Perhaps as evidence that Christopher Hitchens doesn't drink quite as much as his reputation suggests, consider this maliciously clever phrasing in which Hitch can dodge the accusation that he's suggesting that Congressman Jack Murtha should be killed, but comes oh so close to saying so. Hitch is yet again on the warpath -- not against Gitmo or Abu Ghraib, presidential "signing statements", warrantless wiretaps, or incompetent war planning -- but the anti-war left. And amongst his challenges to them:
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 ... 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.
So a single paragraph to defend Karl Rove's honour, link Murtha with the 2003 human shields campaign, and suggest it be revived. Even if he's not specifically suggesting that Murtha go, he may well have thought better of a phrase like "a killing field of dissenters" but we can't know how much he had to resist temptation. Note the article's title: Peace and Quiet.
No comments:
Post a Comment