Gimme that ol' time DLC religion
Another week, another goofy story from TNR. Granted, Martin Peretz has been doing some of their worst writing for the last year or so, but this article is truly mystifying. Here's the opening sentence, which lets you know right off the bat that we aren't going to be dealing with logic or facts:
"If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others."
The article celebrates the current GOP for spreading Democracy and liberalism in the Middle East. It berates liberals for allegedly wanting disaster in the region (no specific examples, naturally). It comes within a hairsbreadth of blaming Clinton for 9/11. It applauds this administration for realizing "that fighting the Muslim terrorist international could not be done in a vacuum." (Gotta love that international cooperation, huh?)
Consider that the lone secular government in the Middle East is on the brink of becoming another repressive Islamic state (if it manages to avoid civil war, that is). Consider that the Bush's are still in bed with the House of Saud, in spite of their funding for terrorism and implicit support of fanatical Islam. Consider that the United States faces increasing opposition around the world and faces strained relationships with our strongest allies (the Ukraine is the latest country to withdraw support from the "Coalition"). Consider that the administration still backs Pervez Mushariff's rule in Pakistan in spite of his history of support for terrorist groups-- and that the admin has recently decided to sell him F-16 fighter jets, thereby alienating India (which happens to be the world's largest democracy).
Here's the clincher: "Some liberals appear to have understood that history is moving swiftly and in a good direction, and that history has no time for their old and mistaken suspicion of American power in the service of American values."
Wha?!? Maybe Peretz should explain why stopping genocide in Darfur isn't an American value, while unilaterally invading a nation and justifying it by lying to the public serves American values. No one wants to see societal collapse in the Middle East, and Peretz deserves a bitchslap for even suggesting it. But why aren't I entitled to my criticism of the administration for the way it's conducted the wars in Iraq and Afhanistan? Is it really "churlish" to demand more accountability from our government when so many lives and so much tax money is going toward the cause? And finally, can't TNR find enough to write about without parroting hysterical right-wing talking points? Or at least limit opinion pieces to the editorial pages?
"If George W. Bush were to discover a cure for cancer, his critics would denounce him for having done it unilaterally, without adequate consultation, with a crude disregard for the sensibilities of others."
The article celebrates the current GOP for spreading Democracy and liberalism in the Middle East. It berates liberals for allegedly wanting disaster in the region (no specific examples, naturally). It comes within a hairsbreadth of blaming Clinton for 9/11. It applauds this administration for realizing "that fighting the Muslim terrorist international could not be done in a vacuum." (Gotta love that international cooperation, huh?)
Consider that the lone secular government in the Middle East is on the brink of becoming another repressive Islamic state (if it manages to avoid civil war, that is). Consider that the Bush's are still in bed with the House of Saud, in spite of their funding for terrorism and implicit support of fanatical Islam. Consider that the United States faces increasing opposition around the world and faces strained relationships with our strongest allies (the Ukraine is the latest country to withdraw support from the "Coalition"). Consider that the administration still backs Pervez Mushariff's rule in Pakistan in spite of his history of support for terrorist groups-- and that the admin has recently decided to sell him F-16 fighter jets, thereby alienating India (which happens to be the world's largest democracy).
Here's the clincher: "Some liberals appear to have understood that history is moving swiftly and in a good direction, and that history has no time for their old and mistaken suspicion of American power in the service of American values."
Wha?!? Maybe Peretz should explain why stopping genocide in Darfur isn't an American value, while unilaterally invading a nation and justifying it by lying to the public serves American values. No one wants to see societal collapse in the Middle East, and Peretz deserves a bitchslap for even suggesting it. But why aren't I entitled to my criticism of the administration for the way it's conducted the wars in Iraq and Afhanistan? Is it really "churlish" to demand more accountability from our government when so many lives and so much tax money is going toward the cause? And finally, can't TNR find enough to write about without parroting hysterical right-wing talking points? Or at least limit opinion pieces to the editorial pages?
posted by Matt Sandwich | 3:31 PM
<< Home