Where's The Outrage?
OK, I'll say upfront that this is something of a dirty tactic - 'this' being asking why my ideological enemies (in this case the Decents) didn't bark in the night. I'd usually agree that what bloggers post on is entirely up to them, and what they don't post on is of no concern to anyone.
However...
I've looked a few Decent blogs: The Euston Manifesto, Oliver Kamm, Engage, Norman Geras and Nick Cohen. Now this lot are generally sensitive to anti-semitism - and they also (mostly) support the Iraq War and Tony Blair's foreign policies. So Tony Blair goes to visit Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and do they mention it? Nope. One thing the Decents and I (and I think all who blog here) agree on is that national leaders with military titles (let alone self-appointed ones) are bad eggs. Also, the Decents have plenty of outrage and have no problem expressing it - though mostly in the direction of charities which won't bite back, minority parties, lone ideologues (I'm not crazy about Neil Clarke either), etc. Not a great deal at incumbent politicians, however. Bush and Blair tend to get free passes.
Do me a favour: read this. Then tell me if you don't believe that Col Gadaffi is not at least as big an anti-Semite as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. I can understand the temptation to rehabilitate Gadaffi, but the Decents uniformly regarded such a policy a complete waste with regard to Saddam and Ahmadinejad. What's different about Gadaffi? He's sponsored terrorism. He's unrepentant. He's a nasty piece of work from any angle. So - where are the attacks?
However...
I've looked a few Decent blogs: The Euston Manifesto, Oliver Kamm, Engage, Norman Geras and Nick Cohen. Now this lot are generally sensitive to anti-semitism - and they also (mostly) support the Iraq War and Tony Blair's foreign policies. So Tony Blair goes to visit Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, and do they mention it? Nope. One thing the Decents and I (and I think all who blog here) agree on is that national leaders with military titles (let alone self-appointed ones) are bad eggs. Also, the Decents have plenty of outrage and have no problem expressing it - though mostly in the direction of charities which won't bite back, minority parties, lone ideologues (I'm not crazy about Neil Clarke either), etc. Not a great deal at incumbent politicians, however. Bush and Blair tend to get free passes.
Do me a favour: read this. Then tell me if you don't believe that Col Gadaffi is not at least as big an anti-Semite as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. I can understand the temptation to rehabilitate Gadaffi, but the Decents uniformly regarded such a policy a complete waste with regard to Saddam and Ahmadinejad. What's different about Gadaffi? He's sponsored terrorism. He's unrepentant. He's a nasty piece of work from any angle. So - where are the attacks?
posted by Chardonnay Chap at 6/01/2007 01:54:00 PM
3 Comments:
No, no, you have it all wrong!
Gadaffi can't be an unrepentant sponsor of terrorism. He represents a triumph of Bush's vision for the Middle East. Why, if Bush had not been so enormously forward thinking we'd never have unravelled A Q Khan's nuclear proliferation network (see Hitchens, circa 2004) via the Libyan connection.
Meeting Gadaffi is a celebration of a triumph, not an embarrassment — of a piece with the Saudi women-free municipal elections, Egypt's enormously fair presidential elections, Lebanon's, um, forward leap, and, er, the Syrian regime falling two days ago.
Besides, why stop at anti-Semitism? You could equally chart all the undemocratic Middle Eastern leaders they've met during their rolling programme of democratisation.
Well, in Blair's case the arms deal may have something to do with it:
Mr Blair also said that a big defence deal between the two countries, in which Tripoli will buy British missiles and air defence systems, would be finalised in the coming months.
You also have to remember that Gadaffi is a companion in the Decent TARDIS: everyone else recalls his near-immediate sympathy for the US at the time of 9/11; the Decents (and Jack Straw, Blair, et al.) all think Gadaffi switched to Our Side because of what happened to the Taliban and Saddam Hussein (i.e. he knew he'd be next, even though he apparently had actual WMD, as opposed to the ones Blair's fevered imagination beleived were in Iraq)
Either that or he likes opera
hear, bloody, hear
[/haughty tone]
Post a Comment
<< Home