George Shultz and Zbigniew Brzezinski are both respected senior statesmen. Both played key roles in the making of foreign policy — Brzezinski as National Security adviser in the Carter administration; Shultz as Secretary of State under President Reagan. Before serving, both had enjoyed immensely distinguished academic careers.
There are differences between the two. Brzezinski presided over foreign policy during a disastrous period in which the United States suffered national humiliation. We are still suffering the consequences of the Carter administration’s indifference to the prospect of an Islamic theocracy in Iran. Schultz presided over a consistently effective foreign policy that reversed much of the Carter rot and helped us win the Cold War.
Oh, and there’s one other difference. Schultz supports our action in Iraq; Brzezinski says we should completely disengage within a year.
It is this difference, presumably, that caused UPI to report Brzezinki’s recent speech advocating cut-and-run in Iraq, while ignoring a speech by Shultz supporting the administration’s approach in Iraq and with respect to the war on terror generally. UPI referred to the former Carter man as “one of America’s most respected elder national security statesmen.” Fair enough. But why ignore Shultz who, by any fair reckoning, is just as respected?
Via Mark Levin.