Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on July 14, 2004 07:13 AM
Please. At least Moore has levered himself to crackpot pundit status based on political commentary -- Lileks is aspiring to crackpot punditry based on his ability to mock processed food.
Frankly, I agree with a lot of criticisms made of Moore. He's careless with facts and is far more interested in being an entertaining ranter than a genuine source of news and thoughtful commentary -- he's often little better than the Rush Limbaugh of the left. Unfortunately, the people who make criticisms of Moore from the right tend to get up in arms when that obvious comparison is made. (They also tend to ignore the fact that Moore does get criticized from the left, frequently.)
However, Moore's tinfoil hat about Bush-Saudi connections doesn't really have much relevance to whether the war was fought on a valid pretext, or whether the peace -- arguably more important than the battle against Hussein, whose conclusion was all but forgone -- has been managed well. Both of these are critical questions that must be asked in a democracy. The question isn't whether we thought Iraq had WMD, the question is, given that we did think that, whether dismissing the UN inspections after they'd barely gotten restarted was the right approach. The question is whether preventive, not merely preemptive, attack is a good foreign policy doctrine or a dangerous one. And the question is, ultimately, whether the actions the current administration has taken since 9/11 make America more or less safe. There is legitimate disagreement on this, and dismissing people who think the answer is less safe as "dopey leftists" is just as arrogant as it is for us to dismiss you as "stupid neocons." And, ultimately, it's just as toxic to democracy.