- The Washington Times - Tuesday, April 25, 2006

As liberal bloggers go, Matt Yglesias is typically first-rate. David Frum recently pointed out that Yglesias, at 25, made a more trenchant case against attacking Iran than did “two former Clinton NSC Senior directors in the New York Times and the director of the European Studies Center at Oxford University in the pages of the Guardian.”

But in this side-by-side scenario, in which Yglesias compares the relative unpopularity of George W. Bush to that of Iran’s ruling clerics, it doesn’t quite do to say he mixes apples and oranges. We’re not even in the same food group here:

So now suppose that Iran somehow managed to launch a series of strikes at American nuclear facilities combined with special forces operations targeting major regime command-and-control centers. What’s going to happen? Will the people seize this opportunity to rise up against their unpopular government, taking control of government buildings in Washington, D.C., and the television networks in New York and LA? Will the Bush regime be reduced to a handful of “dead enders” hanging out in remote rural locations in the Mountain West and Deep South where it remains popular? Will the American people welcome their Iranian liberators?

This is surpassingly silly. No matter what the hysterical liberal-left likes to believe, Americans are not living in a theocracy; the reasons for President Bush’s popularity are many and varied, but they do not include sex slavery, public hangings or stonings.

If the Bush administration, say, conducted a purge of dissident intellectuals at Yglesias’ Harvard and decreed that all women wear burkas on the streets of Boston, then, yes, I suppose Americans might entertain the idea of foreign liberation.



Click to Read More

Click to Hide