Mike Kinsley pulls off the astonishing feat of trying to tackle how president Bush went from being an anti-nation-building realist to a liberal internationalist in a few years without mentioning a certain incident that occurred, oh, say nine months or so into his presidency. Memo to Mike: some terorists attacked U.S. soil on September 11, 2001. 3,000 people or so were killed. It made a teensy little difference to U.S. foreign policy. Kinsley’s gaffe, however, is revealing about certain strands in some liberals’ thought these days. For them, 9/11 changed nothing important; it meant relatively little; it was a distraction from more important issues like Enron, as Paul Krugman opined, during the height of the Raines madness. These people don’t just have blinders on; they’ve attached them with super-glue. (On another very simple point: when Kinsley states that the war against Saddam “was sold to the country on totally non-Wilsonian grounds,” he knows that’s untrue, right? I refer to the New York Times editorial I cite below praising Bush for doing exactly that last February:
“President Bush sketched an expansive vision last night [at his American Enterprise Institute speech] of what he expects to accomplish by a war in Iraq. Instead of focusing on eliminating weapons of mass destruction, or reducing the threat of terror to the United States, Mr. Bush talked about establishing a ‘free and peaceful Iraq’ that would serve as a ‘dramatic and inspiring example’ to the entire Arab and Muslim world, provide a stabilizing influence in the Middle East and even help end the Arab-Israeli conflict. The idea of turning Iraq into a model democracy in the Arab world is one some members of the administration have been discussing for a long time.”
You could argue that this wasn’t the main thrust of Bush’s argument; but the notion that it played no role in the administration’s case is verifiably untrue.)
The Dish 