Berube weighs in

[Dennis Perrin]

> an excellent piece, even though i continue to insist (per my argument with
> dennis) that it is precisely left support for the war in afghanistan that
has
> put left hawks in an indefensible position when it comes to iraq. where
berube
> falls short, imo, is in failing to see the connection that even hitch
seems to
> have discerned, much to his apparent dismay. perhaps hitch and chomsky
both
> will need to admit that they were wrong . . .


> j

I asked Hitch straight up the other day if he supported an intervention in
Iraq, and he said that if "forced," then yes, but only after he's been
assured on a "zillion points." He didn't say what those points were, but
said he laid most of them out in his newest Nation piece (which is not
online and thus I haven't read). He does paint the center/left as
conservative and status quo on the subject, which I suppose means
overthrowing Saddam is proactive and  . . . progressive?

In any event, despite Jeffrey's baiting, I think there is a difference
between supporting a war on al-Qaeda and not supporting a unilateral
invasion of Iraq. The Bush gang and its surrogates are working overtime to
stitch together the two, while the Soft-on-al-Qaeda left cobbles its weaker
version of same. This is a fluid, complex area, and while I'd expect those
with state power to make a simplistic case for domestic consumption, I'm
sorry to see a large segment of the left following suit, though in the
left's case it appears an exercise in self-reassurance -- empty and
irrelevant, but righteous all the same.

DP