Mr. Charles Krauthammer recently wrote an opinion piece in Time magazine called "Three Cheers for the Bush Doctrine", another in a long line of jumping-the-gun cheerleading for neoconservatism.
The entire article is here.
To take a chunk from the piece:
Jon Stewart, the sage of Comedy Central, is one of the few to be honest about it. "What if Bush ... has been right about this all along? I feel like my world view will not sustain itself and I may ... implode." Daniel Schorr, another critic of the Bush foreign policy, ventured, a bit more grudgingly, that Bush "may have had it right."
Right on what? That America, using power harnessed to democratic ideals, could begin a transformation of the Arab world from endless tyranny and intolerance to decent governance and democratization. Two years ago, shortly before the invasion of Iraq, I argued in these pages that forcefully deposing Saddam Hussein was, more than anything, about America "coming ashore" to effect a "pan-Arab reformation"--a dangerous, "risky and, yes, arrogant" but necessary attempt to change the very culture of the Middle East, to open its doors to democracy and modernity.
The Administration went ahead with this great project knowing it would be hostage to history. History has begun to speak. Elections in Afghanistan, a historic first. Elections in Iraq, a historic first. Free Palestinian elections producing a moderate leadership, two historic firsts. Municipal elections in Saudi Arabia, men only, but still a first. In Egypt, demonstrations for democracy--unheard of in decades--prompting the dictator to announce free contested presidential elections, a historic first.
This kind of non sequitur logic is not only ridiculous, it's in itself a dangerous path to follow. That, and it makes me sad that Time would even publish it.
I recently wrote a letter to the editors with this to say:
Dear Editors,
This is regarding Charles Krauthammer's piece "Three cheers for the Bush doctrine". Please don't let Krauthammer write any more opinion pieces until he can remember events that happened more than 3 months ago. Besides one quote from a warlord, he fails to connect the war in Iraq to the decades-old push between Syria and Lebanon. Bush failed to lend any support to those in Beirut besides a few speeches.
He also fails to note that Bush's "liberation" rhetoric and more importantly, our actions, conviently leave out some of our close allies in the "War on Terror" in the past 4 years. There's Saudi Arabia (where only men can vote), there's also Algeria, Tunisia, Jordan, Pakistan, Yemen and Uzbekistan; all with very undemocratic governments.
What will Bush do when there's a revolution in Riyadh? My guess is nothing.
I got this back from the letters editor in response within an hour:
Dear Reader:
Thank you for writing. We welcome timely, insightful reactions to material
we have published, and we can assure you that your observations found an
attentive audience among the editors. Should your comments be selected for
the column, you will be notified in advance of publication. Again, our
thanks for letting us hear from you. We hope that you will write again
should you discover something of particular interest in the news or in our
reporting of it.
Best wishes.
TIME Letters
Now I know that this is a form letter and the "attentive audience" remark is probably given to everyone, but it still cracked me up thinking that my email was circulating around with everyone at Time going "Who's this little shit think he his?!"
If it gets printed, I'll let everyone know.