christopher hitchens doesn't suffer (liberal) fools gladly--like michael moore and george galloway to name a few. now hitchens trains his sights on university of michigan professor-turned blogger juan cole, particularly cole's apologist tone on iranian whacko-in-chief mahmoud ahmadinejad's destructive rhetoric.
about a week ago, the wall street journal's john fund, who tracked the taliban at yale story, questioned [bugmenot login] cole's scholarly nature, especially considering some of his unscholarly rhetoric.
similar to cole's defense against fund--in which he focuses on one line with a 'distinction without a difference' defense before weakly disputing the substance, cole attempts to rebut by whining that hitchens including a discussion group post (apparently its only OK to reveal private stuff some of the time), further lamenting "attack journalism" just before he attacks hitchens' "debilitating drinking problem".
this is a problem with the angry left: personal attacks with those with whom they disagree come before addressing the underlying disagreement.
cole then goes into anti-war fantasy land implying war with iran unnecessary despite the impotence of kofi, iaea, and complicity of the MSM
speaking of apologists for whackos, an (essentially) internal bbc study
[note my personal opinion: it's easy to play with polls, surveys, etc]
finds the same media outlet which refuses to call terrorists "terrorists", is too pro-israel
but, of course, there is no media bias...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment