Someone on WBAI's </i>Counterspin</i>
was interviewing someone from some magazine whose name I forget. The interviewer asked the magazine guy what he thought about "the Bush Administration's Demonisation of Saddam Hussein", to which the magazine guy goes on and on railing against this so-called demonisation.
I must have missed something here. How can something be labeled "demonisation" if the person in question is already
I consider myself a Progressive. I'm against the war in Iraq, I don't think we should have attacked; I don't think we should be occupying. I don't think Saddam has any connection to Sept. 11. I think Bush is scary and needs to go.
But. Saddam is an Evil Bad Guy, and boy am I glad he's been captured. He's done Really Bad Things; I don't agree with the war, but at least this one good end has come from it. I wonder if the magazine guy would have attacked the "Demonisation of Hitler" in the same way. Saddam's not Hitler, but he's in the neighbourhood o' badness.
Some liberals (not all, just a vocal bunch) are so knee-jerk that they'll say anything as long as it's Against the Establishment. And y'know what? This makes 'em as bad as the Religious Right, because they're doing the exact same thing
. As much as I like WBAI (and FAIR
, the people who make Counterspin
) for its alternative opinions and the courage they show in speaking them, I think they're often as guilty of extreme reflexive progressivism as Falwell's followers are of extreme reflexive conservatism. Maybe that's why WBAI is having so much trouble getting people to give them money.
Everyone has a brain. We need to think about what we think about, and not just react. [/end rant]
Okay, off to finish Christmas shopping.