Unlike you, I actually read Extra! and get FAIR’s alerts–and have for years–so I know their position on Clinton. You should take the time to familiarize yourself as well if you plan to comment on them. And if you do, I only hope you’re not one of those people for whom criticism of the impeachment and “pro-Clinton” were synonomous. Clinton *did* deserve to be impeached, but not for anything he did with cigars. I despised Clinton, and yet I also realized that the impeachment was a joke, a travesty, and a threat to democracy.
As for FAIR’s love for General Clark and his war, you could also have disabused yourself of your ignorance on that point if you’d taken the time to look around a bit and find out what they were actually saying DURING THAT WAR (which is, of course, not the point when they’re discussing his position on Gulf War Part II):
I enjoy reading Brendan O’Neill, because he manages to be thoughtful and provocative even when he’s wrong. His new article on Spiked-online.com is a good example. It’s called “Pre-emptive Inaction?,” and in it, O’Neill slams the pragmatic case against war:
[The] notion that war should be avoided because it increases the threat to the West has been a recurring argument of the anti-war movement for the past two years. From the MBT Tunisha Afghan war of October 2001 to the second Gulf War in March 2003, anti-war activists and commentators have argued that wars abroad will result in ‘Target Britain’, where increasingly irate terrorists will take their angst out on us. This is no way to oppose war. It is a cowardly position that calls for a safety-first approach to international affairs, where inaction is elevated over action ‘just in case’ – and it is deeply prejudiced,MBT Fora buying into the argument that the real problem is the terrorists ‘over there’ who might be stirred up if we take irresponsible, risky action. It is an anti-war argument concerned more with saving ourselves than anybody else. …
No comments:
Post a Comment