Childishness is one thing--those of us who grew up on this wonderful Edwardian author were always happy to see the grown-ups and governesses discomfited. But puerility in adults is quite another thing, and considerably less charming. "You
said there were WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam had friends in al Qaeda. . . .Blah, blah, pants on fire." I have had many opportunities to tire of this mantra. It takes ten seconds to intone the said mantra. It would take me, on my most eloquent C-SPAN day, at the very least five minutes to say that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; that Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics)buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein; that Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; or that Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz. And these eye-catching examples would by no means exhaust my repertoire, or empty my quiver. Yes, it must be admitted that Bush and Blair made a hash of a good case, largely because they preferred to scare people rather than enlighten them or reason with them. Still, the only real strategy of deception has come from those who believe, or pretend, that Saddam Hussein was no problem.
Addition (from Tom): I want to thank Stephen for linking this, and I want everyone to know that if there is one article worth reading this entire year, this is it. Hitchens has captured the exasperation supporters of the war have with its opposition, and he has repudiated that opposition brilliantly.
I'm quite sure most opponents of the war--including those in the media--will continue to ignore these arguments. It is on us to spread the word. Americans and our allies are dying for this noble cause, the very least we can do is stand against those who maliciously or unwittingly oppose good. A beginning to that stand is to read this article, print it out, make copies, and distribute it among those who still do not get it.
7 comments:
Watching the Sunday morning shows is depressing. Opponents or naysayers outnumber supporters of the war 3 to 1 and most of the questions posed are stacked against support. Two things: I don't know how much longer we can sustain success around the world with a hostile media and think of all we could accomplish with just a shred of media praise and support.
But here's the thing-- support the war or not, there is a pretty coherent argument to be made that it has been handled incompetently. And even if you buy all of Hitch's arguments -- some are flimsier than others -- there are stronger cases for war against other states if our concern is harboring terrorists. His arguments do not necessarily rise to the challenge of why iraq, why then. And in any case, making the case about the links now is simply depressing, because the administration could not or would not make the case then, when they needed to.
Also, it is, to say the least, simplistic to divide the world between pro and anti war folks. Those are the most visible, perhaps, but many, many critics do not fall handily into one or the other of these categories.
I still call nonsense about "the hostile media." If "the media" (all of it?) is so hostile, ask yourselves this -- how do you have a Hitchens article to which to post? Some of the media is hostile. Some of it is not. To blanketly indict "the media" for somehow taking one monolithic stance is sophistry. It is good rhetoric for the wecho chamber, but it simply does not reflect reality. Blaming the media is an easy answer that gets us nowhere but lets a certain type of conservative pretend that the world is stacked against them. Meanwhile, every single daytat they publish, the Wall Street Journal has a higher circulation than the New York Times and Washington Post COMBINED.
dcat
In reverse order:
First, who said anything about a uniformly hostile media? Hitchens doesn't say the word "media" at all, and I mentioned only "those in the media" who opposed the war.
Second, who divided the world into pro- and anti-war folks, and why does it matter? No one disputes that the opponents of the war fall into many categories--they are still all wrong.
Third, the article was about the motivations for the war, not the details of its prosecution. Many parts of it handling have been flawed, but that does not make the war less right. Hitchens' article does not defend President Bush, in fact he was pretty critical of him for not making the best case for the war (now or then). That is depressing, but right is right, no matter when it is explained with the proper clarity.
In fact, the war was self-evidently right, and most of us know that (which is why it had such broad support in the U.S.). But we can certainly debate whether or not Hitchens' makes the case. Which specific points are flawed or weak?
Here's some more 'sophistry'.
You can't divide people further than support or opposition. This war was going to happen or it wasn't; plain and simple. 'I'm a little bit pregnant' comes to mind. I realize that after the decision was made to go to war divisions occured.
Here's a little exercise on the media. Walk down the street today and ask people the following questions:
Who is Christopher Hitchens?
Who is Dan Rather, Bob Schieffer, Katie Couric, Matt Lauer, Brian Williams...?
Do you get your news from the internet or TV?
Can you name any GI moms who oppose this war? Any who support it?
I'll differentiate between media for you, if you want. Call them the mainstream media and the alternative media. But ours is an image driven society. Watch the nightly news for one week and tell me how good you feel about our war efforts abroad.
Tom -- First off, I was respionding to Paul's comments, which did say the things that I averred to, and yes, it was sophistry. Who said anything about a uniformly hostile media? How about this sentence: "I don't know how much longer we can sustain success around the world with a hostile media and think of all we could accomplish with just a shred of media praise and support."
"With a shred of media support"? Um, so we got Hitchens' article telepathically? No. There is plenty of media support. There is plenty of media opposition. There is a great deal in the middle. It is monumentally wrong to play the old media done us wrong canard, which unfortunately does not stop some people from doing it. Easier than making an argument I guess.
It is utterly foolish to say that one either supports or opposes the war, as if time and chronology do not make a difference, or as if one cannot supporta different war. One cannot be partway pregnant. one can oppose how this war is being carried out and how it has gone since its outset. All people who oppose the way the war has gone and who have changed their mind about their support for it are not universally wrong, despite Tom coming down from on high to pronounce them as such. The war has been so badly mismanaged that my support is merely borne of American self interest and a hope that despite the mess we have made, something good might emerge-- to pull out now would be a disaster. but it does not mean that we have thus far done well by trying to fight a war on the cheap without asking for sacrifices or without being realistic about what it would take to get the job done. I was ambivalent about how we went to war and when we did even while presenting a wholly different justification for A war with Iraq. I was in fact asked to give a speech on that topic and to participate on a roundtable in Minnesota in which I was the only person on the panel to support any sort of war against Iraq, so in all honesty I do not really need Paul telling me about the fine points of supporting or opposing war or the very real middle ground in between for those not so obtuse.
Meanwhile, as for mainstream media and alternative, are you really saying that Fox, the Wall Street Journal, and Rush Limbaugh are not the mainstream? They are, respectively, the most watched network, the most widely read paper (USA Today may have passed it in the last year), and the most listened to radio talk show host in the country. So your differentiation, self-serving though it was intended to be, actually just makes the argument seem all the sillier. Again -- Wall Street Journal circulation > NYT and Washington Post (which, by the way, supported the war).
As for Hitch -- first off, perhaps he could argue against real people, and not straw men. Who is out there with any serious level of support saying that Saddam was "no problem"?
"Blah blah blah pants on fire"? Um, ok. Shoddy, and not so good at the writing thing, but ok.
It takes ten seconds to intone what mantra? You never actually provided "this" (or that, or the other) mantra. In any case, more straw men. I've never heard anyone simply blurt out a "mantra" like that without expanding on it or being called on it. Or put it this way -- both sides have their mantra, the anti-war types with the one Hitch won't bother to flesh out (nice intellectual integrity, that) and certain pro-war types with their constant shrill reminder about 9/11, as if those of us who were actually in the places where 9/11 happened need to be reminded about it from those who were not. Both sides might have their colosally dumb advocates. But to pretend that Hitch is the only one with a sophisticated argument -- it would take five minutes to recount his, he says -- FIVE MINUTES (by the way, I read the argument he posed aloud and it took less than a minute; pants on fire indeed) -- is, to use the word that Paul so likes (and yet seemingly so well embodies) sophistry.
dcat
You should try my media exercise.
Limbaugh is not a reporter or newscaster and is biased, but he admits it. NBC, ABC, and CBS are biased, but refuse to admit it.
Don't believe in bias? Watch a presidential news conference and pay close attention to the questions. Go to Mediaresearchcenter.com.
Some of the alphabet networks and the NYT report the news like it's 1968. Their headlines and broadcast leads stress the failures and darkside of American involvement overseas. How many images of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo have you seen compared to scenes of GIs helping Iraqis secure their freedom?
Call me obtuse, accuse me of sophistry, but you are either for something or against it, bottom line. You can add all the ifs and buts you want. You can play armchair or Monday morning quarterback, too.
I question your war support because you haven't treated two fellow war supporters with much respect. If we truly agree on the war's noble objectives, then we can start adding ifs and buts. Which brings me back to my original point; we can accomplish so much more if the media (Alphabet networks, newspapers...) would give us some good news from the front, instead of making us troll the internet or dig through to page a-17 for it. And, before you insult me for wanting my news quick and easy, yes I do realize that learning about current events and geopolitical matters is work. But most average Americans do not.
more to chew on:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/008zeyyr.asp
Post a Comment