Conservative hypocrites—the latest in a continuing series
Bret Stephens writes in today’s (October 2) Wall Street Journal:
[W]hat happened in Benghazi was not a failure of intelligence. It was a failure of policy, stemming from a flawed worldview and the political needs of an election season.Let’s repeat that: “… the administration blames a video, perhaps because it would be politically inconvenient to note that … we are no more popular under Mr. Obama than we were under George W. Bush.”
Well now hold on. Why, amidst his otherwise valid criticisms of Obama, is Stephens turning our Libyan intervention into an invidious popularity contest between Bush and Obama? Didn’t Stephens and all the rest of the neoconservative and GOP democracy promoters support Obama’s help to the rebels, and, indeed, urged him to carry it out faster and more aggressively than he actually did? Didn’t the neocons and Republicans, just like the administration, expect that the U.S. overthrow of Kaddafi would make us more popular in Libya? So why is Stephens now claiming that that expectation was delusory and, indeed, merely partisan?
Answer: he is trying to suggest, without actually saying so (because if he actually said so he would obviously be lying) that he was against Obama’s intervention in Libya. But of course he wasn’t against it. He, like all the Muslim-democracy promoters, was strongly for it.
Bret Stephens: another conservative hypocrite.
Note that I don’t call him a “despicable” hypocrite, as I have some other conservatives, since the hypocrisy and dishonesty in this article are not as gross as in others I’ve seen, e.g. this and this. I’m a fair man.