"...then the terrorists have won"

It's good to see numerous conservative columnists catching on. It's also good to see those headlines Google sends to Gmail coming in handy for something.

Comments

  1. James Redekop28 December 2005 at 09:37

    ...the criminals who organized and executed that attack have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.

    Yup. What Bush is ignoring when he talks about "protecting Americans" is that Al Qaeda isn't interested in hurting Americans, per se. They want to change US foreign policy, by any means that works.

    The US is far weaker now than it was on Sept 12, 2001. Their military is overextended, their economy is a mess (unlses you're already making more than a million a year), etc...

    Not to mention that if Bush had been right and the attacks had been because "they hate our freedoms", then Bush has capitulated to them -- he's eliminated many of those freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
  2. laura k28 December 2005 at 09:40

    Not to mention that if Bush had been right and the attacks had been because "they hate our freedoms", then Bush has capitulated to them -- he's eliminated many of those freedoms.

    Yup. In the sense that terrorism seeks to disrupt normal patterns of life, the attacks and the aftermath were extremely succesful - thanks to the administration's constant fearmongering, and, as you said, the rolling back of personal freedom in the US.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David Cho28 December 2005 at 13:31

    Mark Shields is a conservative columnist? I remember watching his segment on the McNeil news program, and he and David Gergen (and later he and Paul Gigot) provided their views, and Shields always represented the left.

    ReplyDelete
  4. David Cho28 December 2005 at 13:44

    My comment about the column:

    A lot of the dismal things that Shields lists would have happened without 9/11. Bush would have invaded Iraq with or without 9/11, since many in the administration were already bent on taking out Hussein.

    So I think Bush's failures should stand on their own merits, not be tied to whether we are losing or winning the war on terror.

    ReplyDelete
  5. laura k28 December 2005 at 14:08

    Mark Shields is a conservative columnist? I remember watching his segment on the McNeil news program, and he and David Gergen (and later he and Paul Gigot) provided their views, and Shields always represented the left.

    I used to watch McNeil Lehrer all the time, and I never thought there was a left point of view represented!

    I'm serious. I thought the whole program was conservative.

    So I think Bush's failures should stand on their own merits, not be tied to whether we are losing or winning the war on terror.

    I think Shields agrees with you - I don't think he's tying the two together in that way.

    I think he's saying that the one thing the Bushies claim that he has done - the shining glory that supposedly justifies all their crimes - is that the US is supposedly winning TWOT. (Because the US hasn't been attacked since 2001.) Yet even that is not true.

    That's my reading of this column, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  6. James Redekop28 December 2005 at 14:29

    I used to watch McNeil Lehrer all the time, and I never thought there was a left point of view represented!

    I've always figured the "balanced" talking heads shows were cast as "right" and "less right", whatever they actually called 'em.

    ReplyDelete
  7. laura k28 December 2005 at 14:42

    I've always figured the "balanced" talking heads shows were cast as "right" and "less right", whatever they actually called 'em.

    Exactly. :)

    To me, in the US, a left columnist would mean someone like Eric Alterman, Katrina vanden Heuvel, Matthew Rothschild, Katha Pollitt - just to name a few folks off the top of my head.

    McNeil Lehrer (now the McNeil Report) used to be a very good news show, though - in-depth, with context and without a huge axe to grind. I just wouldn't look to them for a progressive point of view.

    ReplyDelete
  8. David Cho28 December 2005 at 15:32

    Wow. I remember the National Review describing the Gergen/Shields pair as the "the Left and the Far Left." LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  9. laura k28 December 2005 at 19:14

    Left and Far Left - oh, that's hilarious!!!

    File that under Hoax, Liberal Media Edition.

    David, thanks for the laugh. :)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

in no way threatening to me

Thanks to ALPF, I have learned that another American war resister is seeking asylum in Canada. I am so out of the loop, lost as I am in the ancient world . Good thing you guys keep me informed. US Army Pvt. Brandon Hughey, 20, told the [Canadian] Immigration and Refugee Board that he refused "to kill people or lose my life under false pretenses." Hughey said he believed the war in Iraq was illegal and his conscience obliged him to desert his Ft. Hood, Texas army base last year. He said when he joined the military at 17 he was looking for a way to put himself through college and respected the military. "I believe some things are worth fighting for, like defending my home and my family," Hughey told the board. "I had no moral objection to fighting back then. In some circumstances, war can be justified." He believed US President George W. Bush had proof that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so he initially supported the war. But he later deter...
Read more

not so fast

Not everyone thinks the Conservative government is a lock. Canada's opposition Conservative Party, which is set to bring down the minority Liberal government later this week, was hit by a new opinion poll on Monday that showed it was trailing in the country's most vote-rich region. The Leger Marketing poll for the Sun chain of newspapers put support for the Liberals in the powerful central province of Ontario at 43 percent compared with 31 percent for the Conservatives. Ontario, a Liberal stronghold at the federal level for the past 12 years, accounts for 106 of the 308 seats in House of Commons, and no party can hope to form a government without doing well there. . . . Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals have been badly hurt by a corruption scandal and Conservative leader Stephen Harper says the government must be defeated as soon as possible. The Leger figures, however, suggest there is no guarantee Harper can end 12 years of Liberal rule. Thanks, ALPF! I must say, I...
Read more

one nation, uninsured

Since we've been talking about health care in light of the recent Canadian Supreme Court decision, here is Paul Krugman's recent column about the state of the US non-system. Harry Truman tried to create a national health insurance system. Public opinion was initially on his side: Jill Quadagno's book "One Nation, Uninsured" tells us that in 1945, 75 percent of Americans favored national health insurance. If Truman had succeeded, universal coverage for everyone, not just the elderly, would today be an accepted part of the social contract. But Truman failed. Special interests, especially the American Medical Association and Southern politicians who feared that national insurance would lead to racially integrated hospitals, triumphed. Sixty years later, the patchwork system that evolved in the absence of national health insurance is unraveling. The cost of health care is exploding, the number of uninsured is growing, and corporations that still provide employee co...
Read more