http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/08/opinion/08brooks.html?hp
Wow. If conservative talk radio isn't lauding the springtime
thaw in NYT ideology today based on this column, well, the paper
just can't get a fair shake.
Is Brooks suggesting that its good policy to lie about the
need to invade a non-aggressive (formerly supported) country
and have 1,500 soldiers die on one's watch, if you succeed
in bringing democracy there? Strikes me that you've thrown
some of the 'good form of government' baby out with the
'means-of-getting-there' bathwater, here. Call me crazy.
Brooks ends his piece by noting that change is burbling
(burbling? like, don't you mean exurburling?) in Beirut,
suggesting, perhaps, that here, too, Wolfowitz has been
successful in encouraging the Lebanese people to abandon
tribalism and throw off the yoke of oppressive Syrian influence
and embrace a certain nationalistic pride founded in democracy.
In a 1st Amendment display in the publishing of disparate viewpoints
which borders on the surreal, the same paper runs a column
by a guy named Bob Herbert who suggested, recently, that the
US practice of sending suspected non-citizen terror suspects to Syria
to be tortured might be slightly undemocratic:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60812F93C590C768EDDAB0894DD404482&incamp=archive:search
The best thing about being the world's only Superpower is that you
can really have it both ways. I'm deeply saddened, naturally, that my
kids might have to cede this noble privilege to the Chinese.
Caution: do not let this man marry your daughter or guest lecture to your Intro. Government course
No comments:
Post a Comment