Wednesday, May 14, 2003
Worst Editorialist Ever
posted by Josh |
No, it's not us, even though we've ditched you for a week and a half. Its MoDo, Maureen Dowd. Fisking her is like kicking a puppy, taking candy from a baby, (pick your cliche), etc, but it must be done. So here it is:
Buried in the rubble of Riyadh are some of the Bush administration's basic assumptions: that Al Qaeda was finished, that invading Iraq would bring regional stability and that a show of American superpower against Saddam would cow terrorists.
(1) So you were expecting that it would all happen in a month? Have some faith. Even Rome wasn't built in a day, and Rome sucks. This is the biggest flaw of the naysayers: they assume that the fact that good things don't happen immediately means that they will never happen. The fact that terrorists are operating in Saudi Arabia is not surprising, considering the fact that the whole 'country' is run by terrorists. We'll beat the Saudis at their own game sooner or later. The war in Iraq never had the promise of total stability in the Mid-East (and was never promised to be such). However, when you look at how Syria has bent over to us lately, you can see that the region is much more stabile for our efforts. The Iraq War was not a cure-all, but it sure was a huge band-aid.
(2) As far as 'cowing' terrorists: How many Al Qaeda attacks have taken place on American soil since 9/11? By my count, none. If they get some people in Riyadh, that is more an example of their weakness than their strength. They'd get us in New York or LA if they could. For the time being, they can't.
Bob Graham, the Florida senator running for president, said at the Capitol yesterday that Iraq had been a diversion: "We essentially ended the war on terror about a year ago. And since that time, Al Qaeda has been allowed to regenerate."
Right...So did the regeneration of those terrorist bastards include the arrest of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a half a dozen other guys I can't name, and the busting up of a bunch of Al Qeada in Iraq? Cuz that's what has happened in the last year, after the war on terror has 'ended'. Look, Bob (MoDo), I realize that the only tenable political ground is to the right of Bush on the national security issue, but at least try to make sense when you charge that he hasn't handled the terror war correctly. If you have a point, I'll listen to it. If you're playing the Hate Bush Game at the expense of national security (which is what you are doing), I'll turn a deaf ear, along with the rest of the electorate.
Doing a buddy routine with Rummy yesterday in Washington, as the defense secretary accepted an award, Vice President Dick Cheney was as implacable as ever. "The only way to deal with this threat ultimately is to destroy it," he said. So destroy it.
Fine, except every time the Bush clan tries to stop terrorism, MoDo writes a column about how they're doing it the wrong way (too hard, too soft, not enough right). When it comes down to it, I'm not sure that she wouldn't like to see terrorism go on, just so she could sell more papers. She typifies limousine liberalism - all she really cares about is who is in office, not what is getting done. Whenever she wants to advocate what is actually best for the country, let me know. I'll be interested to know when Hell froze over.
Britain Stands Alone, Yet Again
posted by Josh |
God has smiled upon the fair islanders yet again and has decided that they shall not replace the Pound with the Euro.
I'm no economist, so I shan't (British, get it?) comment on the economic ramifications of British decision to not adopt the Euro (although my gut feeling is that the Euro has about the same staying power as the American dot-coms of the late-90s). No, my comment is more to praise the independence of the United Kingdom, and the courage she displays by keeping her distance from The Continent.
If you haven't noticed, things could be better in Greater Paris. There's a good bit of infighting, and as far as I can tell, no one on the Continent has the slightest clue how to run the Continent. And, suffice to say, they surely do not know how to run the world, having picked the wrong side in the latest fight. Moreover, they've all chosen the worst path that any freedom-loving person could choose - joining the EU. Knowing their history, the fact that the Continentals have thrown away their freedom to choose isn't surprising (especially the half-fascist French), but joining the EU goes above and beyong. The EU is no NAFTA. NAFTA - for all its faults - basically just opened borders. The EU, on the other hand, is a legally binding organization which can unilaterally rule on such minutiae as the height of British swing sets. Indeed, EU laws can even supplant those drawn up by duly-elected MPs in the House of Commons.
Britain made a huge mistake when they gave up their rights to the meddling bureaucrats of the EU. They should be glad that the haven't sullied their island yet further by taking on the currency of an undemocratic organization.