What would they say about Gallipoli?

Christopher Hitchens is kinda for, Andrew Sullivan is against. They share one belief, they both think they're smarter than Bush. (Does Suvla Bay prove Churchill was an idiot?)

I've heard, "I tell you, war is hell!!" I've heard, "Every fighter has a plan until he gets hit." I've heard, "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy." Hitchens and Sullivan believe war is like farming. As Eisenhower quipt, "[it] looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil, and you're a thousand miles from the corn field."

Hitchens bristles at Bush's "near-impeachable irresponsibility in the matter of postwar planning in Iraq." Sullivan is vaporous at the "incompetent conduct of the war since the liberation," and horrified over "Abu Ghraib ... the moral integrity of the war was delivered an almost fatal blow." (Sullivan, have you heard of Hatra?)

Hitchens notes this is a "single-issue" election; however, Sullivan has a sop bucket full of 'em. Indeed, Sullivan finds these are "dour days" and lists all his issues -- and of course, Sullivan's "non-issue" of his sexuality was only mentioned once. (What a surprise?) In the end, Sullivan went with Paglia's "hope" argument.

Apparently, Occam's principle of parsimony doesn't apply when one must explain why they're voting for Kerry.