Thursday, March 30, 2006
CONTRADICTED BY THE SOURCE
If you happen to recall the front page carryings on in the Independent and elsewhere several weeks ago about Francis Fukuyama's "conversion" , this March 28 piece by the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer is well worth your time:
UPDATE: Next, Fukuyama responds:
An explanation that obviously clears things up. Anyway, shortly to follow perhaps, urrr, Lincoln's -- sorry, I mean Krauthammer's -- rejoinder. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 30, 2006
If you happen to recall the front page carryings on in the Independent and elsewhere several weeks ago about Francis Fukuyama's "conversion" , this March 28 piece by the Washington Post's Charles Krauthammer is well worth your time:
It was, as the hero tells it, his Road to Damascus moment. There he is, in a hall of 1,500 people he has long considered to be his allies, hearing the speaker treat the Iraq War, nearing the end of its first year, as "a virtually unqualified success." He gasps as the audience enthusiastically applauds. Aghast to discover himself in a sea of comrades so deluded by ideology as to have lost touch with reality, he decides he can no longer be one of them...
...I happen to know something about this story, as I was the speaker whose 2004 Irving Kristol lecture to the American Enterprise Institute Fukuyama has now brought to prominence. I can therefore testify that Fukuyama's claim that I attributed "virtually unqualified success'' to the war is a fabrication...
...I happen to know something about this story, as I was the speaker whose 2004 Irving Kristol lecture to the American Enterprise Institute Fukuyama has now brought to prominence. I can therefore testify that Fukuyama's claim that I attributed "virtually unqualified success'' to the war is a fabrication...
_____________________________
UPDATE: Next, Fukuyama responds:
I never said his speech was about Iraq; it was about US foreign policy and it treated the US exercise of power in Iraq and elsewhere as a success...
An explanation that obviously clears things up. Anyway, shortly to follow perhaps, urrr, Lincoln's -- sorry, I mean Krauthammer's -- rejoinder. ¶ by Robert, Thursday, March 30, 2006
