Michael Ledeen at NRO has just discovered that democracy (majority rule) and liberalism (individual rights and a non-sectarian state) sometimes conflict, as in Afghanistand and Iraq.
Ledeen somehow manages to tie the Bush Administration’s acquiesence in the establishment of theocracy to the political correctness of American history textbooks, but let that pass. He does stand up forsquare for liberalism, though of course he can’t call it that. That’s more than most of our editorial pages and elected officials have done.
Am I the only one who finds the very muted media coverage of this puzzling? And where are the warbloggers?
This may be a case where we wind up having to back off from some of our liberal commitments both for democratic reasons and in a bid to create some political stability. But if we have to do that, we should at least do it grudgingly.
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/013581.php
DUELING WESLEY CLARKS: Stephen Sachs does a side by side comparison of passages from two Clark statements on the war, and concludes: “Now, it’s possible that Clark’s position in these two pieces is consistent, just highly complex. . . . But I simply do…