One of the more disgusting tendencies of the Left during the Cold War was their unwillingness to pass judgments on the relative moral standings of the two protagonists. This moral equivalency usually manifested itself it statements excusing the actions of the Soviet Union because the Untied States wasn't perfect.
"Sure, they have prison labor camps, but we lock up a disproportionate percentage of minorities in our jails, so how can you really say that we're better than them?"
It's nice to see that the more things change, the more they stay the same as evidenced by this column in today's Seattle Post-Intelligencer by Robert L. Jamieson Jr. criticizing Mike McGavick's suggestion that Iran be barred from this year's World Cup:
Iran has no such repugnant policy. It has not implemented any diabolical plans, unless you count its push to become a nuclear power like the United States, China and other members of that club.
Admittedly, Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has invoked language that is tough, defiant and downright ugly at times.
Sure, he questioned whether the Holocaust ever happened and has talked about the end of Israel (and of history for that matter), but is he really any worse than you know who?
That just puts him in good company.
In many parts of the world, President Bush doesn't exactly come across as a honeyed voice of reason, either.
On the one hand you have the president of Iran and on the other the president of the United States. Who are we to judge?
No comments:
Post a Comment