Quote of note:
That right-wing ideologues peddle jingoistic nonsense about American exceptionalism is only to be expected. That the editor of a prominent liberal magazine should do so as well helps explain how we've managed to entangle our troops in yet another nightmarish guerrilla war.
Campos: Rose-colored view of history
June 6, 2006
This column was originally going to be about a couple of law professor-pundits, Hugh Hewitt and Glenn Reynolds, who specialize in defending the Bush administration. My learned colleagues are now busy claiming that the supposed "media frenzy" regarding the apparent massacre of civilians in Haditha, Iraq, is a product of liberal bias, rather than of a sense of professional obligation to report a major news story.
But in the end it's not very interesting to point out that Bush administration dead-enders are willing to defend anything it does. (Hewitt in particular seems past praying for: If President Bush came out in favor of compulsory late-term abortions for the wives of NASCAR drivers, I wouldn't be surprised if Hewitt found something to praise in the proposal).
What's more interesting are the following comments from Peter Beinart, editor in chief of The New Republic. After noting that Americans can be as barbaric as anyone, Beinart argues that "what makes us an exceptional nation with the capacity to lead and inspire the world is our very recognition of that fact." While it's true "we are capable of Hadithas and My Lais," America is nevertheless almost unique among nations because, when we confront such atrocities, we are "capable of acknowledging what happened, bringing the killers to justice, and instituting changes that make it less likely to happen again."
What's disturbing about this claim is that illustrates how a person in a position of considerable public influence can simply concoct an imaginary past to suit the propaganda needs of the present war.
Campos was quoting from Peter Beinart's piece that appeared last week at Arriana Huffington's blogsite. Beinart's pious and wrongheaded assertions were even rebuked, although on more specious grounds, by the Crown Prince of Neocondria, William Kristol. The entire text of the section below was lifted verbatim (emphases added) from today's New York Times online edition.
In a Weekly Standard editorial, William Kristol dissents from liberal hawk Peter Beinart, who wrote in a Huffington Post item last week that:
…Americans can be as barbaric as anyone. What’s [sic] makes us an exceptional nation with the capacity to lead and inspire the world is our very recognition of that fact. We are capable of Hadithas and My Lais, so is everyone. But few societies are capable of acknowledging what happened, bringing the killers to justice, and instituting changes that make it less likely to happen again. That’s how we show we are different from the jihadists.
Kristol objects:
What makes us exceptional is that we stand for liberty, and that we are willing to fight for liberty. We don’t need to “prove”” we are different from the jihadists by bringing our own soldiers, if they have done something wrong, to justice. Of course we must and will do this. But our doing this “proves” nothing. Even if there were ten Hadithas, we would still not have to “prove” that we are “different from the jihadists.” The idea would be offensive if it were not ludicrous.
If your three old child was shot to death by a U.S. Marine, what could Bill Kristol offer you to make you believe that the Marine who killed your child and a "jihadist" did not share the same values?