November 9, 2005

O those annoying liberal professors

Michael Herman joins the herd of critics that would keep all liberal sentiments off the lips of professors. Problem is, some liberal sentiments may be factual statements or even professional opinions.

He complains that Ned Lebow, in a panel discussion on "The Future of U.S. Intelligence and National Security," (which Malchow confuses with the torture debate--telling, isn't it?) politicized the debate by saying, "What they have committed is not an intelligence failure but a fundamentally criminal act." Some doofus probably on Bush's payroll said in reply, "I can remember a time at Dartmouth when college professors -- government professors -- didn't make political speeches."

I can remember a time when a professional opinion wasn't always a political speech. Ned Lebow is not only one of the best scholars in the Govy department, he is also probably one of the most informed professors in America on US intelligence, and he just may have been speaking as an expert, stating not a politicized fear but what may indeed prove to be true--that the administration purposely falsified or accepted evidence understood to be falsified and peddled it to the American people to further its agenda. This isn't politically driven criticism, it's analysis.

And speaking of politicized fear-mongering, check out the quote at the end of the D article: "While America is now the world's only superpower, there is no certainty that this will be an American century as the last one surely was," [John] McLaughlin said. That is an attempt at a scare tactic--a prophecy and not an analysis.

Point is, just because there are political implications to a statement doesn't make it a political tirade. Get over yourselves, people. Sometimes there are such things as objective facts or objective claims, even in politics.

No comments:

Post a Comment