Cuba and reality
I love Mary Anastasia O'Grady as much as anyone, because she is 100% Nutter Butter (no offense to Nabisco). But when she calls Fidel Castro a threat to global security, I am happy to let someone else refute her rationally, so read Steven Taylor. He links to Jeffrey Goldberg's response, and who sums up nicely that O'Grady's column "is almost pathological in its disregard for reality."
Is a tiny bit of sanity too much to ask for? The answer courtesy of the Wall Street Journal is a resounding "no."
5 comments:
Agreed, but assuming she's harmless is a mistake and namecalling doesn't paper over that. There are plenty more peanuts in her jar and some of them wield real power, so all they need is her as a standard bearer to promote some pretty dangerous 70s think and drag us back to the 'for or against us' (that enough metaphor mixing y'all?)
She's a nutcase, but so what? Look who she is attacking!
If in 1978 someone had written that Pinochet's regime was a threat to world peace it would have been crazy too. But it would have been for a noble cause.
Same here. Castro is worse than Pinochet in almost every quantifiable aspect (years as a dictator, people displaced or affected, economic results) so attacking Castro, even with crazy arguments, is not too bad.
so attacking Castro, even with crazy arguments, is not too bad.
Yes, because clearly the most effective way to criticize Cstro is for his critics to appear unhinged. /snark>
Mr Weeks appears more offended by Mary O'Grady than the brutal dictator who has spent 50 years destroying the Cuban people.
Post a Comment