Then and now

From today’s Boston Globe, here’s an excerpt from an article titled “A President on the right side of history”:

At the time, Bush’s "Saddam-bashing" and "bellicose" rhetoric, as it was branded in the press, elicited widespread disapproval from the pundits. Malcolm Toon, former US Ambassador, deplored "the awful ‘you’re either with us or the terrorists’ speech." Then-New Republic editor Hendrik Hertzberg told The Washington Post that "words like that frighten the American public and antagonize Al-Qaeda," condemning the speech as "not presidential." "Primitive: that is the only word for it," sniffed then-New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis. "What is the world to think when the greatest of powers is led by a man who applies to the most difficult human problem a simplistic theology . . . ?"

Whoops...that’s my slightly re-worded version. Here’s how the same paragraph originally appeared:

At the time, Reagan's "red-baiting" and "bellicose" rhetoric, as it was branded in the press, elicited widespread disapproval from the pundits. Malcolm Toon, US Ambassador in Moscow from 1976 to 1979, deplored "the awful `evil empire' speech." Then-New Republic editor Hendrik Hertzberg told The Washington Post that "words like that frighten the American public and antagonize the Soviets," condemning the speech as "not presidential." "Primitive: that is the only word for it," sniffed then-New York Times columnist Anthony Lewis. "What is the world to think when the greatest of powers is led by a man who applies to the most difficult human problem a simplistic theology . . . ?"

If Reagan and Bush represent “simplicity,” then give me simplicity over Kerry’s nuance, Clinton’s equivocation, and Carter’s fecklessness.

Bonus: Little Green Footballs contrasts communism with Islamofascism.