Selective Nonsense

Andrew Sullivan on Charles Krauthammer:

Seriously: it was Krauthammer's buddy Daniel Pipes who wanted Ahmadinejad in power, like many other neocons. They wanted him in power so they could get a pretext for bombing the country. Mousavi would have been a far better interlocutor - and might, with Obama, have changed the dynamics of the region. The idea that Obama was not encouraged by an outpouring of support for reform - which he specifically called for in Cairo - is partisan nonsense.

Reading this, you might mistakenly believe that Sullivan and Krauthammer are policy rivals on the Iran issue. In truth, they are in the same camp: both exaggerate the upheaval in Iran, both think it should force Obama to reconsider rapprochement with the regime, and both gentlemen believe Ahmadinejad's presidency to be "illegitimate." (as if every previous Iranian president were somehow a reflection of democratic legitimacy.)

Go read Krauthammer's comments in full, and tell me they couldn't just as easily have come from The Daily Dish. Aside from Krauthammer's cynical assumptions about Obama's motives, their arguments are almost indistinguishable.

Both Sullivan and Krauthammer now agree that this regime is too evil, too authoritarian and too "illegitimate" to negotiate with -- at least for the foreseeable future. Both were outraged by the Gibbs gaffe.

In Krauthammer, you at least have a certain kind of clarity: don't negotiate, don't recognize, and bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. From Andrew, we learn that Mr. Mousavi - somewhat inexplicably - may have "changed the dynamics of the region," or at the very least would've made "a far better interlocutor" for President Obama.

Well that's certainly reassuring. It's a good thing the Islamic Republic never pursued nuclear weapons while supposedly reform-minded presidents were in office.

Oh, wait a minute...