(Note to literalists: the Watched column presently contains only a smattering of 'warblogs' because the facilitator of the template-change--Dr. Menlo--is not very familiar with them, and will be adding more as they are sent to him. Also, this blog may contain areas of allusion, satire, subtext, context and possibly even a dash of the surreal: wannabe lit-crits beware.)
Control
[Watch this space for: Pentagon and Petroleum, The Media is only as Liberal as the Corporations Who Own Them, Wash Down With, and Recalcify]
WARBLOGGER WATCH
Thursday, September 12, 2002
GETTING TO YES OR NO
Professor Dershowitz Joins the Warbloggers
Alan Dershowitz is in the papers again, this time in Canada's National Post, with an essay, "Is an Attack on Iraq Justified?"
Credit goes to the Post's headline writers for their dead-on deck: "In this exclusive essay, lawyer Alan Dershowitz examines the legality of pre-emptive strikes against rogue states."
And that, indeed, he does, but aside from a few hints that yes, or maybe, the U.S. probably has the right to preemptively strike Iraq, the question lies unanswered.
In fact, the entire essay builds up to this concluding sentence, which, "Jeopardy"-like, actually takes the form of a question:
"The real question is, would it be worse to err on the side of action that turns out to be unnecessary, or of inaction that exposes us to preventable devastation?"
Well, which is it, professor?
Perhaps Dershowitz is hoping to prod the Post into paying for a follow-up essay. posted by The Rittenhouse Review6:46 PM
The Watchers
WBW: Keeping track of the war exhortations of the warbloggers.