Jonah Goldberg's deeply "conflicted" thoughts on war and torture

[laststeamtrain]

Jonah Goldberg's deeply "conflicted" thoughts on war and torture
The war cheerleader and torture apologist explains why the rationale underlying his beliefs is so very complicated and nuanced.

Glenn Greenwald

Nov. 12, 2007 | In this week's version of their borderline-unwatchable (though, I confess, perversely engrossing) Internet chat show, Jonah Goldberg and his friend, Peter Beinart, amicably debate waterboarding. Jonah protests the unfair treatment of what he calls the "pro-waterboarding camp's position." Waterboarding, you see, is a "tough question" and Jonah feels "very personally conflicted about it." What Jonah calls "one half of his brain's problem with the debate" is that it is an "open question" if waterboarding is even torture at all. All very riveting.

To explain his objections to the use of the "pro-torture" label for those who are merely "pro-waterborading," Jonah creates an analogy which very well may be the most deceitful and hypocritical claim ever uttered. The "pro-torture" label is unfair because it obscures what Jonah calls -- seriously -- all of the "nuance and principled objections involved on the side of those willing to condone waterborading." He then unleashes his analogy:

"It's sort of like calling people pro-war. Very few people just love war. Um, most people have, you knew, a pretty well-developed series of reasons why war is sometimes necessary as a last resort, and sometimes not. And to simply call people "pro-war" glosses over all of that."

Absolutely. Calling neoconservatives like Jonah "pro-war" is every bit as unfair as describing the "pro-waterboarding camp" as "pro-torture." Here, for instance, was Jonah's highly nuanced, principled, and extremely reluctant case for starting a war against Iraq:

WHY IRAQ?

"So how does all this, or the humble attempt at a history lesson of my last column, justify tearing down the Baghdad regime? Well, I've long been an admirer of, if not a full-fledged subscriber to, what I call the "Ledeen Doctrine."

I'm not sure my friend Michael Ledeen will thank me for ascribing authorship to him and he may have only been semi-serious when he crafted it, but here is the bedrock tenet of the Ledeen Doctrine in more or less his own words: "Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business." That's at least how I remember Michael phrasing it at a speech at the American Enterprise Institute about a decade ago (Ledeen is one of the most entertaining public speakers I've ever heard, by the way)."

<snip>

Is it even possible to ponder the intellectual depravity necessary to enable the same person who said that "every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall," to now solemnly lecture us about how nobody should be called "pro-war" because war is only chosen reluctantly as a last resort and that label obscures all the deep thoughts and nuances underlying the war cheerleading?

<more>

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/goldberg/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/greenwald

[samsingh]

1. why aren't all the right wingers over in Iraq fighting for America?

are they cowards? why do they hate America?

[Jim__]

2. "the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall"

That is an unbelievably stupid statement. I'm betting that the guy that said that is a chicken-hawk.

[laststeamtrain]

3. Jim_ meet Michael Ledeen.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Michael_Ledeen

[gratuitous]

4. Oh yes, those bedrock tenets of today's conservatives: nuance and subtlety

That's why I'm glad folks like Glenn Greenwald take the time to read the blatherous tripe put out by Jonah the Doughy Pantload and others. Because I have to tell you, the nuance and the subtlety just fly right over my head. (Insert visual of my right hand, palm down, going over the top of my head with a "nyeeowww" sound effect.)

It's nice to know that Jonah has given some serious thought to this question, including leaving half his brain behind, you know, the half of his brain that doesn't consider waterboarding to be torture at all. Best to leave the stupid part of your brain out of the debate, Jonah. It'll only muck things up. And yet, even after kicking the stupid half of his brain to the curb, Jonah comes down on the "Hell yeah, let's torture! It's not my nuts on the line" side of the True Chickenhawk.

But he's serious about this, so don't just call him pro-torture, because that sort of gives short shrift to Jonah's half-a-brain debate.

[11 Bravo]

5. When I want a well-reasoned and thoroughly nuanced opinion, I turn to Jonah Goldberg.

Who could offer a more profound take on the pressing issues of the day than a simpering little prick who was breast fed until his 35th birthday?

[AtomicKitten]

6. somebody ought to waterboard his flabby ass

and give him a moment to rethink this