On Mon, 16 Sep 2002 16:04:17 -0400 Dennis Perrin <dperrin at comcast.net> wrote:
> > 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?
'nuff said, really, don't you think?
seriously, not a question of baiting. just making a point--that your "soft on al qa'ida left" (which is genuine flamebait, imo) only exists in the minds of soft-on-iraq (to invert your own terminology) left-hawks, and that, contrary to your argument, it is the latter and not the former who dance with empire. looks like hitch is already on the dance card, again, too.
but we've already had this fight and gotten nowhere, and i'd rather watch you go around with estabrook, as i've learned a lot from observing his chomsky defenses and the pretty weak responses they've generally drawn.
peace
j
>
> 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
>
>