Snipe Hunts Revisited


You may recall last week's dueling contests to compile a list of prominent "Westerners who support and justify the Iraqi resistance" (compiled by Euguene Volokh), and prominent "people who appear to have made egregious claims about opponents of the war rooting for the other side" (the folks at Crooked Timber). The results are now in, and it appears that Volokh's readers came up with six, while the Timberistas found 18. Read the comments of both to remind yourself that when it comes to the politics of war, 2+2 has a nearly infinite number of answers.

NEXT: Siccing Crocodiles on AIDS

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Filmmaker, cartoonist, filmmaker . . . that’s quite an intimidating fifth column they’ve dug up there. Don’t you have to hit at least double digits before you can declare a fifth column though?

    My favorite terrorist sympathizers remain Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson. Did you know lesbians caused 9/11? (That would be the Falwell who was a guest of honor at the Republican convention in 2004).

  2. If you actually forced Volokh’s crew to define “prominent” before hand, they wouldn’t have even made it to six.

  3. Michael Moore, feted at the Democratic National convention in 2004, and who sat next to former *President* Jimmy Carter, is not merely a film-maker, but the cause celebre of the anti-war left in the summer of 2004. The real issue is that Michael Moore was too stupid to avoid saying things the other leftists are caerful to avoid saying openly.

    The “Timberistas” basically collected quotes of the conservatives saying “Hey, they sound like they want the other side to win.”
    Who can blame them, maybe they get clued into the left’s lack of stake in the war by the defeatist, partisan rhetoric like Kennedy’s April 2004 “Iraq is George Bush’s Vietnam … This misguided war in Iraq has distracted us from the real war we must win”

    The Howard Dean left talks and acts like they have no stake in this war, and many (check DU) cringe at US successes an downplay them (example: Jim McDermott after we caught saddam claiming the military knew where Saddam was all along and they just pulled him out of the ground when needed a PR boost.) It’s “George Bush’s” war to them and they will carp and whine until the troops come home … oops, but the terrorists won’t be defeated so the terrorists win.

    So do they want that? They want the luxury of irresponsibility in my view, to not have to be held accountable for the consequences of what they advocate. Treason? No, we can’t use that term anymore. On my blog I go into more detail as to how one might look at this issue.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.