We're "progressives." We're "anti-war types." We have failed to influence Democratic politics remotely (which presumably means that Sen. Lieberman has not been threatened into Plan B-ing a way to maintain office by running as an Independent because of our anti-Lieberman campaign. Oh, no, one had zero effect on the other). Pro-war liberal (or should that be "pro-war liberal") Christopher Hitchens pities the Kos community so much he regrets having squashed a bug (that would be Kos et. al.) with a ton of bricks (that would be his razor-sharp wit), a metaphor that makes as much sense as any one sentence in his Slate editorial. Looky here and see for yourself:
http://www.slate.com/...
Don't know about you, but what jumps out at me are those four "suggestions" for backing up our anti-war (or "anti-war") stance with meaningful, participatory action instead of mere words in order to...what, exactly, build credibility? Is Hitchens implying that since we didn't support invasion in the first place, it is now our responsibility to resolve the situation, to clean up the mess, in order to improve conditions for a country which would have been better of having been left alone?
Here's my response to Hitchens: you're the hawk; why don't you do it. You advocated removing the dictator; you can damn well help improve the country's living standards higher than they were under that dictator instead of condescendingly lecturing "progressives" who are simply being consistent in calling for our troops to get the hell out of Iraq. That contribution is at least as worthy as anything you "suggest."
Lord, what a boor.