When supporters of war change their minds

Re “Logic isn’t flip-flopping,” Opinion, Dec. 4

The dilemma in Jonathan Chait’s analysis is that it needs analysis at all. It took columnist Max Boot one line to say that Democrats had flip-flopped on the war. Chait needed his entire column to explain that it is not flip-flopping when the information surrounding the war had changed.

The current rules of debate have taken on the attention-span limitations of a cocktail party. A simple rule of thumb is that you must get in your response in less time than it would take for Sean Hannity to interrupt you.

The fact is, if people truly wanted a real understanding of a matter, talk radio would be out of business. People no longer want information as much as they want to be on the winning side, for feeling right is more important than being right.

Many people think the more simple the argument, even if the issue isn’t, the more easy it is to win the debate -- a debate that is no debate at all.

STEVE YOUNG

Chatsworth

*

Chait mischaracterizes why most Iraq hawks supported the war, and therefore accuses them of flip-flopping to a “new” rationale when weapons of mass destruction were not found.

In truth, Iraq hawks supported the invasion to prevent Saddam Hussein from using weapons of mass destruction, which he was reasonably presumed to possess. Only after the invasion does the world know with certainty that Hussein will never again use (or collaborate to use) WMD. The peace of mind we now enjoy is the benefit we derived thanks to the courage of President Bush.

CHRIS SCIBELLI

Los Angeles