Now, I can understand D-Squared's annoyance, to a point. While I support war with Iraq -- mainly because I simply can't envision any kind of "safer world" that includes a regime in Iraq led by Saddam Hussein -- I think that such a war would have so little to do with 9-11 in particular, or terrorism in general (specifically the brand of terrorism perpetrated by Islamic fundamentalists), that to see arguments constantly being made along the lines of "We were attacked, therefore we are justified in invading Iraq" is very annoying indeed. Not only is there no credible, demonstrable connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda (and by "credible and demonstrable" I'm talking about a line of argument that's more substantive than, "Gee, Richard Nixon just happened to be in Dallas on 11-22-1963...."), but I also find questionable the assumptions that (a) to combat terrorism we must first demolish the entirety of the Islamic world and (b) that even granting (a), Iraq would be a logical starting point. "Iraq would be a staging ground", the logic goes, "and once we control Iraq then we can drop the pretense with the Saudis and turn our eyes on the rest of 'em." Not only do I have serious doubts as to whether we're suddenly going to see a cooling of our relationship with Saudi Arabia after we trounce Iraq, but I also have a bit of a problem with a global strategy that casts the United States in the role of the schoolyard bully who, having beaten up Nerd Number One and taken his lunch money, rubs his hands and starts looking around for Nerd Number Two. A real, convincing case can be made for war in Iraq; that the Bush Administration has blundered in the making of that case is hardly inspiring of confidence, but that's not the main point. It's that I simply cannot see Iraq as the next stage in our response to 9-11-01.
So I disagree with SDB on that ground. But that being the case, I think D-Squared has gone overboard as well. SDB's bizarre hatred of Berkeley is well-established, and his "Nuke Berkeley" joke was in staggeringly poor taste; but for D-Squared to suggest that SDB has no right to outrage and anger after 9-11-01 is simply wrong-headed. It's one thing to get angry about SDB's repeated use of 9-11-01 as justification for the coming war, but it's quite another to say this:
"It can be established that SdB is a resident of San Diego, a town about as far from New York as can possibly be, and one which is at very small risk of terrorist attack indeed. There is not a single mention of his having lost anyone on September 11 on the USS Clueless site, and nobody has so far taken up my offer of a grovelling apology if they can show that he did. We know from a few days ago that his actual (as opposed to sanctimonious and/or hypocritical) emotional involvement in the psychological scars of that tragedy is so little that he's happy making jokes about nuclear attack on towns where his political opponents live. So where the fucking hell does he get off writing things like this?"
To me, this seems very strongly to suggest that one can only feel genuine outrage about 9-11-01 if one actually lost friends or loved ones on that day, in those attacks. And lest anyone say that I'm misreading D-Squared here, I don't think I am. Consider the post immediately above the one in question, in which D-Squared gives -- of all people! -- Ann Coulter a pass on precisely the same kind of thing he's mad at SDB about. So, since Coulter lost someone on 9-11, it's OK that a few months later she claimed that folks who live in Manhattan aren't Americans and that she wished Timothy McVeigh had parked the Ryder Truck outside the New York Times, but SDB can't make a "Nuke Berkeley" joke. I'm sorry, but I just don't get this -- especially given that Coulter's statements are precisely in keeping with things she used to say before 9-11-01 ever happened. (Anyone who ever saw her on Politically Incorrect can attest to this.)
I think SDB is wrong in the application of his outrage at the attacks on our country, but he is an American -- hell, he's a human being -- and he has a right to that outrage. When we start delving into who's got a better claim on emotional response to such things, we're on very dangerous ground. So I guess I think that, in this case, both SDB and D-Squared are a bit full of crap: SDB, for his "Nuke Berkeley" joke and for his "Don't try to label me or put me in a box, but anybody who thinks I'm wrong is a pomo tranzi" stuff (why not just use that most wonderful of wallow-in-rhetorical-crap words, "idiotarian", and get it over with?), and D-Squared for his "Not only do I think your application of your anger is wrong, but I don't think you have a right to that anger in the first place" stance.
No comments:
Post a Comment