Howling Dog Graphic
Point. Click. Search.

Contents: Archives:

Search this weblog
Search WWW
Howler Graphic
by Bob Somerby
E-mail This Page
Socrates Reads Graphic
A companion site.

Site maintained by Allegro Web Communications, comments to Marc.

Howler title Graphic
Caveat lector

26 September 2001

Our current howler(part III): Peace poor

Synopsis: Michael Kelly went to war with America’s pacifists. And guess what—he couldn’t name one.

…Pacifist Claptrap
Michael Kelly, The Washington Post, 9/26/01

A Just Struggle…
E.J. Dionne, The Washington Post, 9/26/01

How far was Malkin willing to go to find a dissenter to pummel? In her Washington Times op-ed piece, she was reduced to scalding a high school kid who dared make remarks she disfavors (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 9/25/01). Disturbingly, the very dangerous Patrick Rizzo had been quoted in that media giant, the Alameda (California) Times Star. Malkin—desperate in her search for infidels—battered Rizzo (and 100 Berkeley students), then moved on to misrepresent what Rep. Barbara Lee had said about the bombings. Read Lee’s actual statement—and read Malkin’s cruel paraphrase—then do yourself a minor favor. Promise yourself that you’ll never believe another word Michelle Malkin ever says.

Today, the jihad spread to the Post. Bravely, Michael Kelly devoted his column to battling America’s pacifists. Maybe you didn’t know there were such people. Indeed, Kelly doesn’t bother naming one throughout his entire piece:

KELLY (pgh 1): Pacifists are not serious people, although they devoutly believe they are, and their arguments are not being taken seriously at the moment. Yet it is worth taking seriously, and in advance of need, the pacifists and their appeal.

Get it? Pacifists’ arguments "aren’t being taken seriously." (Aren’t being taken seriously? We were barely aware that such arguments were being made.) But Kelly is determined to wage holy war, and an evil fifth column must first be invented. Malkin dredged up a high school kid so she could blast a suitable target. Kelly fails to name a single group or individual at any point in his piece. Still, he manages to go on and on about what our cruel peaceniks are saying:

KELLY (8): Organized terrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to not fight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americans do not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know such attacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists, therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They are objectively pro-terrorist.

Down with the pacifists! And oh yeah—Kill the pig! Again, Kelly fails to name a single person or group at any point in his piece. But at times of stress, domestic jihadists want dissenters to beat on. At a time when almost none exist, Malkin and Kelly will just make them up. Kelly even goes so far as to make this remarkable statement:

KELLY (2): [T]he reactionary left-liberal crowd in America and in Europe has already staked out its ground here: What happened to America is America’s fault, the fruits of foolish arrogance and greedy imperialism, racism, colonialism, etc., etc. From this rises an argument that the resulting war is also an exercise in arrogance and imperialism, etc., and not deserving of support.

Wow! America’s "left-liberal crowd" has said that "what happened is America’s fault!" Absent-mindedly, the brave man forgets to cite an example of any specific "left-liberal" so saying.

And sadly, E.J. Dionne is now on hand to cheer the new jihad along. Dionne’s column accompanies Kelly’s in today’s Post, and it constitutes a startling eulogy for that ol’ debbil, "liberal bias." Dionne notes that "[n]early all mainstream liberals and progressives have condemned the terrorists and insisted that terror’s instigators should be brought to justice." He even reassures worried readers that "[o]nly a single vote in Congress was cast against the declaration of war on terror." But what has Dionne worried today? The scribe spends his entire column warning "progressives" not to act up in the future! As his column opens, Dionne complains when she sees "a small group" holding signs that say "NO WAR." After explaining that almost no one actually holds this view, he issues a pre-emptive blanket warning:

DIONNE: Progressives should be wary of any attempts to excuse or rationalize the horrors of this month. It is important to insist that human misery does breed support for terrorism. But using the existence of poverty and injustice to explain away these suicide attacks will only undermine arguments for alleviating injustice.

Dionne—who is supposed to be part of the Post’s liberal bias—doesn’t spend his time today fighting jihads from the right. Instead, he imagines naughty deeds on the left—deeds which have not yet occurred.

Malkin batters high school kids. Kelly does battle with cruel, unnamed pacifists. And talk show hosts keep whacking Bill Maher. Why is there danger in all this nonsense? Tomorrow, we’ll incomparably say why.

Tomorrow: Two problems with home-grown jihads.


The Daily update (9/26/01)

Keeping it simple: We couldn’t help chuckling to see Greg Pierce "critique" Katha Pollitt in yesterday’s WashTimes. Here’s Pierce’s entire item:



Who is more intelligent and mature—a New York liberal or her 13-year-old daughter? You decide.

"My daughter, who goes to Stuyvesant High School only blocks from the World Trade Center, thinks we should fly an American flag out our window," writes Katha Pollitt in the latest issue of the Nation. "Definitely not, I say: The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war. She tells me I’m wrong—the flag means standing together and honoring the dead and saying no to terrorism…

"It seems impossible to explain to a 13-year-old…the connection between waving the flag and bombing ordinary people half a world away back to the proverbial stone age. I tell her she can buy a flag with her own money and fly it out her bedroom window, because that’s hers, but the living room is off-limits."

So who’s "more mature," kids—Katha Pollitt or her daughter? Frankly, it’s a bit hard to say. Despite its appearance, Pierce’s column only quotes from Pollitt’s opening paragraph. Her entire argument was omitted by Pierce. But then, jihads do work that way.

Inside Politics
Greg Pierce, The Washington Times, 9/25/01