A Profoundly Evil Idea
It almost defies credulity that Jonathan Chait would use his LA Times column to advocate returning Saddam Hussein to power.
Doesn't he recall that this man is an enemy of this country -- someone who has sent troops into battle to kill Chait's fellow Americans? Does he have no recollection of Saddam's efforts to obtain WMD and nuclear weapons? Is he indifferent to the atrocities that Saddam has visited on his own people -- from the Kurds, to the women subjected to the rape rooms, to the people thrown to tigers and into paper shredders?
The implications of his proposal are staggering. So much for the Iraqis who have struggled for freedom for their own country. So much for the justice system that's found him guilty. You could kiss all those brave patriots goodbye if Chait's advice were taken.
Chait shows the craven impulse of someone who prefers order -- even that imposed by a totalitarian, murderous regime -- to the dangers and struggles that come with trying to establish a democracy where none has flourished before. It might be defensible (wrong, but defensible) if he reverted to the realpolitik impulses of yesteryear, advocating the establishment of pro-American strong man who would, at least, have a modicum of respect for basic human rights. But Chait's idea is at a whole new level of dishonor and cowardice. (Perhaps conservatives were right when they accuse liberals of hating George Bush more than Saddam Hussein.)
Let's not hear from Chait (or any other lefty who agreees with him on this) any more high-minded blather about the evils of Donald Rumsfeld having shaken hands with Saddam during the '80's. At least that's when Saddam was a key player in helping check even more pernicious forces. Now, he's one of the most pernicious forces on the planet . . . and Chait isn't seeking just a handshake -- he wants a full body embrace.
Doesn't he recall that this man is an enemy of this country -- someone who has sent troops into battle to kill Chait's fellow Americans? Does he have no recollection of Saddam's efforts to obtain WMD and nuclear weapons? Is he indifferent to the atrocities that Saddam has visited on his own people -- from the Kurds, to the women subjected to the rape rooms, to the people thrown to tigers and into paper shredders?
The implications of his proposal are staggering. So much for the Iraqis who have struggled for freedom for their own country. So much for the justice system that's found him guilty. You could kiss all those brave patriots goodbye if Chait's advice were taken.
Chait shows the craven impulse of someone who prefers order -- even that imposed by a totalitarian, murderous regime -- to the dangers and struggles that come with trying to establish a democracy where none has flourished before. It might be defensible (wrong, but defensible) if he reverted to the realpolitik impulses of yesteryear, advocating the establishment of pro-American strong man who would, at least, have a modicum of respect for basic human rights. But Chait's idea is at a whole new level of dishonor and cowardice. (Perhaps conservatives were right when they accuse liberals of hating George Bush more than Saddam Hussein.)
Let's not hear from Chait (or any other lefty who agreees with him on this) any more high-minded blather about the evils of Donald Rumsfeld having shaken hands with Saddam during the '80's. At least that's when Saddam was a key player in helping check even more pernicious forces. Now, he's one of the most pernicious forces on the planet . . . and Chait isn't seeking just a handshake -- he wants a full body embrace.
posted by LadybugUSA at 12:31 PM
2 Comments:
Intelligence, logic, reason, a sense of moral clarity. Apparently none of these qualities are required to have a column in certain newspapers in America.
That'd be like putting Stalin back in charge of Russia in the early 1990's.
Post a Comment
<< Home