March 12, 2003

Mead's Champions: Quite unl...

Iraqi deaths column succeeds "brilliantly." Jonah also misspells "Russell" and "Mead." UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan calls it "The most concise and devastating piece yet on the alternative to war" ... and also spells it "Meade" (I know: I'm setting myself up for a misspelling embarrassment here ... but when I make 1/10th the blogging salary of either gentleman I'll feel bad). Meanwhile Daniel Drezner factors in the rhetorical overreach, spells the names right, and comes out firmly in favor of Mead's basic thesis.

Posted by at March 12, 2003 04:54 PM
Comments


Nice deadpan, Matt.

K

Posted by: Ken at March 12, 2003 08:01 PM

One of the things I learned quite a while ago is that a person's name is one of the most personal things about them. It's why politicans work on remembering names and faces. My father still talks about being dressed in ratty painting clothes and running into our Congressman at a gas station. The Congressman called him by name. Mispelling and mispronouncing names are offenses to one's dignity that are remembered.

/ahw (As someone who goes by first initial & middle name. See how many forms take that into account)

Posted by: Harry at March 14, 2003 08:55 AM

Perhaps something like another concerted google bomb offensive is in order, to get your research to the top of an "Iraqi sanctions" search.

Posted by: Moira at March 14, 2003 01:51 PM

Moira -- Thanks, but my point is as minor as can be, in many ways; Mead is usually a careful fellow, and his basic premise may well be spot-on. As for misspelling, I guarantee I have at least one name misspelled right now on this website.... I only pointed it out, because it was would have been pretty funny to link to something without pointing out that *both* names were screwed up...

Posted by: Matt Welch at March 14, 2003 04:34 PM

Moira -- Whoops! I get your point now. Thanks again ... remind me not to leave comments while hung over.

Posted by: Matt Welch at March 14, 2003 04:35 PM

Hey Matt -- in case you haven't caught it yet, Ramesh Punnuru and Goldberg are talking about you over at the Corner. To wit:

MEAD [Jonah Goldberg]

Ramesh: Welch makes perfectly legitimate points and I agree that the dead children number was always -- in all likelihood -- outrageously inflated. But let me offer a couple objections.

First, so what if UNICEF never used the word "containment"? Containment is a catchall for, among other things, the no-fly-zones, sanctions, the oil-for-food program etc. In fact, the word "containment" has only really come into wide usage in the last few months, from what I can tell, as anti-war types have discovered they can sound tough by adopting the formerly hawkish position viz a viz Iraq and the Soviets. As you well know, none of these people favored "containment" or sanctions prior to 9/11.

Second, when Welch headlines his piece "When the Hawks Co-Opt the Doves Bullsh*t Math" I think he and you miss the reason so many hawks liked Mead's piece. Or, not wanting to speak for my fellow raptors, why I liked the piece. Mead argues the case for war on the doves own terms, using the doves own "facts" and logic. Much like Jonathan Chait's excellent TNR piece making the liberal case for war, I enjoy it whenever conservatives win the argument on our terms and their terms.

Posted by: Robert Light at March 17, 2003 06:37 PM

Robert -- Yeah, I saw that. Goldberg's got a decent point about containment, and as I've made clear before, Mead's basic premise may very well be *right*.

Posted by: Matt Welch at March 17, 2003 06:50 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






may well be spot-on. As for misspelling, I guarantee I have at least one name misspelled right now on this website.... I only pointed it out, because it was would have been pretty funny to link to something without pointing out that *both* names were screwed up...

Posted by: Matt Welch at March 14, 2003 04:34 PM

Moira -- Whoops! I get your point now. Thanks again ... remind me not to leave comments while hung over.

Posted by: Matt Welch at March 14, 2003 04:35 PM

Hey Matt -- in case you haven't caught it yet, Ramesh Punnuru and Goldberg are talking about you over at the Corner. To wit:

MEAD [Jonah Goldberg]

Ramesh: Welch makes perfectly legitimate points and I agree that the dead children number was always -- in all likelihood -- outrageously inflated. But let me offer a couple objections.

First, so what if UNICEF never used the word "containment"? Containment is a catchall for, among other things, the no-fly-zones, sanctions, the oil-for-food program etc. In fact, the word "containment" has only really come into wide usage in the last few months, from what I can tell, as anti-war types have discovered they can sound tough by adopting the formerly hawkish position viz a viz Iraq and the Soviets. As you well know, none of these people favored "containment" or sanctions prior to 9/11.

Second, when Welch headlines his piece "When the Hawks Co-Opt the Doves Bullsh*t Math" I think he and you miss the reason so many hawks liked Mead's piece. Or, not wanting to speak for my fellow raptors, why I liked the piece. Mead argues the case for war on the doves own terms, using the doves own "facts" and logic. Much like Jonathan Chait's excellent TNR piece making the liberal case for war, I enjoy it whenever conservatives win the argument on our terms and their terms.

Posted by: Robert Light at March 17, 2003 06:37 PM

Robert -- Yeah, I saw that. Goldberg's got a decent point about containment, and as I've made clear before, Mead's basic premise may very well be *right*.

Posted by: Matt Welch at March 17, 2003 06:50 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?






= true; } else { document.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> /body> ent.comments_form.bakecookie[1].checked = true; } //--> /body>