First it was Glenn Beck admitting the left had been correct to oppose Bush's Iraq war. Not because of any failures of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the merry gang of miscreants, mind you. No, of course not. But because of Beck's racist view that Iraqis just naturally hate freedom:
In spite of the things I felt at the time when we went into war, liberals said, ‘We shouldn’t get involved, we shouldn’t nation-build’ and [that] there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free...You cannot force democracy on the Iraqis or anybody else, it doesn’t work. They don’t understand it or even really want it.Did the left condemn Glenn Beck's transparent attempt to shift responsibility for the US Iraq fiasco from Bush to the supposedly ungrateful, weak, and freedom-hating Iraqis? Far too many welcomed the words of Beck, our surprising new ally.
But will those making nice to Glenn Beck be also willing to throw the welcome mat out for neocon and famous Saddam-9/11-WMD propagandist, Jeffrey Goldberg?
Because Jeffrey has come a-knockin'. And he's peddling partition, Iraqi ISIS civil war as a good thing, praise for Obama's Iraq restraint, and total disinterest in the future of Iraq -- or the Middle East at large.
Have Glenn Beck and Jeffrey Goldberg turned progressive? Or should progressives think twice before aligning themselves with the ideas of such figures?
