Is he serious? How did this happen?
He writes:
So once again the bombs are bursting on CNN. But why? We’re getting terribly familiar with this routine, and even complacent about it. Obama wasn’t even in this country when the bombing started. He was in Brazil—about as far out of it, politically as well as geographically, as you can get. The bombing started Saturday afternoon, and on Monday morning the Washington Post editorial and op-ed pages contained not a single word about it. How are we supposed to know what to think?C'mon Mr. Kinsley, "Complacent" is the gear you liberals shift into when one of your own is in the White House. If we happen to elect a Republican president next time around, I'm quite confident you'll find "Drive" again, even "Over-Drive".
And then there was this part which had me asking once again, "Is he serious?"
"Was there nothing we could have done between sitting on our hands and launching something close to all-out war? Sure there is. It’s what we did for eastern Europe that helped bring victory in the Cold War: verbal support and financial support for dissidents and democrats. Make clear which side we’re on—but without overpromising, as in Hungary, 1957. It sounds like the opposite of “speak softly and carry a big stick,” and in a way, it is. But it worked to defeat Communism, and our track record with bigger ambitions in smaller situations has not been impressive.Correct me, but weren't you one of those back during the Cold War who thought history was on the side of the Commies? Who thought the best we could do was reach some sort of an accommodation with them? Peaceful coexistence, that sort of thing? Who argued that language such as "Evil Empire" was reckless and unnecessarily provocative?
Forgive me if I don't take seriously either Michael Kinsley's feigned surprise or his hypocritical policy alternatives, nor, for that matter, those of any other liberals who might try to follow suit.
No comments:
Post a Comment