January 17, 2003

Potluck for Putzes

Christopher Hitchens tries to din some sense into the heads of some Seattle peacenuggets:

There are at least three well-established reasons to favor what is euphemistically termed "regime change" in Iraq. The first is the flouting by Saddam Hussein of every known law on genocide and human rights, which is why the Senate--at the urging of Bill Clinton--passed the Iraq Liberation Act unanimously before George W. Bush had even been nominated. The second is the persistent effort by Saddam's dictatorship to acquire the weapons of genocide: an effort which can and should be thwarted and which was condemned by the United Nations before George W. Bush was even governor of Texas. The third is the continuous involvement by the Iraqi secret police in the international underworld of terror and destabilization. I could write a separate essay on the evidence for this; at the moment I'll just say that it's extremely rash for anybody to discount the evidence that we already possess. (And I shall add that any "peace movement" that even pretends to care for human rights will be very shaken by what will be uncovered when the Saddam Hussein regime falls. Prisons, mass graves, weapon sites... just you wait.)
Something tells me he's not going to have much success. Once Saddam falls and the aforementioned atrocities are exposed to the world, the response of the "Peace Movement" will be to bat their eyelashes and change the subject. I wait for the day when the administration (or some administration) finally turns its attentions on Saudi Arabia. I expect that the peacedinks will be out in force with their "No Blood For Oil!" and "War Kills Children and Other Living Things" signs for the poor, beleaguered Saudis as well.

(Via Gimpysoft)

Posted by Andrea Harris at January 17, 2003 09:55 AM
Comments

Explain to me again what it is exactly that makes Hitchens a liberal.

Posted by: Steve H. at January 17, 2003 at 10:08 AM

The liberal application of a conservative viewpoint?

Posted by: Chip Haynes at January 17, 2003 at 10:48 AM

Beats me.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at January 17, 2003 at 11:11 AM

Steve,

The fact that he still thinks socialism was a good idea. The rationality of his opinions is apparently in inverse proportion to how closely they address British domestic politics.

Posted by: David Jaroslav at January 17, 2003 at 11:40 AM

Hitchens seems to still be an unapologetic advocate of class warfare. Indeed, class war being his own term for it.

At least he's honest.

Dean

Posted by: Dean Esmay at January 17, 2003 at 11:59 AM

All causes for liberals

Human Rights v Peace
Racial discrimination v Class Warfare
Greed v Environment
Environment v Poor
Save the Whale v Pro Abortion
Political Correctness v Mass Mkt.Individualism
Save the Planet v Cheap stuff
Save the Planet v Stuff

etc, etc.

I am probably missing many, but I have found that most liberal causes have a diametrically (I know not all of the above are opposites) opposed liberal cause. I just can't reconcile how all the liberals could band together with "causes" that are counter-productive.

I knew a spotted owl activist(1991-92) in Tacoma, WA who would rant about how the environment was going down the tubes, but he had a car that leaked oil like a sieve and left a black cloud in its wake. And he could never give up the "stuff" that society had to offer, even though he claimed that the same "stuff" was killing those owls.

Favorite Bumpersticker - Snoquolomie Pass, WA, on I-90; timber tractor trailer - "SPOTTED OWL MOBILE HOME"

Regards,

Posted by: Thoth at January 17, 2003 at 03:03 PM

If you bake those owls in foil, they're really tasty.

Posted by: Steve H. at January 17, 2003 at 04:21 PM

Mmmmm...baked owl. Now I'm having flashbacks to "The Freshman" where they con people into paying huge amounts of money to eat what they think are endangered species (and is actually ham or something).

Posted by: David Jaroslav at January 17, 2003 at 04:42 PM