So claims journalist David Carr in a New York Times piece, cunningly entitled Dilemma’s Definition: The Left and Iraq Why should this be a moment to “define”? For the very reason that the specious claim that the left longed for defeat and supported Saddam Hussein.
Ideology. Pure reactionary ideology
Ah, so they didn’t “predict” defeat, but “terrible consequences.” And terrible consequences (no need for quotes this time) have indeed befallen Iraqis killed and/or maimed by our bombs. Moreover while the U.S. military has announced that the principle “battle” has been won (shooting fish in a barrel being of course more difficult) there is no indication that sporadic guerilla fighting against “coalition forces” won’t continue through the coming occupation. And that’s not to mention the various ethnic and religious rivalries within Iraq that the war has only served to exacerbate.
And “Conservative” commentators have nothing to addressin all of this besides “Liberals”? (“Liberals” being of course defined as anyone not working for Fox News or in the pay of the Republican National Committee — save for that pesky Chinese spy.)
Well there was that briefly famous little boy (one of many) whose arms were blown off. But let’s not talk about him. Let’s talk about — HUBBA-HUBBA!
Like the NYT.
Ah yes, let’s forget about those “grudging hearts” who were onlyt too ahppy to have Saddam Hussein on the U.S. payroll — the better to thwart those pesky Soviets. Why we even gave him chemical weapons to help out. And he went and (all together now) USED THEM ON HIS OWN PEOPLE!
Not that we cared when he did. But we decided to care this year, and that’s what matters, right?
Mr. Remnick said in an interview over the weekend, “The issue of Iraq is filled with complexity, perhaps like no other I have seen in the past five years, and I think it is appropriate to reflect that complexity.”
In an interview last week, Mr. Hertzberg spoke of the conflict many liberals have been living with since the war began.
“It has been agonizing and excruciating,” he said. “It’s not like the 2000 elections or the Bush tax cut, where I felt a certainty about what is right.”
“Iraq is a battle, not a war,” Mr. Hertzberg added. “In that war, the larger problems still exist. It will take some time before we find out what effect this battle has on the larger war.”
But Mr. Carr, like all reactionary operatives, is impatient. “You’re either with us or against us,” is their battle cry — followed by Bill O’Reilley warning “You’ve got 15 seconds.”
Note the “leaning.”
No, that was during the war. But that was undoubtedly before your time, dear.
Only for Ron Rosenbaum, Christopher Hitchens and their ilk — ex-liberals.
Hell, forget the “liberals” part. Newly-rediscovered Reactionaries is more like it.
Which is why this piece was written without putting too fine a point on it.
Really Dan? No other recourse than “Shock and Awe”? I’d like to see the full context of that quote.
You mean everyone has fallen in line with Bill O’Reilley? Gee I guess the thousands that protested after the attacks on Iraq began were just a mirage.
Oh I’m sure that’s not true. It’s going to be all about who’s a “patriot” and who’s not from here on in.
That’s the whole purpose of your article, no?
“He said that they ought to be extra nice to me and others who opposed the efforts to liberate the people of Iraq because we were having a really bad day,” said Mr. Alterman, the author of “What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News.” “I explained to him and the crowd that my opposition to the war was not because I didn’t think we could win.”
And that’s as far as Chase wants to go in quoting Eric. Best not let a genuine Liberal have the floor too long, eh?
“Even if people think this is a great military victory, we wanted to be out front on this issue,” said Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation. “There is much to say about whether this is the last unilateralist war by the Bush regime or the first in a series to reshape the world in the Bush image.”
And Chase is loathe from allowing her to say it.
Step away from the pocket mirror and nobody gets hurt, Hitchens. Your fury and depression (like your alcohol comsumption) are legendary. But the “joy of freedom” you speak of (see sbove linked smooch) was drowned out by the joy of looting.
Priceless art treasures are gone. And even more priceless medical supplies as well — leaving those lucky enough to escape the bombs subject to disease. And then there are the depleted food supplies, and the lack of drinking water and electricity.
Yes the “joy of freedom” will deal with all of that.
“Anybody who believes that the liberation of the Iraqi people is more than a happy afterthought is kidding themselves,” he said.
And some commentators said the absence of Mr. Hussein, or his body, might make it easier, not harder, to challenge the military effort that brought him down.
Oh who cares about his body. We got his statue!
Salon gave up critique and analysis some time ago. In fact, it gave up the pretense of being a Liberal publication some time ago. It’s record of relentless attack against anti-war protesters is without peer. And that’s not to mention Walsh’s defense of the murderers in the San Francisco dog-mauling case. Chase needen’t worry about Salon.
But if Chase is a harbinger of things to come at the NYT embroiled as it is in managerial controversy then we should all be worried re the rag’s further employment of Paul Krugman.
In the immortal word of Harold Rome (get out your recordings of “Pins and Needles” and listen to Babs wail):
“Don’t go left,
Let’s be polite,
Move to the right,
Doin’ the Reactionary.”