Open Letter To Robert Kagan
Open Letter To Robert Kagan
Dear Mr. Kagan,
First, let me just express sympathy for your situation. These last years have been extraordinarily unkind to your grand theories about the transformative potential of American explosives. President Bush’s “global war on terror,” the invasion of Iraq, his so-called “freedom agenda,” turned out to be a real carnival of bad ideas, for which you were a key intellectual barker. It’s hard out here for a neocon.
But I have to say, Mr. Kagan, your op-ed this morning is really beneath you. You can’t actually believe that President Obama is “siding with the Iranian regime” against the Iranian people, or that Obama’s outreach to Iran depends upon keeping hardliners in power, can you? You’re far too intelligent to buy the brutishly simplistic “realism” that you attempt to hang upon President Obama’s approach. These sorts of claims are better left to your friend and occasional co-author Bill Kristol, who uses his series of valuable journalistic perches (with which he inexplicably continues to be gifted) to launch an endless stream of comically transparent bad faith arguments. You’re better than that. You’re the smart neocon.
Aren’t you? While it’s nice that you recognize that “it’s not that Obama preferred a victory by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad” — though that was the stated preference of a number of your fellow neoconservatives — your claim that President Obama’s “strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of” Ahmadinejad is the kind of thing I thought we had left back in 2003, when opponents of the Iraq invasion (that is, the people who turned out to be right) were tarred as being “objectively pro-Saddam.” It doesn’t smell any better six years later.
You state that President Obama’s “goal must be to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it. And that, by and large, is what he has been doing.” How then to explain his State Department reaching out to Twitter and asking them to delay their scheduled maintenance, in order to allow the continued use of this technology that has proven so important to enabling communication within and out of Iran? That one gesture neatly encapsulates, I think, the difference between Bush and Obama on “democracy promotion.” Bush believed in America bringing the gift of freedom to the people of the world. Obama believes in practical steps to put the tools of freedom in the hands of the people themselves, and then creating the space for people to use those tools.
Just to be clear, most of us who “railed against the Bush administration’s ‘freedom agenda’” did so not out of any hostility toward freedom or democracy, but out of the belief, now completely vindicated, that strong, stirring words in favor of democracy mattered little if the policies behind them were counterproductive to the actual cause of democracy, as Bush’s policies were. By backing pro-democracy rhetoric with American war and occupation, President Bush and his conservative supporters cast the cause of freedom and democracy into disrepute, from which it must now be rescued and reclaimed by more responsible hands.
Very best,
Matt
38 Responses to “Open Letter To Robert Kagan”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Wonk RoomContact Us
Donate
Excellent. I was blown away by the stupidity of Kagan’s op ed – thank you for calling him out. Are these people not embarassed by themselves?
June 17th, 2009 at 12:41 pmNicely done, Matt. Kudos.
Regards, Steve
June 17th, 2009 at 1:00 pmThank you, Mr. Duss, for putting my suspicions and objections so succintly and clearly into words. Very nicely done.
June 17th, 2009 at 1:21 pmBravo Matt!
I am glad I can read your clear-headed rebuttal and succinct, spot-on analysis after reading Kagan’s disturbingly slanted article.
It just seems incredible to me that men like Kagan actually believe what they write. It makes me feel like they have an open agenda to malign President Obama regardless of logical argument or any valid reasoning — it all seems so purposeless and hateful.
Thanks again for your insight.
Frank57
June 17th, 2009 at 1:27 pmExcellent take-down! Will we see a response, or will the tough-guy shy away from your comments?!
June 17th, 2009 at 2:19 pmI’m sorry, but there is no neutral stance in this. A subdued reaction sends a message just like a condemnation does. Obama is hedging his bets so that he can negotiate with the Iranian regime no matter who wins, even if it’s understood by the entire world that an Ahmadinejad-led Iranian Government is nothing more than a fraud.
Lest we forget, our level of condemnation is behind that of Europe. We will not even use the word “condemn,” not even for the violence committed against the protesters. Instead Obama has “concern.” This is mild language and does not send the official message that America stands for the Iranian people or for the political legitimacy of Iran.
What is it all for? The truth is that this supposedly prudent restraint has won us nothing. We now have a fresh report that Iran is accusing the United States of “meddling” anyway.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090617/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election
I ask again: what is it all for? At what point does Obama lend rhetorical support on the side of justice?
Once more: a non-response is, in and of itself, a response.
June 17th, 2009 at 2:48 pmNeocon (or just plain Con) here. Came here from Andrew’s site.
I have actually been willing to believe that Obama is playing a smart game, saying little, and being nuanced when he does speak, in order to avoid the trap of “the great satan is for Mousavi”.
But it’s also at least POSSIBLE that Kagan is right.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:10 pmIt’s also POSSIBLE that unicorns are real.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:37 pm“Lest we forget, our level of condemnation is behind that of Europe. We will not even use the word “condemn,” not even for the violence committed against the protesters. Instead Obama has “concern.” This is mild language and does not send the official message that America stands for the Iranian people or for the political legitimacy of Iran.”
You neocons just don’t get it, do you? Obama cannot come out and strongly support the pro-Mousavi people because doing so would completely and utterly destroy this burgeoning revolution. Khamenei would be able to credibly label them as American stooges and their movement would be shorn of any credibility with the broader Iranian public.
The reason you neocon wankers don’t get this is because you refuse to open your eyes and see just how repudiated and detested this country has become over the last eight years, due almost entirely to your willingless to bomb & strafe your way the middle east in the name of “freedom”. If Bush hadn’t implemented your disastrous policies, he would’ve left his successor in a much better position to consider openly supporting the pro-Mousavi demonstrators. But because of the calamitous mismanagement of American power and blatant contempt for anything that even remotely resembled diplomacy, you have rendered this country so reviled, so loathed, so hated that the strongest move Obama can make in service of the Green Revolution is to keep largely silent. You pathetic, intellectual vacuous assholes have done more damage to American interests and power than Bin Laden & Khamenei could ever have dreamed—but here you are in the Washington Post and in this comment section straining once more to be taken seriously. Incredible.
Just kill yourselves already.
June 17th, 2009 at 3:42 pmNo, but really, it’s not. What evidence is there that the President would prefer to deal with Ahmadinejad? Why in the world are we meant to believe that engagement with a Mousavi government would be any less successful than the (as yet un-begun) opening to the current government?
Kagan writes as if the President has put all his eggs in the Ahmadinejad basket when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. There isn’t a single sensible reason to believe that the current policy of the administration — prudent, thoughtful patience, accompanied by a pragmatic acceptance of the fact that we’ll need to deal with whatever governmet emerges from this turmoil — isn’t the best option available to us.
What I’d like to understand from the Kagans of the world: what is to be gained by vocal support for the opposition at this stage? (I mean, other than just making all of us feel a bit better.)
June 17th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
dragnet is right. especially the suicide part, which will save many lives.
June 17th, 2009 at 4:49 pmWould America have expressed delight and support if Iran had’ve butted in with opinions on the hung 2000 election in the US? No. So why would America be supported for doing so with Iran now?
Kagan is a racist who looks down on “the little brown people” like the “Israel Firster” colonialist that he is. Once one understands that, all his twists and turns seem logical in that context.
June 17th, 2009 at 4:57 pmThanks. Very well said.
June 17th, 2009 at 4:59 pmDragnet, you’ve only proven yourself the fool with your asinine “please kill yourself” insult. So much for comment moderation at this blog, by the way!
You ask me to open my eyes and go off on a tirade about how we can’t let the protesters be called “American stooges,” and yet you conveniently ignore the link I posted–the Iranian regime is already trying to claim this! Your point has been proven moot.
Incidentally, is France now a “Neocon” country since it has issued stronger statements about this?
You talk about how we’ve become hated in the last 8 years before exploding about how terrible Bush is. Iran has been anti-American for at least 30 years. For that matter, the “meddling” Obama doesn’t want to repeat is a reference to the direct hand we had in the 1953 coup. Read some history, won’t you?
Finally, you’re sadly married to your childish talking points about how I’m a “Neocon” who just wants to bomb Iran into oblivion. I never said anything of the sort in my post. All I’m asking for is that we show solidarity with the right side here.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:37 pmA neutral stance does not have a neutral impact in Iran because of who the US is.
If you don’t understand that, shut up. You’re wasting space.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:39 pmJesus, Todd, you had to go and get stupid all over the thread. Wipe, please.
Proof that this is the official line from Iran that we must not play into. Your “point” has been proven ignorant.
No, because neocons are not a political faction in France. What you seem to miss, overall, is that different countries are different. Sad, but true.
History? How about the success the reformers were having in 1997 and 2001 until that idiot Bush played right into the hand of the hardliners?
What’s happening now is a return to the status quo that obtained before the great screwup, and it’s tearing apart the elite consensus that had adapted to Mr. Moral Clarity’s ignorant adventure. And you’d like to set the clock back six years just so you can feel good about moral posturing, without a single thought to the consequences!
What the hardliners need is more idiots like you to commit more idiocies like Bush’s.
And that would be the kiss of death for those most amenable to the US, in other words counterproductive.
Kagan was dishonest. You’re just plain ignorant.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:47 pm“the Iranian regime is already trying to claim this! Your point has been proven moot.”
*sigh* Are you really this clueless? Do you actually want Obama to *prove the Iranian pro-government thugs correct*? Because that is what you are, quite stupidly, calling for him to do.
“Incidentally, is France now a “Neocon” country since it has issued stronger statements about this?”
No, because France haven’t completely discredited themselves by waging an illegal war of choice against a country that hadn’t attacked them. In fact, they explicitly declared that it was wrong for us to do that, a position that has been proven correct. They’re in a good position to issue stronger statements. The US isn’t.
“All I’m asking for is that we show solidarity with the right side here.”
Which we can’t do because: first, they don’t want us to; second, we’d help the wrong side if we did. Get a clue. This isn’t about us. The correct side will take care of this themselves without America messing everything up like we have been doing for the past 8 years. Thank goodness Obama understands that, despite people like you.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:56 pmand yet you conveniently ignore the link I posted–the Iranian regime is already trying to claim this! Your point has been proven moot.
Todd,
I don’t want to get into the heated part of your debate, but I would like to point out that I think your link actually cuts against your argument.
Presume President Obama’s concern is to avoid allowing the Iranian regime to scapegoat the US as being behind the protests. The fact that Iran is still trying this argument despite the US’s clear and unambiguous refusal to become bellicose on the issue, now effectively betrays the regime to those Iranians who might otherwise be very willing to believe that the US is evil.
And that, I think, is the point. Rather than meaningless bluster (truly meaningless: do you think people getting their heads beaten in are waiting for US words of support? Obviously not), Obama’s thoughtful approach might actually help the protesters.
Imagine that.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:14 pmMatt –
The Iranian regime calls the shots. It kills its own. It tracks down dissenters who have fled other countries and kills them there.
So we’re back to battered partner syndrome. Placing a group of people who will kill to remain in power on equal footing with people want to have a peaceful power change through the ballot box (without killing) is siding with the Regime. Just as leaving a person in a home with a partner beaten to pulp is siding with the abuser under the guise of ‘being fair’.
The Regime has already arrested students for the crime of not wanting the Regime. How many Iranian student groups can you name have the money and resources to infiltrate the Council of Guardians and the Basji as the Guardians and Basji have the money and resources to infiltrate the student groups?
How many Iranian trade unions have access to the ballot boxes and can actually count the ballots? None, only the Regime.
How many Iranian middle class couples own prisons in which their enemies can be detained? None, Evin Prison is a tool of the Regime housing both detention and torture.
How many journalists are empowered to act as their own censor and publish what they see/hear/think as they see fit without the Regime’s blessing? None.
I have never understood the saying 50:50, one horse:one rabbit. And upon reading your article, I still don’t.
Don’t understand how a citizen in a country with free elections can shit on Iraq after holding its first free election since the Baathist coup, thanks to American explosives, either. But mindless snark is your First Amendment right and I stand with you against anyone who would take it away, despite laughing at your mindlessness.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:27 pmThey don’t want us to say anything? How do you know that, exactly?
Your mistake is that you think that what we do or say has anything to do with what the current regime will do or say for the sake of keeping its power and trying to declare the opposition illegitimate. That’s demonstrably not the case. They are already fully engaged in censorship, information control, and propaganda in whatever way they can do it. These are people that will say anything that they think is to their advantage.
I’m also astonished that you think even making a statement would “prove the Iranian pro-government thugs correct.” To whom? Not to you or anyone else here, I hope. This started completely without us. Most of Iran knows just what is going on here. That’s how this whole thing got started.
Look, what you’re saying isn’t crazy. On Saturday or Sunday, it may have been correct to be careful about rhetoric. But the ship has arguably sailed now. I’m not arguing for war. I am saying that there is a point where it’s appropriate for the U.S. to not even appear to be continuing to offer legitimacy to the current Iranian regime. I fear that the longer this goes on, the more it will look like Obama is doing just that with his restraint. And at the least, that doesn’t do anything to encourage the peaceful resistance over there.
But apparently most people here would rather insult me than try to consider that the situation has changed and is changing even now. Serves me right for trying to say anything serious and fair in a blog’s comments section, now I know how it is. So fine, I’ll leave you haters to your echo chamber and you can go on attacking your caricatures.
Just one thing to think about, though. Tiananmen Square did not just “take care of itself,” did it? Be careful with what you assume to be true.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:52 pmTianamen square and the Iran…….NO comparison………think things through for once and stop repeating CON rhetoric…….
June 17th, 2009 at 7:07 pmKagan’s indictment gets it wrong primarily because he assumes the outcome of the anti-government protests, if successful, will be democracy and no nukes. Well, Kagan has no idea what the outcome of all this will be. Nobody does. Ahmadinejad could very well be the president of Iran when all is said and done. Or, maybe a recount happens and Mousavi becomes president. Or, maybe Rafsanjani gets enough support in the Assembly of Experts to remove the Supreme Leader. Or, maybe the Iranian public brings down its government and establishes a whole new one. Maybe that new government is a democracy, maybe its not, maybe its friendly to the US, maybe it’s not. Any one of these things and a dozen others could happen. We simply cannot know. So, to say the President isn’t doing anything because his realism demands he support the Iranian regime is not true. The President isn’t doing anything for two reasons. The first is that he actually understands that the US has meddled in Iran before and it always turned out bad. The second is that the President’s realism requires information. The President is going to have to deal with whatever regime is in power in Iran and he does not know who is in power. The realist approach to this situation is to take a step back, let the mess sort itself out, and deal with the consequences, not to rush headlong into support of anyone without the necessary information.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:14 pmyour commentary is a fine example of what sucks about the internet: any two-bit fat fuk with an opinion can set himself up as commentator and a lot of stupid people believe that anything you have to say might actually be relevant or meaningful. go back to selling used cars or whatever it is people of your “stature” did before blogging got hip…
June 17th, 2009 at 7:47 pmtodd,
You ask “They don’t want us to say anything? How do you know that, exactly?”. Please point me to any public statement from Mousavi or his spokespeople requesting support from the U.S. president. And pointing out that Mousavi hasn’t not called on the U.S. to speak out about the Iranian elections doesn’t count.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:22 pmPicture Birmingham, Alabama in 1963 or Selma, Alabama in 1965. The Civil Rights Movement is growing rapidly in strength, gaining increasing levels of sympathy from blacks and whites alike as their nonviolent methods are repeatedly met with violence and repression (which the public consumes daily through newspaper photos and clips on the evening news). Meanwhile, opponents to the movement (led by J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI) are trying to discredit Civil Rights leaders by painting them as communist stooges. Now, imagine [okay, this is a slight stretch, but bear with me anyway] that Nikita Khrushchev or Leonid Brezhnev had spoken out in favor of the Civil Rights protesters. Who would this have benefited most?
Yes, it is certainly true that this might turn out like Tiananmen Square in 1989, but to assume that America has any power to effect POSITIVELY the outcome of the current movement in the streets is to underestimate vastly the level of anti-Americanism in the region. There is one lesson that we never seem to be able to learn about the Middle East (and 1953 was a classic example of this). All that foreign interference accomplishes is to reinforce the idea that the Middle East (once seat of the vast, powerful, hugely influential Ottoman Empire) must now play second fiddle to the West. If reform in Iran is to succeed, the Iranians must seize it for themselves. Any other path to reform provides the reactionaries with a wedge.
Yes, it is certainly true that this might turn out like Tiananmen Square in 1989, but it sure as heck feels a lot more like East Berlin in 1989. Except in that case, America was still the City on a Hill that could inspire the revolution. We had not spent the previous 8 years squandering our moral authority in the world (or, in this case, the previous 60 years squandering our moral authority in the region.)
June 17th, 2009 at 8:56 pmBut apparently most people here would rather insult me than try to consider that the situation has changed and is changing even now. Serves me right for trying to say anything serious and fair in a blog’s comments section, now I know how it is. So fine, I’ll leave you haters to your echo chamber and you can go on attacking your caricatures.
Passive and aggressive! How novel. Anyway, the case you laid out is nonsensical. Amping up the bellicosity does what, exactly, for the students? Builds morale? Moreover, it’s entirely possible and probable that the person who stands to benefit from this hypothetical and rhetorical pony speech (since you don’t want war) is a guy who, like the other guy, was in the Iranian Revolution in the first place. In other words, Mousouvi might not want our “help”, even if all that we could offer was a sternly-worded letter!
I understand your frustration. I remember Tienemen Square, but I also remember the Shiite Uprising in Gulf War I, when Bush’s empty exhortations to rise up against Saddam got thousands of people killed.
Ask yourself this: Is it about you? And since it’s not, ask what it IS about.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:12 pmAdriane,
What, exactly, should Obama do?
Todd,
I think the significant history that Matt, despite an excellent rebuttal, did not refer to is Obama being the first POTUS to acknowledge – in Cairo no less- America’s stupid interference in Iran’s fledgling democracy of 1953.
There’s Obama’s rub in how much to do and not to do. Which is where Matt’s comment,
really hits the nail. Tools, not guns or other violent means.
I was wondering if Americans wanted to individually donate money to people who may be losing income due to the protests, so they can keep eating, whether the Iranian government could stop the deposits.
After a 56 year detour on Iran’s path to democracy,thanks to us, may Obama find the right path to help this time.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:37 pmIt’s very simple, yet for the simpleton, quite complex.
Kagan is a Neocon. Neocon’s are extremist. Game Theory teaches us that extremist on both sides will cooperate to undermine the moderates on both sides.
See, Univ. of Michigan Economist Robert Axelrod’s seminal work: “The Evolution of Cooperation” which simply and clearly explains Game Theory concepts.
Neocons need fearful arch enemies. Iran has been the faithful arch enemy of Israel and the United States. Suddenly, if a moderate Iran emerges, the Neocons reason to be evaporates, and their whole approach is completely undermined.
Here’s the Neocon nightmare that has suddenly emerged in just the last few weeks: Obama achieves through talk and diplomacy everything they attempted to achieve through war.
A month ago this was impossible to imagine. Then Obama gives a speech in Cairo, offering an open hand provided it’s not met by a closed fist. Then Lebanon votes pro-West. Then Israeli start walking back from the single state solution. Now the Iranian people are demonstrating in mass numbers against the policies of isolation.
Imagine the nightmares guys like Kagan are having at night. If, however, they can cajole Obama into siding with the protesters, then the regime can claim that the protesters are aiding American imperialism, giving them cover to squelch the protesters. Thank you Nicholi Machiavelli.
I’m not sure who’s more evil, the Islamist extremist in the Iranian government, or Kagan and his band of Neocons. Oh that’s right – they are the same thing: two sides of the same extremist coin. Here Kagan is trying to help the extremist by posing as being for the moderates.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:47 pmadriane and todd in particular seem to be completely clueless about iran’s history over the last 30, much less the last 100 years. you both apparently accept the picture of iran drawn for you over the last 8 years in particular and the last 30 years in general by the chickenhawks.
the only thing the neocons and their friends are interested in with regard to iran is the country’s oil.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:09 pmIt seems that all Republicans care about anymore is cheerleader rah-rah bullshit.
We might be doing 500 covert things to aid the reformist “side” in Iran right now. I don’t know and neither does Kagan nor any of you.
The Twitter thing was an absolute masterstroke, and it seems like we are doing a number of things behind the scenes from a tech support angle. This is actual meaningful action.
But unless the right wingers see Mousavi pompoms on the hands of the President, they’re mad.
I miss having a sensible, realist Republican party made up of post-adolescents. I am sure I can remember such a thing existing.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:38 pm“Lest we forget, our level of condemnation is behind that of Europe. We will not even use the word “condemn,” not even for the violence committed against the protesters. Instead Obama has “concern.”
A context is needed here. Barely a year ago, thousands of reform seekers in Kenya who demonstrated against an incumbent, a USA ally, who stole their victory were slaughtered by the police and para-military units.
USA’s Condo Rice soon declared ( !) that there would be NO re-count (and most of the disputed ballots soon disappeared) and NO re-run of the elections (and in the middle of the night, his cronies furtively swore our man in for another term as the ‘president’.)
The strident, democracy-peddling neo-cons in USA who had been so critical of the challenger were not bothered. No ‘condemnation’ and no ‘concern’ expressed.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:08 amYou can’t actually believe that President Obama is “siding with the Iranian regime” against the Iranian people, “
Yes BHO can (appear to) do that.
How then to explain his State Department reaching out to Twitter and asking them to delay their scheduled maintenance, in order to allow the continued use of this technology that has proven so important to enabling communication within and out of Iran?
Yes Barrack H. Obama can (appear to) do that too.
Incredulously, we are beginning to appreciate who we voted into the presidency: Barrack can give soaring rhetoric in Cairo denouncing violence that kills innocent villagers – even as he dispatches troops, warplanes and drones that unleash violence that kills innocent villagers in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:25 amMr Duss, well said a great rebuttal, thank you
June 18th, 2009 at 5:40 amTim Kane,
Sir your reply is well thought out and articulated and for my money it’s absolutely correct. No need to add more as you have said it all.
Thanks
June 18th, 2009 at 6:05 amI have a hard time believing that anyone is listening to Packer, Kagan, Sullivan, etc. on these issues. These are people who have, in my opinion, completely abandoned their right to be heard in issues of democracy promotion, since their solution is clearly the old “to do something (usually violent or threatening) without thinking about it is always better than to do nothing and wait to see what happens.” This whole attitude that we can a.) somehow solve this problem and b.) need to DO IT RIGHT THIS VERY SECOND OR ELSE EVERYTHING WILL BE LOST is stupid and counterproductive. I thank God every day we finally have a president who doesn’t think with his nutsack and knows how to practice a little self-discipline. This mindless “we must act now” inclination is the worst sort of American hubris; we’re going to HAVE to deal with whoever wins out in this thing, so why can’t we just wait and see what happens? Of course we all hope the protesters challenge the regime and establish a more peaceful, representative form of governance in Iran. But they might not. Or, if they do, things might not be that different. Either way, prudence is the best policy.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:24 amKagan’s lunatic op-ed is further evidence that the opposite of conservatism is not liberalism. It is radicalism. Edmund Burke, the “father of conservatism” and scourage of radicals everywhere would be appalled by the “conservative” company would be forced to keep if he was alive today and lumped together with the likes of people like Kagan. Why is it that Burke was a strong supporter of the American Revolution yet one of loudest voices against the superficially very similar “democratic” revolution that erupted a few years later in France? Because the American Revolution was “natural” — the logical conclusion of the way Americans were actually living — and the French version was “artificial,” driven almost entirely by stirring rhetoric and abstract ideology. It was hard for Burke to confront the French Revolution on the basis of its announced intentions and values — the Rights of Man, liberty, equality, fraternity and all of that. But Burke was no stand-patter. He famously said that a society which lacks the ability to change lacks also the ability to conserve itself. But, there was no contesting Burkes insights that societies must evolve according to their own natural time-table, and that it is disastrous to force the issue. This “conservatiave” insight explains why the American Revolution produced a Republic and a Constitution and the French produced a Terror and a Napoleonic Empire. It’s a lesson that our “conservative” president seems to understand instinctively even if radical ideologues who go by the name of conservative don’t.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:33 amI would really like to hear from Fox News executives to explain why they had routinely hired Oliver North as commentator for so many years.
Lest we forget – and we should NEVER forget – conservative spokesman Oliver North was convicted by a jury of his peers for selling weapons to Iranian terrorists, who used them to kill civilians in the Gulf.
And, as a conservative bonus, using the funds from this illegal transfer to oppose the democratic movement in Nicaragua.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:26 amYou give Kagan too much credit, Matt.
My letter would have been a bit more economical, while preserving the gist of what Kagan needs to hear.
Dear Mr. Kagan,
STFU.
Sincerely yours,
June 18th, 2009 at 1:19 pm