19 October, 2004: Coming to a conclusion

[ Home page | Web log ]

Oliver Kamm, today, on Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy and other spokesmen of that party: (emphasis mine)

Their anti-war argument has coagulated into dogma, against which no amount of evidence can prevail.

Oliver Kamm, in April, on Chris Bertram's question of whether, `there is any development in Iraq that Hitchens wouldn't use as confirming evidence for his worldview and which wouldn't then be cited in this way by pro-war bloggers!': (emphasis mine)

Of course I speak only for myself. There is no development that would cause me to conclude I was wrong to support war. It's not that type of issue.

Lest pedants complain about this juxtaposition, I should point out that the discovery of new evidence does, of course, constitute a `development'.

(By the way, if you fear that my quotation is selected unfairly, read the rest of the piece, pausing if you like to chuckle at the statement that,

The reason it was so important that we invade Iraq and topple Saddam was -- just as Tony Blair said -- weapons of mass destruction: not because Saddam had them, but because he didn't have them (at least in the form in which they were strategically usable) and wanted them.

and consider Oliver's final points of conclusion:

  1. There is nothing that would alter my judgement that the war in Iraq was right.
  2. The supporters of war have a monopoly of morality on the subject. There is no reputable anti-war position.

`No development', indeed.)

Copyright (c) 2004 Chris Lightfoot; available under a Creative Commons License.