On the question of whether to engage a regime such as Syria’s, last discussed here:
There is world of difference between the kind of engagement Barack Obama has recommended, or that Nancy Pelosi undertook in April, and the deplorable toadying of Dennis Kucinich as seen in this video interview. The congressman’s hometown paper tears him a new one here (and the Plain Dealer, mind you, is neither pro-war nor anti-engagement).
Speaking on Syrian state television, to a government mouthpiece doing her best impression of a journalist, Kucinich rues the image of America in the world (rightly). But at the same time he lavishes praise on Syria’s dynastic dictator. This is all too typical of “peace” advocates, now and in decades past, vehemently opposed to their own government’s policies but curiously uncritical of police states abroad.
A revealing segment:
Interviewer: So does George Bush actually not see himself as having failed in Iraq? Does he think that he has done something right?
Dennis Kucinich: I would expect that he probably believes that he’s doing the right thing.
Interviewer: So he would continue using the same rhetoric in Lebanon as well – this is with Syria in mind.
Dennis Kucinich: I think that’s probably true. […]
Note how the “interviewer” tries to change the subject, coaching Kucinich into giving Syria a clean bill of health on its shady Lebanon policies. Kucinich doesn’t quite take the bait — following the ellipsis he continues talking about Iraq. But in dodging the question (quite like an establishment politician, I might add), Kucinich reveals exactly what he’s leaving out of his rosy report on “His Excellency,” President Assad.
Kucinich’s credibility on foreign policy can now be declared nonexistent. His conduct is disgraceful not because it is “unpatriotic” or “anti-American,” but because it’s a betrayal of true liberal principles — a betrayal of people like Samir Kassir, the Lebanese journalist murdered in June 2005, very likely by operatives of the oh-so-peaceful Syrian regime.
Comments are closed.