, you’re out of my RSS feed.

I used to like Slate, but with people like Applebaum, Hitchens, and Saletan becoming more and more prominent, there’s been a steady decrease of readable stuff there. Today I read a piece titled Why Israel Will Bomb Iran. The rational argument for an attack.

It’s one of those (unfortunately rather common) things where states are subjected to amateur psychoanalysis as if they were individuals. Anyway, this one para caught my attention:

The idea of a mass public outcry against Israel [if it attacks Iran] in the Muslim world is probably also a fiction—given the public backing of the Gulf states and Egypt for Israel’s wars against Hezbollah and Hamas. As the only army in the region able to take on Iran and its clients, Israel has effectively become the hired army of the Sunni Arab states tasked by Washington with the job of protecting America’s favorite Middle Eastern tipple—oil.

Public backing in the Gulf states and Egypt for Israel’s wars? The idea of a mass public outcry against Israel in the Muslim world is probably a fiction? WTF? And needless to say, the link in the quote says absolutely nothing about Israel becoming “the hired army of the Sunni Arab states”.

Think about it. Someone (his name is ) wrote something this absurd and disingenuous. This guy  obviously has zero respect for common sense, truth, and decency – and that’s all right, some people are like that, you’ll find all kinds of stuff on the internet.

Right. But Slate is owned by the Washington Post, it’s supposed to be a reputable online publication. It is supposed to have editors, managements, – the shareholders for chrissake. I mean, how do they allow this stuff to be published? This is probably why Mr.


  1. Follow the link, silly
    Posted April 11, 2009 at 4:50 am | Permalink

    Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    Why Arab leaders worry about Iran’s nuclear program
    By Tariq Khaitous | 23 May 2008

  2. Posted April 11, 2009 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    I read the link. Where does it say that “Israel has effectively become the hired army of the Sunni Arab states”? Nowhere, not even close.

  3. Posted April 19, 2009 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    I contend we should read HitchensSpeak, however british-breezy- sleazy it may be. CH seems to offend sunday schoolers, even marxist-quoting sunday schoolers, more than anyone. Hitchens’ writing 2003-2004 did offend at times: he was rather gung-ho for the IWE at times, and his blessing of Bush in 2004 was pretty f-n pathetic, but hardly more conservative than most NYT or LAT “liberal” scribes. I for one said Hitchens should have been called on a few “facts” (ie. WMDs) –yet the Donkeycrats have yet to initiate any serious investigation into what was known/said/misrepresented, etc.

    Journalists are usually just ho’s, and Hitch is still a civilian and relatively benign. His writing on religious topics not the worst in this age when “secularism” has become a pejorative. Hitchens’ writing at times reminds one of Hume (though CH still has a Trotskyite edge at times): nausea, revulsion is a typical undergraduate reaction to Hume potent skeptical arguments. It takes a bit of work to understand the method to the madness, even if we don’t always agree to the conclusions. I read LF Celine–he’s pretty amusing, really– and that doesn’t mean I agree with his politics.

Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this: