> Next: the question of the counterattack. Yes, we must send our
> shadow-warriors against theirs, and hope that ours prevail. But this
> secret war alone cannot bring victory. We will also need a public,
> political and diplomatic offensive whose aim must be the early
> resolution of some of the world's thorniest problems: above all the
> battle between Israel and the Palestinian people for space, dignity,
> recognition and survival. Better judgment will be required on all
> sides in future. No more Sudanese aspirin factories to be bombed,
> please. And now that wise American heads appear to have understood
> that it would be wrong to bomb the impoverished, oppressed Afghan
> people in retaliation for their tyrannous masters' misdeeds, they
> might apply that wisdom, retrospectively, to what was done to the
> impoverished, oppressed people of Iraq. It's time to stop making
> enemies and start making friends.
Then, as if feeling the Johnny Walker Black-ened breath of Hitch on his neck, he adds:
> To say this is in no way to join in the savaging of America by
> sections of the left that has been among the most unpleasant
> consequences of the terrorists' attacks on the United States. "The
> problem with Americans is . . . " -- "What America needs to understand
> . . . " There has been a lot of sanctimonious moral relativism around
> lately, usually prefaced by such phrases as these. A country which has
> just suffered the most devastating terrorist attack in history, a
> country in a state of deep mourning and horrible grief, is being told,
> heartlessly, that it is to blame for its own citizens' deaths. ("Did
> we deserve this, sir?" a bewildered worker at "ground zero" asked a
> visiting British journalist recently. I find the grave courtesy of
> that "sir" quite astonishing.)
So Rushdie links, but then he doesn't. And I notice that while sitting on this fence post he doesn't bother to provide specific names and quotes to support his contention. Which "sections of the left" is he talking about? Indeed, there are sections of the right -- specifically the paleo and libertarian right -- that have been far more direct in this regard, certainly more direct than anything you'll find at ZNet. But like Hitch, whose guilt for not supporting the Gulf War seems to be driving him mad, Rushdie is bashing those who are safe to bash, safe because no real evidence is needed.
DP