Dagger in hand |
|
|
A man of prodigious fortune, coming to add his opinion to some light discussion that was going on casually at his table, began precisely thus: "It can only be a liar or an ignoramus who will say otherwise than," and so on. Pursue that philosophical point, dagger in hand. --Michel de Montaigne, Of the art of discussion. Stab back: cmnewman99-at-yahoo.com Home
Archives
Oriana: la sibilla eremita The Sage of Baltimore: Browbeating the booboisie. Reason: As in voice of. Lileks: Il miglior fabbro Volokh: Dean of Kozinski clerks Olympia: I read her only for her literary qualities. Really. Say it isn't so!: Do you think it's the lumpy oatmeal? Our girl Jane: Keep em flying, Miss U.S.A. My man Baruch: Amor dei intellectualis. Hubba hubba. Scrofula: With a name like Scrofula, it has to be good. The Idler: No frills. IJ: Fighting the good fight. ACLU: Good when they remember what the L stands for. Yourish: Meryl smash. Heidi's letters: I think she does reprisals, too. Her pinkness: Each time she falls she shall rise again! And woe to the wicked! In Context: Lynn provides it. Andrea: One spleen to rule them all. Still Waiting: Don't believe the hype. The Droll Weevil: Posts, pedantry, and pie(?) Perugia: Second home. Craven Road n.7: His name is Dog. Dylan Dog. Tom Bell: Internet law, online where it should be. Just the place for a snark: I've told you but once, but it's true. Greed is Good: And doesn't look too shabby in a T-shirt, either. Translator's Buddy: Didn't have "gliridi" though. CGFA: Favorite source of desktop material. Fallacies: Check yourself. Cosmo for men.: Implementing our equal right to feelings of inadequacy. Caplan: Visit the Museum. There's just one hitch: But it's a good one. Samizdata: Libertarian lexicographers. Unqualified Offerings: But quality assured. She is Wendy: Hear her roar. The Divine Blogroll: Entrate, che troverete speranza. Like the corners of my mind: Read it and weep. Aziz: Providing perspective. IJTIHAD: The future of Islam. I hope. Himishi: Where I acquired that raw fish addiction. My generous sponsors Alan Moore: Quis custodiet? Spoonerism: A blushing crow to tyranny. The Onion: Scary thing is, they're not far off. ScrappleFace: More important news. Day by day: Trudeau Schmudeau. Fumento: Brockovich Crockovich My alma mater: Not basketball. Croquet. The Capitol Steps: providing their fodder is the government's only indispensible function Randy Andy: Get used to it. Vasco Rossi: When they're in Italy, the Stones open for him. The Shadow: Useful counterpoint. Italiani liberi: Dr. D. Vider's Italian minions. Friendly Neighborhood Sinners: Swim the warm waters. Yuppies of Zion: The blog with two backs. Hobbit's repast: I'm partial to onesies, myself. The Friesian School: going Diderot one better Head spinning?: They can help. Looking sinister: Brian is watching. Murray's ghost: Stalking the state. Hell, no.: So anti it's not always clear what they're pro. Bureaucrash: takin' it to the streets Joe Cartoon: Indulge your inner 12 year old boy. There's a light: Rand sans droid. The Fake Detective: Rescuing damsels in dis-dress. Stromata: Amazing how much good stuff some people leave just lying around. The VRWC: Conspiring at a law school near you. The VLWC: Practicing the sincerest form of flattery. Corriere della Sera: Haven't sued me yet. Who am I?: Che ti frega? 
|
Monday, September 09, 2002
MORE ON RITTER: As Her Janeship points out, there are some questions about Ritter's credibility. Ultimately, of course, it doesn't turn on his credibility. The government has the burden of proof on the issue of whether Saddam poses the kind of threat that justifies preemptive military force. This has two components, neither of which I've managed to answer to my satisfaction. The first is the abstract issue: what kind of threat does justify the use of preemptive force? I buy the idea in theory--the doctrine of violence only in self-defense can't mean that I have to wait until the thug has taken careful aim and begun to pull the trigger before I act to disarm him. But how early can I act? At what point can I say I have a moral certainty that failure to act preemptively is tantamount to surrending my right to self-defense? And what sort of evidence do I need to present to third parties if I expect them to agree that I am acting in self-defense and not as an aggressor? Mind you, I don't think obtaining the actual agreement of the third parties (and we all know who we're talking about) is a necessary prerequisite to action. But I do think we owe it ourselves and the world to articulate a justification for our actions that an objective, reasonable third party could be expected to accept as valid, whether or not they do. And Tapped agrees with my skepticism about the idea that war helps Congressional Republicans in the midterms. Of course, this doesn't necessarily disprove Ritter's assertion that this is what's really motivating the administration. As Bill Sherman (my former editor-in-chief) points out, the question isn't really whether it will help the GOP; it's whether the GOP thinks it will help them. Again though, I think ultimately the case for war has to be evaluated on its own merits. I take it as a given that there are always ulterior motives for such action. The state wants to preserve its health. Those helming it at the time tend to get a boost and a diversion from other failures. Just look at FDR, who should by rights have gone down with a worse reputation than Hoover had he not been handed the great role of fighting fear itself. That doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong for us to get involved in WWII. Nor does the existence of ulterior motives necessarily mean that those expressed are insincere.
Comments:
Post a Comment
|