Objectively speaking

  • Posted by RSA
  • July 20, 2006

Some comments from (current or former) supporters of the war in Iraq simply enrage me. Andrew Sullivan:

As for my later comments about opponents of the Iraq war being “objectively pro-Saddam,” that seems to me to be indisputable. If they’d had their way, he’d still be in power.

Let me propose an analogy: It’s not hard to find people in the blogsphere who advocate attacking North Korea, dropping nuclear bombs on Kim Jung Il. I’m against this course of action. I’m morally certain that Andrew Sullivan is also against the idea. Are we both “objectively pro-Kim”? Hardly. This kind of self-defense for past mistakes is a mark of pure intellectual dishonesty.

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information
July 20th, 2006
2 Responses
Feeds and Links
Comment Feed
From This Author
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Categories
Politics

Other Posts
More outrage
Definition of “Pork” for the willfully dumb

Write a Comment

Take a moment to comment and tell us what you think. Some basic HTML is allowed for formatting.

Reader Comments

Comment Number:
1
Written by:
Buck
Posted on:
July 20, 2006 at 3:27 pm

I liked the guy who said,

Sully, you really don’t want to start throwing around this sort of talk do you? After all, if I follow your logic, couldn’t I say that your support for the Republican party makes you objectively anti-gay?

And I still have not figured out why anybody would need to defend themselves against past mistakes. Everybody makes ‘em. Just acknowledge them and move on down the road.

Comment Number:
2
Written by:
RW
Posted on:
July 21, 2006 at 8:53 am

You’re making the mistake that Andrew Sullivan possesses the trait of intellectual honesty. Sorry, his only trait is following the church of Andrew. Don’t take him seriously…..few do.