Hitchens calls Kossacks chickendoves

posted at 9:42 am on June 28, 2006 by Allahpundit

I like that he frames it in the context of apologizing to them.

Seriously, though, he’s out of bounds. If the nutroots packed up and left for Iraq, who’d be left to plot the astral conjunction between Kos’s “plutonic gonads” and Mark Warner’s Uranus?

2) What happened to the human shields? I didn’t think it was wise or principled of certain activists to go to Baghdad in 2003 and swear to put themselves between Iraqi civilians and undue harm. (To most Iraqis and Kurds, they looked like sheepish guards who were standing between Saddam Hussein and what was rightly coming to him, and there were protests at their presence. And they did seem to leave when things became nasty.) But the idea of witnessing for peace in this manner has its attractions. That new hero, Rep. John Murtha, repeated a familiar slur the other day, attacking Karl Rove for supporting the war from an air-conditioned office—as if a person with a White House job has no right to an opinion on the war. But would not now be the ideal time for those who hate war to go to Iraq and stand outside the mosques, hospitals, schools, and women’s centers that are daily subjected to murderous assaults? This would write an imperishable page in the history of American dissent.

They are human shields, though. Every new criticism of Kos draws the half-wit, bad-faith rejoinder that it’s not him his critics object to, it’s “people-powered politics.” He’s gone so far as to deploy it in defense of the “screw them” comment, which you can see for yourself towards the end of his interview with Kurtz on CNN a few weeks ago. Remember that the next time you hear him insist his movement’s leaderless while in the same breath presuming to excommunicate someone from the left for knocking him.

As for Hitchens, isn’t he the anti-Sullivan? Not in the sense that his writing gives the impression of having been composed between sobs, but in the sense that each follows Orwell by criticizing his own side’s willingness to apologize for totalitarianism. To Orwell that meant Stalin, to Hitchens it means Zarqawi, and to Sullivan it means … James Dobson, mostly. All Orwell disciples are equal, perhaps — but some are more equal than others.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I just call them chickens**t.

JammieWearingFool on June 28, 2006 at 10:05 AM

Astrology is total bull.

Everyone knows ‘The Magic 8-ball’ is damn near infallible.

Hoodlumman on June 28, 2006 at 10:56 AM

They’ll fizzle-out come Election Day the same way (and for the same reason) they did with Dean in Ohio. Half of them are too young to vote, and a plurality of the older half will either forget that it’s Election Day between bong hits, or be so self-important and angry for having to stand in-line to vote that they’ll stalk out muttering and drive off in a BMW huff. I’ve seen it.

The only way to effectively deal with them is, I think, to laugh at them. Sooner or later the 25% of them that have some brains will grow up and start laughing too. Talking and arguments do no good.

Chas on June 28, 2006 at 11:44 AM

the astral conjunction between Kos’s “plutonic gonads” and Mark Warner’s Uranus?

Uh, I dunno…the Little Dipper?

Kid from Brooklyn on June 28, 2006 at 12:15 PM

The only way to effectively deal with them is, I think, to laugh at them. Sooner or later the 25% of them that have some brains will grow up and start laughing too. Talking and arguments do no good.

EXACTLY. Exactly right. Just laugh and point and nod.

Debating with liberals does nothing but confer legitimacy on their moonbattery. Just laugh.

Professor Blather on June 28, 2006 at 12:23 PM

By the way, Hitchens asks some very interesting and very pointed questions.

Any response from liberals?

Now would indeed be the time for principled “human shields” to step forward and back up their rhetoric.

Professor Blather on June 28, 2006 at 12:51 PM

JammieWearingFool, you beat me to it.

Spurius Ligustinus on June 28, 2006 at 1:06 PM

C. Hitchens is very, very clever. For his clear thinking on what is right and wrong in this time, and for his courage, I forgive him everything else. His writing style is superb.

More puerile Kos responses -

http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/stories/MYSA062806.2O.gurwitz.66aafd.html

Balsamic reading and hopeful thoughts for most of us -

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/bushs_decency_highlights_democ.html

Entelechy on June 29, 2006 at 1:32 AM