December 16, 2003

To clarify what I was saying...

* Update: Xavier in a comment to this post, added a link to a Russian blogger who argues against forcing Russia to forgive too much debt.

So I hasten to add that my post was not arguing for or against debt-forgiveness. What I was arguing against was the NYT's view that our contracts policy would hurt our negotiations. (What's really contemptible about their argument is that it's purely partisan. I'm sure the NYT's management starts its business negotiations from a position of almost-arrogant strength, even if they expect to make concessions later. That's normal. And they would just as happily criticize Bush for starting negotiations from a position of weakness. They are phonies! Hypocrites.)

There are many different sorts of debts involved, some much less odious than others. Mr Baker knows that. That's what the negotiations are all about. You guys watch. In the end, no one will get everything they wanted, but no one will get skinned, either. (Except maybe the French. Ha!)

The argument against toughness, to the extant that it isn't just pure hypocrisy, is part of the larger idiocy of our time, the idea that it's wrong for the US and its allies to fight to defend our civilization. And that somehow being unwilling to fight will bring us peace. Whereas now we find it's brought us war. And if we flinch from this war, we will get a bigger one down the line. Fortunately, or perhaps thanks to God, we have men of peace running the US and Britain and Australia, and many other countries in our coalition....

Posted by John Weidner at December 16, 2003 8:14 AM
Weblog by John Weidner