So it took me a little longer than I planned to read the Fukuyama op-ed discussed yesterday .
It seems there isn’t some new contradiction in Fukuyama’s argument as I suggested. He doesn’t talk about accelerating history. And that’s to his credit. But what isn’t to his credit is mad rush to prove he has no fingerprints on “neocon” foreign policy with regard to Iraq. If that’s the case why did he spend the 1990s signing statements about liberating Iraq and regime change, putting his signature alongside Kristol & Co.?
Anyway, that’s an old argument.