Sunday, March 27, 2011

"Isn't it a little alarming ... that fundamental constitutional principles can just fall by the wayside, and just nobody does anything about it ...?"

Robert Wright, who strongly opposed President Bush's invasion of Iraq, starts out by giving a hedged defense of President Obama's invasion of Libya (he sees it as "dicey" but justified and likely to succeed soon). However, he becomes disturbed once my mom, Ann Althouse, explains how constitutionally suspect Obama's actions have been. That's when he makes the statement I've put in the heading of this post:

The constitutional part of their discussion starts at 11:45.

(The Libyan city Wright at first can't remember the name of is Benghazi.)


Jason (the commenter) said...

I found it hypocritical of Wright to downplay the threats against Althouse and Meade (he didn't consider being "fucked up" serious) but exagerate Kadaffi's position (no mercy for armed rebels was interpereted as attacking civilians).

He's so full of double standards, how can anyone trust his interpretation of anything?