|
Tuesday, November 05, 2002
Regime change?Salman Rushdie makes "a liberal argument for regime change" in Baghdad, and CounterRevolutionary treats it as some kind of anomaly.
I have my agreements and disagreements with both Rushdie and CounterRevolutionary, but just to clarify: A liberal argument for toppling Saddam is what you get at Radio Free Mike. We're not "conservative" around here. We're liberal in the classical sense, and just because we think toppling Saddam is a good idea doesn't mean we trust President Bush and his people to do it well. They might, but we're skeptical. Republicans have a laughable track record with wars in the American Interest, from Nixon (who made a Democratic disaster in Vietnam even worse) to Reagan in Nicaragua and Afghanistan, to Bush Sr. in Panama, right up to the nasty contradictions of the first Gulf War. From September 11 on we took it for granted at Radio Free Mike that American liberals could support action against Saddam while being clear-headed about their own leadership, and we didn't need to wait all this time for Mr. Rushdie to clue us in.
posted by Michael Scott Moore |
9:11 PM
| 
