I have tremendous admiration for Abu Aardvark and his blog is a daily (or near-daily) read for me. But sometimes rhetorical constructs are so strained that they just call out for criticism. Here’s something from the Aardvark’s most recent post:
There’s a lot of talk these days about a possible confrontation between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States. Leaving aside the admittedly big question of nuclear weapons for a moment, it’s pretty easy to see the reasons for concern.
I don’t object to the post as a whole. But there’s an old expression about “the dog in the manger” and it certainly applies here.
Let’s try out some comparable constructions for size:
“Leaving aside that it would kill you, wouldn’t jumping off the Empire State Building be great? Think of the view!”
“Leaving aside that it’s a terrible diet, why not eat nothing but ice cream?”
“Leaving aside the cold, why not wear a bathing suit in the snow?”
The reason that there’s a lot of talk these days about a confrontation between the Islamic Republic and the United States is Iran’s nuclear development program. Leaving aside that, the Aardvark would have had no post.
