thoughts from the hitchens post
Martin Wisse left a thoughtful comment on the first part of my post regarding Christopher Hitchens' column. (By the way: It--and this one, for that matter--spans multiple postings; from where I ususally post, Blogger chokes and dies on posts if they get too long, so I have to break 'em down.) Hitchens wrote:
It is almost certainly a mistake to assume anybody's position on Iraq is determined by evidence alone. After all, last year there was overwhelming evidence of the connection between the World Trade Center aggression, al-Qaeda and the Taliban - and a decisive UN mandate for action - but many on the left opposed military action in Afghanistan, and still do.
Then I said:
Outside of wingnuts, exactly who did? And who still does? (Frankly, given the continued presence of al Qaeda and Taliban elements along the Afghan/Pakistan border, I for one would like to see more military action there...) But this ad homenem attack implies that the case is obvious without evidence, and that anyone opposing action WRT Iraq wouldn't be convinced by evidence anyway. Which, I predict, will absolve Hitchens from presenting any...
And Wisse responded thusly:
I did oppose the war against Afghanistan and still think it was a bad idea. I don't think it enhanced the safety of the US nor did it solve the problems of Afghanistan itself.
I don't support any call to war by the current US administration mainly because I don't trust them.