I’ve been reading articles and commentary for awhile on here, and I’ve just come to a conclusion. Most (not all) of the clever negative “progressive” commentary on here is essentially meaningless. An article is written, and the commenter accuses the writer of the article of hypocrisy. He (or she, I suppose) then makes a point that’s usually applicable to both sides, and simply acts as if it’s not applicable to theirs, ignores people who point this out, and continues to snipe at the writer and other, opposing commenters, without really making any serious points. It appears to be just for the entertainment value. There’s usually a smug “I’m so much smarter than you” aspect to the comments…after all, they voted for Obama, and he’s obviously much smarter than Bush, having found seven whole states in which to campaign, when the idiot Bush didn’t even know they existed.
So here we have moho accusing the Republicans of hypocrisy because, as I understand it, he thinks we shouldn’t be meddling in the affairs of other countries. Fair enough; in abstract, it’s a viable argument. In the real world, however, he has to explain why we’d be better off now, with the Taliban running things in Afghanistan (remember, that’s meddling too) and Saddam still in charge in Iraq. No cheating, and coming up with some not-even-sort-of-believable fantasy about Al Gore convincing Saddam to flee into exile peacefully, like I read some years ago, in a blog concocted by some other liberal fantasist. Real, serious thought should be put into this: explain how we’d be better off. Never mind the people in those countries; I know you don’t care about them…or are you going to try to argue that a dictator is better than a democracy, in a 3rd world country?
The other part of this, which you haven’t addressed, is the point that if Obama is going to keep his nose out of the rest of the world’s affairs, what’s he doing sticking it into the internal politics of Honduras? If he isn’t obligated to speak about Iran’s rigged election, and this gives him a pass so that he doesn’t have to condemn it, that’s fine…but why then is he speaking up when Honduras comes up? Remember to ignore the fact that Honduran authorities discovered computers which contained, on their hard drives, the results of the referendum Zelaya was going to hold in September on whether he should be allowed to perpetuate his rule indefinitely. And more importantly (and interestingly for me) will be your attempt to twist Conservative support for a *real* election in Iran (one where they count all the votes) and for Hondurans to use their constitution and courts to enforce their laws when the President tries to violate them…but of course when (as you believe, I’m sure; I don’t, but never mind) American conservatives rig an election, well *THAT’S* evil beyond belief!
So let me get this straight: Iranian mullahs rig election: GOOD Honduran dictator-wannabe rigs election (before it’s even held): GOOD Conservatives are wrongly accused of rigging an election: Off with their heads!
Have I got that right?
