December 31, 2003
Josh Marshall made this comment about the Washington press corp. It is gratifying to see that the investigative machinery at Justice and the FBI is a touch more on the ball than the collective wisdom of the Washington press corps, which was that the legal and substantive political issues raised by this incident were satisfactorily resolved by Plame's appearance in a photo in Vanity Fair. But we can discuss this town's corruption another time ... He might as well be talking about Reynolds. The professor also wrote this wonderful post. THE UNITED STATES SHOULD NOT TRY to play a "neutral arbiter" in the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. We should, in fact, be doing our best to make the Palestinians suffer, because, to put it bluntly, they are our enemies. Just read this post and follow the links to see how they feel about America. I think Israel has the right to exist and go after terrorists. Reynolds feels that the Palestinian people are the same as the terrorists. Making them "suffer" will just create more suicide bombers. I wondered why Reynolds links to the hate site run by Misha. Now I have my answer. Glenn is also still crying that Saddam is a boogie man. I guess he needs another angle since he told his readers that Iraq has WMD. Ezra Klein at Pandagon shares her thoughts on Reynolds post. If you are Glenn Reynolds, you might counsel exacerbating the issue, making your opponent stronger, confirming the fears of his adherents, and further putting yourself in danger. If you are a normal person, what you want to do is take the issue away from your opponent. It's not like this tactic is unknown in the US. Bush did it on education, Clinton did it on everything. Dean doing it on fiscal matters. To weaken your enemy you need to destroy what gives them strength. As far as terrorism goes, the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is the main propaganda piece used to prove our plans to oppress Arabs, as such, we need to prove it wrong and thus defuse the hatred that feed the terrorist organizations. We do that by successfully arbitrating the conflict and getting the Palestinians settled in a land of their own. Nothing else we could do would be half as effective at stopping terrorism as that. Glenn's way, while allowing him to retain his sense of moral superiority, also ensures that the gulf between the West and the East will widen and terrorist recruitment will rise. The end result of that is not some victory against the Palestinians, it is more dead Americans, more 9/11's, and more fear. In essence, it is a recreation of the Middle East conflict with us as the Israelis and the Arab Street as the Palestinians, and I don't know who in their right mind would want to switch places with the Israelis at this juncture. Also a post by the blogger at Think About It. Personally, I am willing to give Glenn a pass because I think he's stupid. I'm serious when I say that. I could care less if he went to Yale. His post are poorly researched and often confusing.
-
I don't think he's a bigot, but I do think he's gotten very lazy. His "declaration" on the Plame case is a perfect example. He should probably cut back on the amount of blogging he does, and try to be more thorough and thoughtful with fewer entries.
-
Sullivan, the danger with your FPP is in its wording. An accusation in the form of a rhetorical question (I'm taking it as a rhetorical question, please correct if I'm wrong) is tantamount to actually accusing someone outright. Glenn's post is vitriolic and reactive, yes, but to call him a bigot (especially based ONLY on this one post) is shortsighted and unfair. Let's please be careful with how we word things.
-
Glenn links to Misha site. That guy is being investigated for an online death threat and supports the killing of Arab women and children. That has been documented on this board before. Glenn has been e-mailed by several people about why he blogrolls Misha. He refuses to answer the question.
-
Well... dictionary.com defines bigot as One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ." (Interesting word history if you click above) My guess is he wants a literal or capital piece of Ann Coulters' um, pie.
-
Is Glenn Reynolds a bigot? I don't know, does he link to Little Green Fubars?
-
Summary: Sullivan dislikes Instapundit.
-
Shorter everything
-
So if I'm intolerant of a political ideology that condones the killing of innocent civilians, including children, does that make me a bigot?
-
[b]f8xmulder[/b] As well as being intolerant of all other different groups.
-
Monkeys make boo-boo brackets again.
-
So who's killing whom? Anyone done the numbers lately?
-
Based on that definition, I don't think Glenn fits the bigot profile.
-
Bigot.
-
Or f8xmulder: We all do.
-
I think the Israelis and Palestinians are both doing a good job at "killing." Osama Bin Laden certainly fits fits my view of what a bigot is. Glenn's answer is to make all Palestinians suffer. Even women and children. If he said this about Jews on his blog he be unemployed law professor right now. As for Israel: Arafat wants to kill all Jews and Sharon wants to wipe out all Palestinians. Look where that's got them. There were Jews and Palestinians that made a peace treaty that carries no legal weight. Arafat and Sharon both came out against it. Imagine that, those two can actually agree on something. The whole point of the treaty was to show how full out it both men were. Mission accomplished.
-
Ah, PlameGate. My brother follows this ardently, so I don't have to.
-
The right's Ward Churchill
-
> The right's Ward Churchill The difference being that Churchill was hounded for expressing a crass and unsavoury opinion, whereas Reynolds, a law professor, is merely advocating extrajudicial murder.