Mr. Greenwald, et. al.

In the interest of full disclosure I am a moderate that posts on occasion at Sister Toldjah’s blog, and I frequent others. I pride myself in being a pain to both political affiliations. While I admittedly lean to the conservative side (for logical reasons) I am a considered to be a socially moderate to left.

It would seem to me the failing here by most regarding the topic is to objectively examine what was said.

So, the accusation is of an ad hominem attack was made by Mr. Greenwald on this passage:

“Just the other day, warmonger Michael Rubin of AEI…”

The definitions of “ad hominem”, as provided by Sister Toldjah in post 15 is from a reliable source, so it is satisfactory.

Next, we must examine the deinition of “warmonger”. Per dictionary.com, there are several definitions:

1: a person who advocates, endorses, or tries to precipitate war.

2: One who advocates or attempts to stir up war.

3: a person who advocates war or warlike policies

4: a person who advocates war or warlike policies

If by using the utmost lenient definition, a warmonger could be viewed as anyone who isn’t a strict pacifist, as they would be “endorsing war”. As an example, anyone who would believe World War II of the American Revolutionary war was justified would be considered a warmonger in the strictest sense.

This is not acceptable as it is not only impracticable, as there are by a wide degree of consensus “justifiable war”. Unless Mr Greenwald is a pacifist (which is indeed a possibility) I would have to conclude this was not his intended use of the moniker.

Let me propose that Mr. Greenwald’s implication was that Mr. rubin, as a matter of policy, advocates war. this was generalized in post 3:

“(a) characterizing someone based on the arguments being criticized (i..e, “he is an extremist warmonger because the positions I’m criticizing are examples of extremist warmongering”)”

This would place the burden of proof on Mr. Greenwald’s to prove the accusation that Mr. Rubin is a warmonger.

So, I did some research on Mr. Rubin. I encountered a July 2007 article called “Don’t Blink, Don’t Back Down”. In it, Mr. Rubin states:

“Rather than fund outside groups, Washington should invest in a template for change. No one knew ahead of time the Chinese student who stopped a line of tanks; the important thing was he had the space to emerge. U.S. policy should create such space. Independent labor would make the regime more accountable to its people. Unions could force the regime to invest in schools, not centrifuges. Independent media and communications could let a real civil society to emerge. This takes money. Those denouncing U.S. funding are not the imprisoned student and labor activists, but reformists loyal to theocracy, and gullible pundits. Tehran’s crackdown on dissent predates U.S. support for civil society. And the Iranian overreaction shows both its vulnerability and the efficacy of U.S. pressure.”

Mr. Rubin seems to advocate a policy of internal change in Iran via promoting internal political pressure.

My conclusion is that Mr. Rubin does NOT warrant the label”warmonger”,.

More over I would submit that Mr. Greenwald did not do his proper research regarding Mr. Rubin before making his accusation, and thus it was an ad hominem attack or at the very least, unsubstantiated.

The more important point here folks is regarding the strident language that is used by both side of these issues, as Mr. Greenwald seemed to use in this case. Not many folks that support the Iraqi War are “warmongers” no more than those that do not are “progressive communist”.

I would submit to everyone involved that individuals who support War in Iraq is not to be haphazardly labeled “warmonger”. War is an aberrant manifestation upon the facade of the virtues of mankind.