"...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

sharia

This morning I see that Dalton McGuinty, Premier of Ontario, is banning the Muslim religious court known as sharia . This ends months of debate about whether sharia would be legal and binding in Ontario. I'm quoting at length from the story in today's Toronto Star because many US readers are likely not up on this. In a surprise announcement that caught both supporters and opponents of sharia law off guard, Premier Dalton McGuinty says he will move quickly to ban all religious arbitration in the province. McGuinty made the announcement in a telephone interview with The Canadian Press yesterday after months of debate and controversy surrounding use of Islamic sharia law in family arbitration. "I've come to the conclusion that the debate has gone on long enough," the premier told the news agency. "There will be no sharia law in Ontario. There will be no religious arbitration in Ontario. There will be one law for all Ontarians." The announcement prompted t...
Read more

can of worms

I'm opening a sticky subject here, my need to understand causing me to throw caution to the wind. It's about Alberta. Alberta vs. the rest of the Canada. The Globe And Mail runs something about Alberta's gripes every day, and I try to follow along. If it weren't for wmtc's resident Albertan , and the ensuing arguments in comments, I would've had no warning. It's not something Americans know about. As is, observing for more than a year, I have only the smallest of clues. Here's what I know. Please pardon my ignorance and oversimplification, but I have to start somewhere. The province of Alberta is rich, because it has oil. The province of Alberta is conservative, relative to the rest of Canada. Hmm. Funny how those two go together. Because of its great oil wealth, Alberta revenue helps fund services in the rest of Canada. (These are transfer payments?) Apparently many Albertans resent this. They want to keep Alberta's money in Alberta. They don't...
Read more

low confidence

I'm excited about today's no-confidence vote . Only three months after moving here, we'll get to see a government fall, a campaign, and an election, in a system very different from what we're accustomed to. Even the expression "the government will fall" strikes us as oddly dramatic and revolutionary. My sense of current Canadian politics, for what it's worth, tells me that very little will change from the upcoming election. I'd be surprised if the Liberals didn't win. So it's kind of cool to see this happening without a lot at stake. On a semi-tangential note, have I mentioned I'm completely down with "Corner Gas"? Excellent show; I love the deadpan humour. (Great website, too; check it out .) So was that really Finance Minister Ralph Goodale ragging on Brent Butt's camera last Saturday night?
Read more