Surprising op-ed published in NY Times yesterday - immediately caught ones attention because it argued in favour of American military intervention to stop Iran's nuclear program - which pretty much goes against everything the Times wants to stand for and thus the surprise - the logic of the argument itself not a surprise since is something I myself have defended [not supported understand, defended - I personally don't know what's the right move viz Iran - but feel confident in saying that ruling out the US military means one has not seriously considered the nasty scenarios that could arise if Iran gets the bomb - there is no 'right' answer on Iran, it's rather a problem of figuring out the least bad of the few options available - but even I guess that's not true since there's no way Obama's using the military in Iran - so his choice right or wrong is made - Israel on the other hand...].
So, surprising enough by the Times that liberals everywhere immediately jumped up crying foul of their beloved Grey Lady and expressing aghast wonderment - no level of vigilance is apparently enough if such war mongering conservative bile can seep into the hallowed chambers of liberal enlightenment.
And that's what struck me about their whelping - enlightenment - all their arguments against even considering the possible merits of a military intervention by the US are based on the belief that the folly of such an enterprise would be obvious to a truly enlightened soul and therefore as truly enlightened souls they perforce must reject it - they're absolutely predetermined by sentiment to oppose the offending premise no matter what and therefore cannot, will not be convinced otherwise.
Suppose this is hardly an earth shaking observation on my part - still, it's troubling how much putatively 'objective' political discourse is tainted in this way.
