A Preview
As I noted earlier, Christopher Hitchens and George Galloway are going to debate issues concerning the Iraq War in September. This article by Hitch in the Weekly Standard is probably much of the case he will make. It's a big long but worth reading.
I make many of the same points to people when I defend the war. Unfortunately, it usually doesn't matter. When I say that Abu Abbas had an Iraqi diplomatic passport which allowed him to escape prosecution by the Italians and facilitated his eventual residency in Iraq (until US soldiers caught him in 2003), I get blank stares. No one knows who Abu Abbas is, or Yasin, or Abu Nidal, or about the suicide bomber funds, or has read Dr. Mahdi Obeidi's book. Shocking to think that the news media doesn't report these things.
That's why I have all but given up debating/discussing/arguing/screaming about the war. It has become an issue where neither side is willing to budge (and I admit culpability here too) because the two major sides are coming at this from different viewpoints. The differences go beyond normal ideological conflicts. It's like discussing a case. If I have an entirely different view of the facts (and sometimes simply different facts), my analysis will tend to go in one direction. Someone with a different view of the facts will go in the other direction. That, I think, is the ultimate futility in trying to change anyone's mind on this issue. When you start from places so far apart, the two paths are never going to converge. Not even close.
I make many of the same points to people when I defend the war. Unfortunately, it usually doesn't matter. When I say that Abu Abbas had an Iraqi diplomatic passport which allowed him to escape prosecution by the Italians and facilitated his eventual residency in Iraq (until US soldiers caught him in 2003), I get blank stares. No one knows who Abu Abbas is, or Yasin, or Abu Nidal, or about the suicide bomber funds, or has read Dr. Mahdi Obeidi's book. Shocking to think that the news media doesn't report these things.
That's why I have all but given up debating/discussing/arguing/screaming about the war. It has become an issue where neither side is willing to budge (and I admit culpability here too) because the two major sides are coming at this from different viewpoints. The differences go beyond normal ideological conflicts. It's like discussing a case. If I have an entirely different view of the facts (and sometimes simply different facts), my analysis will tend to go in one direction. Someone with a different view of the facts will go in the other direction. That, I think, is the ultimate futility in trying to change anyone's mind on this issue. When you start from places so far apart, the two paths are never going to converge. Not even close.
