Saturday, May 22, 2004
Cole and Sullivan Spat
Sullivan and Cole got into quite the spat a few days back. It all started when Sullivan, rightly, singled out the following quote for derision. "Paul Wolfowitz kept crowing last summer about how the US saved the Marsh Arabs from Saddam, but now that many of them have joined the Sadrists in Kut and Amara, Wolfowitz is having the Marsh Arabs killed just as Saddam did, and for the same reasons." Cole then took a piece that Sullivan had written a while back about Howard Raines and went to town. Not having read either Sullivan’s piece on Rains, I am not sure just how on target Cole was. From what I could gleam it was a mixed bag. For example, Cole was right to come to Scowcroft’s defense. Scowcroft motives might not have been pure, but so what. As Cole pointed out, he was right about a good deal. This is something that Sullivan still does not seem to have grasped. In answering Cole’s criticisms, he again impinged Scowcroft motives, albeit for entirely different reasons. “It is perfectly fair to notice that Brent Scowcroft might be seeking to defend his past in opposing a new Iraq war. When your policy of keeping Saddam in power led to the massacre of hundreds of thousands, you have a good reason to make the case that you were nonetheless right.” Conversely, Cole was out to lunch in thinking that in calling Powell “gun shy” Sullivan was calling him a coward. "Powell … had actually fought in a war. I suspect Sullivan has not, nor has he in all likelihood even lived in a war zone for any extended period of time. He had no standing to launch a vicious attack on the officer corps of the United States Army and Marines, accusing them of cowardice (I take it that is the meaning of "gun-shy." With justification, Sullivan jumped all over him for this. “Cole then says my description of some military brass as "gun-shy" implies I am impugning their courage. Please. I'm merely describing the U.S. military's long-held aversion to difficult conflicts.” That said, Sullivan should have taken it further. I do not ever recall one needing “standing” to make any sort of claim. Comments like these and the often repeated claim that supporters of the war are a bunch of “Chicken Hawks” are perfect examples an ad hominine attack Cole accused Sullivan of having made.
Sullivan and Cole got into quite the spat a few days back. It all started when Sullivan, rightly, singled out the following quote for derision. "Paul Wolfowitz kept crowing last summer about how the US saved the Marsh Arabs from Saddam, but now that many of them have joined the Sadrists in Kut and Amara, Wolfowitz is having the Marsh Arabs killed just as Saddam did, and for the same reasons." Cole then took a piece that Sullivan had written a while back about Howard Raines and went to town. Not having read either Sullivan’s piece on Rains, I am not sure just how on target Cole was. From what I could gleam it was a mixed bag. For example, Cole was right to come to Scowcroft’s defense. Scowcroft motives might not have been pure, but so what. As Cole pointed out, he was right about a good deal. This is something that Sullivan still does not seem to have grasped. In answering Cole’s criticisms, he again impinged Scowcroft motives, albeit for entirely different reasons. “It is perfectly fair to notice that Brent Scowcroft might be seeking to defend his past in opposing a new Iraq war. When your policy of keeping Saddam in power led to the massacre of hundreds of thousands, you have a good reason to make the case that you were nonetheless right.” Conversely, Cole was out to lunch in thinking that in calling Powell “gun shy” Sullivan was calling him a coward. "Powell … had actually fought in a war. I suspect Sullivan has not, nor has he in all likelihood even lived in a war zone for any extended period of time. He had no standing to launch a vicious attack on the officer corps of the United States Army and Marines, accusing them of cowardice (I take it that is the meaning of "gun-shy." With justification, Sullivan jumped all over him for this. “Cole then says my description of some military brass as "gun-shy" implies I am impugning their courage. Please. I'm merely describing the U.S. military's long-held aversion to difficult conflicts.” That said, Sullivan should have taken it further. I do not ever recall one needing “standing” to make any sort of claim. Comments like these and the often repeated claim that supporters of the war are a bunch of “Chicken Hawks” are perfect examples an ad hominine attack Cole accused Sullivan of having made.
Comments:
Post a Comment
