I seem to have offended Chad at the CCK by my recent post. Chad and I have been reasonably cordial to one another, which explains his comment, addressed to me, that I was the sane one [here at SDP]. Fortunately his complaint is based on a mistake. Chad says I say this:
You say anti-war protestors support Castro and Kim Il-Jung and are "on the other side"? Not only is that a low blow, but it's blantantly false.
Its a low blow only if its false. But in fact, I did not say that. What I said was this:
The groups sponsoring the Washington meeting are not anti-war at all; they are just on the other side. They speak glowingly of the insurgents who have murdered thousands of our soldiers and tens of thousands of their own countrymen. They admire the gangster Kim Il Sung.
And not only do I say it, but I base the judgment on quotations from Slate, an online and quite professional journal. The author is Christopher Hitchens, pro-war to be sure, but with solid leftist credentials. Moreover Hitchens refers to exposes about the event sponsors by David Corn and Marc Cooper who are impeccable lefties. But they are sober enough to realize that letting the anti-war movement be run by this sort of folk might not be the best strategy.
Lest there be any misunderstanding, let me be explicit. I did not say, nor do I believe, that everyone who opposes the war "supports Castro or admires Kim Il Sung (or Kim Jong Il for that matter). I am on record in my columns and in this blog as saying that reasonable, intelligent, and good people can oppose the war. In fact, some of those people are conservatives.
Recent Comments