"...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

taking it

In comments here , James brought up an interesting piece. One of the most common questions I hear up here when yet another example of Bushian idiocy, incompetence, or corruption shows up is, "Why aren't people more outraged by this down there? Why isn't anyone making a fuss?" From up here, it often looks like almost everyone's going along with Bush, though that's certainly not the case. Of course, one of the big reasons for that is that the major news networks don't think it's newsworthy when people do make a fuss. But serious opposition to Bush and his policies is almost invisible up here, except to those who make a special point of following US politics from a liberal perspective. I hear this a lot, and it drives me nuts. Millions of Americans are making a fuss. I know because I used to be one of them. Here's my reply in that same thread: A fuss? We were - oh, that's "they are" - making a huge fuss. But the Bushies control all bra...
Read more

pity the 1%

"Cash bonuses on Wall Street are expected to drop by 14 percent during this year's 'bonus season'." Only 20 billion dollars will be doled out, with the average bonus totalling $121,000. How sad. That's billion, with a B. Bankers' trophy dates are sad, too . Be sure to click - and read to the end for maximum impact.
Read more

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