Sites Holmquist trys, and often fails, to go no more than a couple of days without visiting (some of which Holmquist regularly swipes links from without attribution)
An interesting hobby is watching where the intelligent dissent is coming from, because it's mostly coming from the right side of the spectrum. While the far left stays on the steady path it marked on ... oh, about Sept. 12, the neo-conservatives and moderates and even old-school GOP mouthpieces have carried on detailed inquiry into the stuff we're all worried about. Are planes any safer? What the hell was that "TIPS" nonsense? We're still handing out visas through Saudi travel agencies? That goddamned Saudi prince is lounging at the president's house and we're supposed to buy this "axis of evil" gibberish? Can you people get your story straight about Atta's trip to Prague?
In other words, the only "interesting dissent" is coming from those who support Bush's war on terror. I guess this is Layne's way of saying that it is not intelligent to be actually opposed to the goals of U.S. military policy.
In same entry Layne links to a column by Matt Welch that argues that there anti-war sentiment has received plenty of space in the mainstream media since September 11. Welch is right to a certain extent as it sometimes rings hollow for critics of the war to complain they have been "censored" by the mainstream media. And yet Welch does not account for how figures like Noam Chomsky and Gore Vidal are trotted out as abberations, freaks that aren't really to be taken seriously. This is demonstrated by how the points these critics raise have failed to become part of the journalist's standard question bag for talking with leaders and analysts. Questions like "What right does the U.S. have to attack and invade a country that has not been shown to have any intention of harming the U.S.?" and "What is the big deal about Iraq developing weapons of mass destruction since the U.S. has them and has had used them?" are simply considered out of bounds.
Instead the questions that could be deemed in any way, shape of form "critical" concern merely matters of how to best win the war. In other words, they never step beyond the dissent that Layne likes. posted by micah holmquist at 9/07/2002 08:23:00 PM
