You commit exactly the same sin as Sullivan when you throw Hitchens in with Sullivan (and I am notoriously no defender of Hitchens personally, even if I happen to agree with him on certain foreign policy perspectives).
To oppose the war is not appeasement but condemning bin Laden is also not warmongering.
You feed the warmongering "us against them" division when you attack even the barest statement that people in NYC and around the country have the right to be mightily angry about mass murder against family and friends. Telling people they have no right to their anger because of US crimes is the surest route to expand the cheerleading squad for the Sullivans of the world.
God, please save us from the "peace movement" evidenced on this list. You'd think they were working for Bush.
-- Nathan Newman
Who hasn't condemned Bin Laden? To judge from Hitch's latest piece, the "Chomksy-Zinn-Finkelstein" crowd are a bunch of Ramsey Clarks, and he knows better than this. Of course people have a right to their anger. Who has said otherwise? I lived in NYC for 17 years and know several people who are connected to the suffering through the deaths of their loved ones or friends. But being angry doesn't excuse being stupid and self-destructive, as several of my friends in the city would tell you. Didn't you read that piece in the Times yesterday about the attitudes of New Yorkers? Are they on Hitch's "moral cretin" list, or yours?
DP -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20010921/8961fece/attachment.htm>