TWO NEOCONS, ONE MESSAGE, ONE PAGE…. The Washington Post editorial page does it again. This morning, it publishes two separate columns from two separate neocons, both making the same (bogus) argument about the same issue on the same page.
First we have Charles Krauthammer who’s convinced that President Obama is “afraid to take sides between the head-breaking, women-shackling exporters of terror [in Iran] — and the people in the street yearning to breathe free.”
Millions of Iranians take to the streets to defy a theocratic dictatorship that, among its other finer qualities, is a self-declared enemy of America and the tolerance and liberties it represents. The demonstrators are fighting on their own, but they await just a word that America is on their side.
And what do they hear from the president of the United States? Silence.
Sharing the page is Paul Wolfowitz, who offers similar criticism with similar language.
President Obama’s first response to the protests in Iran was silence, followed by a cautious, almost neutral stance designed to avoid “meddling” in Iranian affairs…. Now is not the time for the president to dig in to a neutral posture.
Wolfowitz goes on to compare the Iranian presidential election in 2009 to “Reagan’s initially neutral response to the crisis following the Philippine election of 1986, and of George H.W. Bush’s initially neutral response to the attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991.” Wolfowitz’s claims don’t stand up well to scrutiny, but then again, his claims rarely do.
The liberal media strikes again.
Update: Jacob Heilbrunn has more on the errors of fact and judgment in the Wolfowitz/Krauthammer criticism.
Second Update: I’m also glad to see Joe Klein weigh in. Klein seems to hate neocons more with each passing day.