Thursday, April 15, 2004
...or they might win. And we can't have that. It just doesn't work in the primaries - just ask Joe Leiberman. Nevertheless, I agree with Roger L. Simon's take - this is good stuff by a Democrat who gets it. While I found the anti-Bush portions annoying as well since I support the man, I didn't mind it as much as usual in this piece. After all, that's what an opposition party is supposed to be about, and if you want to oppose Bush on the War on Terror, this is the way. Support an aggressive war, but convince me that you can do it better.
The New York Times > Opinion > Op-Ed Contributor: Will the Opposition Lead? by Paul Berman
Some people argue that anti-totalitarian revolutions can never be brought about from outside. The history of World War II says otherwise. Some people respond with the observation that Germany, Italy and Japan are nothing like the Muslim world. In Afghanistan, the American-led invasion has nonetheless brought about an anti-totalitarian revolution. A pretty feeble revolution, true — but even feeble progress suggests large possibilities.
The whole point in overthrowing Saddam Hussein, from my perspective, was to achieve those large possibilities right in the center of the Muslim world, where the ripples might lead in every direction. Iraq was a logical place to begin because, for a dozen years, the Baathists had been shooting at American and British planes, and inciting paranoia and hatred against the United States, and encouraging the idea that attacks can successfully be launched against American targets, and giving that idea some extra oomph with the bluff about fearsome weapons. The Baathists, in short, contributed their bit to the atmosphere that led to Sept. 11. Yet Iraq could also boast of liberal democrats and some admirable achievements in the Kurdish north, which meant there were people to support, and not just to oppose. Such were the hopes...