Two responses from liberals to Lebanon developments
How are the liberals responding to the fast-moving developments in Lebanon, not to mention Egypt and Iraq?
It seems as though they have two basic responses.
#1: Bush deserves no credit.
It just happened on his watch, that’s all. This is the same thing they said when Libya cried uncle and agreed to voluntarily give up their weapons program. In that instance, it was the years of sanctions that did it, not the Bush Doctrine, Afghanistan or Iraq.
Ed Kilgore writing on Talking Points Memo shows us the way,
Now I am aware the State Department made the appropriate noises, as its#2 Disgust that good things are happening on George Bush’s watch. Retired blogger Andrew Sullivan has an example,
predecessors would have done, after the Hariri assassination, about Syrian
dominance of Lebanon, and I also know the Bush administration has been
generally hostile towards the Syrian government, as has been U.S. policy for
as long as I can remember. But it literally never crossed my mind that
Bush's fans would credit him with for this positive event, as though his
pro-democracy speeches exercise some sort of rhetorical enchantment.
I had lunch today with a friend - a really smart, knowledgeable, accomplished
guy, who also happens to be very liberal and is active in state Democratic
politics. I mentioned to him that Lebanon's government had just fallen. You
would have thought I told him his dog had died. He chewed his sandwich slowly,
thought for a while, and finally said, "You know, Assad's a bastard, but he was
right when he said the problems in Iraq are the fault of America, not
There wasn't any happiness that Lebanon is marching toward freedom.
This kind of sulky non-sequitur, to me, exemplifies well why the Democratic
Party cannot be trusted right now with our national security.
That sums it up nicely.
For those actually excited by these developments,
Dean Esmay: We see you, we hear you
Michael Leeden: Freedom, our most lethal weapon against tyranny