So and So said X and does not neccesarily mean Y --- will end up extremely repetitive, with added benefit of producing a frustraton level that will eventually lead to personal attacks. So you get a last free shot which I will ignore. I will gladly engage you on other topics in the future where we both have productive arguments, or (goddess forbid) agreements.