Instapundit has nice words for
ArchPundit
Instapundit has nice words for Counterspin Central’s Hesiod. The question I have is about this comment:
“That puts him head and shoulders above most of the anti-war critics. And most of the anti-war Democrats in Congress.”
But what serious critics is Glen talking about? Chomsky and gang can hardly be called serious. Congress has been largely avoiding the issue and I’m always confused by the strange notion that those opposed to the war are a monolith. I’m for the war, but most of the discussions I see breakdown into several categories; the looney left of people like Cockburn, skeptics of the truthfullness and timing of the administration, deterrence advocates, and multilateralists who aren’t even necessarily anti-war, but for going slow getting there. Of the four categories, Cockburn, Chomsky and the other fruitcakes are the smallest group and the least influential.
It seems many of the warbloggers are arguing against boogeymen most of the time that aren’t the real resistance out there. Zell Miller has voiced this the best by describing the discussions he had at home with some generally pretty conservative folks who are skeptical of this upcoming war. The real resistance isn’t the loony left, but people in the heartland who need to be convinced it is necessary. They are maybe not the best informed of us, but their skepticism is the same skepticism that the Founders had regarding overseas entanglements. The evidence of this is those who are voicing concerns. Jim Leach, Mark Kirk and other moderate Republicans are concerned about what is going on and not because they are wimps or leftist fruitcakes, but because their constituents are concerned.
