Wonderful op-ed piece in the New York Times yesterday. Nicholas Kristof. The thrust of the article seemed to be that any kind of attack on Iran to prevent it’s use of nuclear weapons, halt the production of nuclear weapons, etc. would be a tremendous error in judgment for the U.S. and/or Israel (with U.S. support, of course). Fair enough, you may say. But Kristof goes on to give his main reason for taking no action against Iran: It’s government is unstable. The Iranian people hate the government. And if we just leave it all alone, it will go away because, well, that government is going to get overthrown anyway. There will be a revolution, you see. And then everything will be okay and there will be no skin of our noses!
This should sound patently ridiculous, borderline insane to anyone with half a brain and a lick of common sense.
Let me see if I have this correct. I should NOT call the police on the guy stockpiling weapons across the street. I know he’s doing it. It’s not a secret. He WANTS to use the weapons to kill people. He’s as much as broadcast it to the neighborhood. But! He PROBABLY cannot afford that house because he is not working and the Home Owner’s Association is PROBABLY going to boot his ass and he’ll PROBABLY have to move pretty soon. So. It’ll all work itself out and I won’t have to do ANYTHING!
That about right?
See. This is why I equate liberalism with brain damage. How can anyone think this way? Head trauma? Acid flashback? Too much caffeine? Too much Katie Couric? Help me out here. I must be missing something. Does this make sense to anyone?
The op-ed reminded me of the last time this kind of wrong-headedness sent me into hysterics. It was a piece by Thomas Freidman. In it, he expressed his strong opinion that increased - and, in his view, unnecessary - security at United States embassies around the world was giving the U.S. a bad reputation, causing it to be viewed more negatively by the local citizenry. This kind of security, he said, puts American distrust of “foreigners” on full display. He went on to tell a story: He was at a concert in London when a young Arab man approached him. He lamented the increased security of some U.S. embassy somewhere in the Middle East. Security was too tight, he said. Anti-aircraft guns on the roof. Sandbags around the perimeter. What kind of message does that send? Freidman agreed. So much so that he wrote an article about it.
Alas, this one tidbit stuck out. Kind of caught my attention. The young Arab male shared this thought with dear Thomas. “A friend of mine wanted to bomb the embassy but security was so tight he couldn’t get near the place.”
I’ll say it again.