Everybody open their hymnals to page...
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2004 2:57 pm
by Rspaight
Either all the right-wing pundits have lapsed into Oxycontin-induced fantasias, or the orders have come down that they all must indulge in half-assed "what-if" scenarios inspired by the 9/11 Commission:
Gregg Easterbrook:
http://www.tnr.com/easterbrook.mhtml?pid=1545
Kathleen Parker:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/kath ... 0410.shtml
Peggy Noonan:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
They say great minds think alike -- what's the reason for this?
Ryan
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2004 6:54 pm
by lukpac
Uh huh.
So we're supposed to be happy for the Bush administration because of something they didn't actually do?
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2004 7:04 pm
by Patrick M
lukpac wrote:So we're supposed to be happy for the Bush administration because of something they didn't actually do?
No, you're supposed to recognize the analogous situation in Iraq and realize that the U.S. was justified in taking preemptive action.
You're also supposed to realize that, in the eyes of some people, W is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2004 8:38 pm
by lukpac
Patrick M wrote:No, you're supposed to recognize the analogous situation in Iraq and realize that the U.S. was justified in taking preemptive action.
That begs the question, *what* "analogous situation in Iraq"?
Let's see...he didn't do something when he should have, and did something when he shouldn't have. Perfect!
You're also supposed to realize that, in the eyes of some people, W is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
And with good reason...
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2004 9:14 pm
by TSmithPage
Well, I didn't think Noonan was a "conservative" columnist, but it is interesting how all these columnists seemed to follow the same theme at the same time. Of course, the arguments advanced are largely specious, as the intelligence on Al Quida prior to 9/11 was far more concrete than anything we've ever had on Iraq. After all, the organization had successfully bombed a number of U.S. targets by that time, and Clinton had blocked the millinium scheme. Moreover, these guys apparently forget the reason we went into Afghanistan. They were harboring Al Quida and wouldn't turn them over or cooperate. If Bush had gone in blasting like he did in Iraq, the scenarios painted by these columnists wouldn't have been that far out of touch. We never went to war against the "innocent people" of Afghanistan, but rather removed a brutal regime that was harboring known terrorists. It's apples and oranges with our Iraq policy.
It's a slippery slope when we start using hindsight to justify aggression. The U.S. (prior to this administration) has seldom if ever conducted its foreign policy in an offensive (as opposed to defensive) manner, and it sets a dangerous precedent. Knowing what we now now about Nazi Germany, is anyone willing to say the U.S. would have been justified in invading Germany and restoring democracy there before 1939? The good guys aren't supposed to conduct war on non-agressors in order to advance their interests- that's what bad guys do...
Posted: Sat Apr 10, 2004 9:22 pm
by Rspaight
Well, I didn't think Noonan was a "conservative" columnist
Well, she writes for the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page, which is a good start. Here's her bio from the WSJ's opinionjournal.com site:
Peggy Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal. She is also a contributing editor of Time magazine and Good Housekeeping, a member of the board of the Manhattan Institute and author, most recently, of "A Heart, A Cross, And A Flag: America Today," (Wall Street Journal Books), a collection of her OpinionJournal essays. Ms. Noonan was special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. In 1988 she was chief speechwriter for Vice President George Bush as he ran for the presidency. Her first book, "What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era," was published in 1990. She is also author of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" (1994), "On Speaking Well" (1998), and "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" (2000) and "When Character Was King" (2001)
Sounds righty to me.
Ryan
Re:
Posted: Tue May 28, 2013 11:53 pm
by lukpac
Rspaight wrote:Well, I didn't think Noonan was a "conservative" columnist
Well, she writes for the Wall Street Journal's op-ed page, which is a good start. Here's her bio from the WSJ's opinionjournal.com site:
Peggy Noonan is a contributing editor of The Wall Street Journal. She is also a contributing editor of Time magazine and Good Housekeeping, a member of the board of the Manhattan Institute and author, most recently, of "A Heart, A Cross, And A Flag: America Today," (Wall Street Journal Books), a collection of her OpinionJournal essays. Ms. Noonan was special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. In 1988 she was chief speechwriter for Vice President George Bush as he ran for the presidency. Her first book, "What I Saw at the Revolution: A Political Life in the Reagan Era," was published in 1990. She is also author of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" (1994), "On Speaking Well" (1998), and "The Case Against Hillary Clinton" (2000) and "When Character Was King" (2001)
Sounds righty to me.
Ryan
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-m ... oney-tunes