Double Standards.
Andrew Sullivan has picked up on the hypocrisy of Peggy Noonan and her insistence that war crimes should be ignored:
"It’s hard for me to look at a great nation issuing these documents and sending them out to the world and thinking, ‘Oh, much good will come of that.’ Sometimes in life you want to keep walking… Some of life has to be mysterious." - Peggy Noonan, April 19, 2009.But that was not her attitude when the subject was blow jobs rather than war crimes:
"The Democrats had long labeled the impeachment debate a distraction from the urgent business of a great nation. But the Republicans argued that the pursuit of justice is the business of a great nation. In winning this point, they caught the falling flag, producing a triumph for the rule of law, a reassertion of the belief that no man is above it, and a rebuke for an arrogance that had grown imperial," - Peggy Noonan, December 21. 1998.So, people like Noonan are seriously arguing that one must "keep walking" past war crimes, as to look will do no-one any good, and yet she also argued that pinning Clinton down for lying about a blow job was, "a triumph for the rule of law" and "a reassertion of the belief that no man is above it."
Could that woman be any more bloody ridiculous? And why is it suddenly so terrible to uphold the rule of law? Why was it so important to prove that Clinton lied about a blow job and yet somehow in bad taste to convict the Bush regime for far more heinous crimes?
By what moral standard is that even possible?
Tags:
No comments:
Post a Comment