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 review:

The U.S. ignores warnings of a parlous security situation in Benghazi. Nothing happens because nobody is really paying attention, especially in an election year, and because Libya is supposed to be a foreign-policy success. When something does happen, the administration’s concerns for the safety of Americans are subordinated to considerations of Libyan “sovereignty” and the need for “permission.” After the attack the administration blames a video, perhaps because it would be politically inconvenient to note that al Qaeda is far from defeated, and that we are no more popular under Mr. Obama than we were under George W. Bush. Denouncing the video also appeals to the administration’s reflexive habits of blaming America first. Once that story falls apart, it’s time to blame the intel munchkins and move on.

[end of Stephens excerpt]

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.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 02, 2012 09:50 AM | Send