June 02, 2006
Besides assuming facts not in evidence - that Saddam was an impotent tyrant who would have fallen eventually under the weight of sanctions without military intervention, that he possessed nothing with which to threaten the West - Beinart ignores inconvenient facts.
He doesn't mention French and Russian perfidy in the Oil-For Food Program, doesn't even acknowledge that decades of hands-off diplomacy in the Middle East served only to entrench and further radicalize anti-Western regimes; regimes that controlled oil resources vital to the survival of Western civilization. The Soviet Union and its natural resources could have disappeared overnight and barely registered a blip on the American and European economies.
Beinart also errs in comparing a nineteenth century atheist ideology to the fervor of a primitivist, and rapidly growing, major religion.
Most significant of all, Beinart does not mention 9/11, an attack most certainly endorsed and cheered by Saddam Hussein and his ilk, if not actively supported. It is 9/11 that should inform Beinart that he is pursuing the wrong paradigm: we face another World War II, not a repeat of the Cold War.
Of course Beinart's claim to fame is a book whose premise is that only liberals can fight terror, proof enough of delusional thought patterns.
Originally posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto.
Posted by: Bluto at
10:27 AM
| Comments (5)
| Add Comment
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.
I can't see lil' Petee being even remotely serious.
The lib/left is just shotgunning trail balloons to see what sells to the public.
Oddly enough - a true containment policy/approach would be appealing to myself and many conservatives - I just can no way buy into the left's/Pete's "commitment and common sense". They have spend many years building a reputation - and they are stuck with it.
Posted by: hondo at June 02, 2006 11:20 AM (el7nZ)
Posted by: john ryan at June 02, 2006 11:31 AM (TcoRJ)
1. Ahmadinejad is crazy; or
2. That he actually has any power.
But I'm also uncertain that a no answer to either of those makes me feel any safer. If he's not really that powerful (which is probably the case, since he owes his position to the Mullahs) then I'm not too worried about what he says. But that also means I have to worry about the intentions of the religious theocracy. The left adopts this rosey view that the rhetoric is all for internal consumption, to distract the dissatisfied masses from their real grievances. But it could also inflame them, compelling him (or the Mullah bosses) to follow through on their rhetoric even if that's not their present intention.
The other possibility is that this is Iran's bid for leadership of radical Islamism, wresting it away from Al Qaeda. And that's not something that helps me sleep at night either.
So the bottom line is that it probably makes no difference whether Ahmadinejad or the Mullahs are crazy or foxy, because if it's the latter they could easily out-fox themselves leading to the same result. They may be assuming degrees of freedom they don't actually have. And what they see as a clever strategy might just be a suicide course.
Posted by: Demosophist at June 02, 2006 11:59 AM (Zcruy)
I agree that given their track record, muslims are just as likely to nuke each other as they are us. But do you trust the ayatollahs to keep a nuke out of the hands of muslim terrorists, and not to use those terrorists as secret proxies against us? I don't. If the ayatollahs get a nuke we will all be in grave danger, including other muslims.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at June 02, 2006 12:01 PM (8e/V4)
I can't believe Beinart actually used Cold Car Russia as an example. Cold War Russia and Iran couldn't be more different animals.
Demosophist said, "The left adopts this rosey view that the rhetoric is all for internal consumption,..."
The new Iranian nationalism being promoted by Mahmoud and the mullahs is designed to create a more cohesive citizenry by feeding them half-truths and lies about the outside world's intentions while concealing their own intentions and the left is unconcerned because they're only oppressing their own people. It's none of our business. It's not our problem."
Posted by: Oyster at June 03, 2006 06:37 AM (YudAC)
34 queries taking 0.0464 seconds, 160 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
