Ah! So that’s ok then,
Well, objectively (and it’s Orwell’s original usage), I am pro-Kim Jong-Il,
There is something vaguely ironic about quoting Orwell to justify the creative redefinition of a commonly used word like “pro”.
As for my later comments about opponents of the Iraq war being “objectively pro-Saddam,” that seems to me to be indisputable.
Sullivan wants us to believe that the conservatives who have lately been criticising the war in Iraq - like George Will - are making principled, reasoned arguments but that anyone who spoke up three and a half years ago was a closet Saddam supporter.
Does that make all the people who prefer a diplomatic solution to the problems in Iran - like Bush and Sullivan himself - pro-Ahmadinejad ?
He and I got off on the wrong foot with his involvement in the Clinton impeachment but Linsey Graham has been nothing but marvellous since he joined the senate. Definitely my favourite senator.
What I’m trying to do with my time in the Senate during this whole debate we’re having is to remind the Senate that the rules we set up speak more about us than it does the enemy. The enemy has no rules. They don’t give people trials, they summarily execute them and they’re brutal, inhuman creatures. But when we capture one of them, what we do is about us, not about them. Do they deserve, the bad ones, all the rights that are afforded? No. But are we required to do it because of what we believe? Yes,
Barbara Boxer is way up there too but many are likely to disagree for narrow partisan reasons.
