12.28.2005

"...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.

9 comments:

James Redekop said...

...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.

laura k said...

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.

David Cho said...

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.

David Cho said...

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.

laura k said...

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.

James Redekop said...

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.

laura k said...

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.

David Cho said...

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

laura k said...

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

File that under Hoax, Liberal Media Edition.

David, thanks for the laugh. :)