jeff cooper gets it
Jeff Cooper has a wonderful mini-rant on why he's tired of the warbloggers:
Many of them were by people whose political leanings clearly differed from mine. I nevertheless found them interesting, for two principal reasons. First, I think that it's essential to understand what those of different political persuasions are thinking. ...And second, despite our political differences, the issues that preoccupied the warbloggers at the time—the war on Al Qaeda and the waves of Palestinian suicide attacks within Israel—were issues on which their views and mine were largely consonant.
As the fall elections draw near, though, and as we move closer to action against Iraq, I find myself reading the warblogs less and less. It's not simply because they support the president's posture toward Iraq, a subject about which I have serious misgivings. It's that so many of them deny any legitimacy whatsoever to those who hold positions different from their own.
It is entirely possible to love one's country, to recognize that Saddam Hussein is an evil man who has done evil things and will do more in the future if unchecked, to believe that terrorism must be opposed forcibly, and still to harbor grave doubts about the course on which we are now set. This is especially so when the administration's public argument for action against Iraq is so deeply based on demonstrable lies—lies recognized as such even by the Washington Times, for goodness sake. Given the dishonesty with which the case against Iraq is presented, it is, I would think, a demonstration of devotion to one's country to question the wisdom of pursuing unilateral action in the face of our allies' opposition, and indeed to question the motives of those who repeatedly rely on falsehoods to press their case. [emphasis mine]
(via Matthew Yglesias)