Instapundit: In defense of defending racism

Professer Reynolds, in the midst of one of several apologias for a Michelle Malkin doorstop defending explicitly, undeniably racist internment policies, claims that some photoshop satires of the book are “frankly racist.” Take a look for yourself. Which one is racist? The answer is, of course, that not a single one could be remotely plausibly described as racist. (Unlike, say, strongly supporting a policy putting people in concentration camps based solely on their ethnicity.) But does anyone doubt that he would scream about “political correctness” to the rooftops if criticized for his recent modeling gig? Proving again that claims about “p.c.” are basically useless tautologies.

You also have to like the way that Reynolds takes the opportunity to make yet another stupid WWII analogy (file under “desperation, stench of”): “More politicized intelligence, in an Administration dead-set on a pre-determined policy!” Apparently, he thinks he’s painted liberal critics into a corner. The thing is, Glenn, the answer to your question is that the internment was an utter disgrace for FDR (and Earl Warren and Hugo Black.) Although I very much admire all these men, I would never deny that, the way you would make every excuse for Bush. The war itself was just, but this does not make everything done to fight it just (your analogy is, therefore, specious.) Moreover, nobody ever cites the internment as a reason to admire these men (quite the opposite), while the counterproductive war fought based on politicized intelligence is cited by Bush’s supporters as his major accomplishment. Nice try, though!