Monday 10/25 links
The Asia Times's superb pseudonymous columnist "Spengler" has deigned to post a new essay, titled "In praise of premature war." An extract: "Whether or not Saddam Hussein actually intended or had the capacity to build nuclear weapons is of trifling weight in the strategic balance. Everyone is planning to build nuclear weapons. They involve 60-year-old technology no longer difficult to replicate. It hardly matters where one begins. 'Kill the chicken, and let the monkey watch,' as the Chinese say. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, the theocrats of Iran, the North Koreans and soon many other incalculable reprobates have or will have such plans. It hardly matters which one you attack first, so long as you attack one of them."
Belmont Club blogger "Wretchard" supplies a superb piece about the "Arab way of war," Okinawa, and how we're winning in Iraq.
Well, this is disappointing. Last night the blogs were agog--yes, agog--speculating over the blockbuster anti-Kerry piece that Joel Mowbray was to splash this morning in the Washington Times. But alas, it's a ho-hum "gotcha" piece that no one's going to give a rat's about. Kerry didn't meet with the Security Council ambassadors before the Iraq vote as he has claimed; rather, he met with several individually. Big deal.
The brilliant Christopher Hitchens, once the most formidible voice of the left and now a valuable ally in the War on Terrorism, responds eloquently to still-leftist critics at The Nation: "An irony of history, in the positive sense, is when Republicans are willing to risk a dangerous confrontation with an untenable and indefensible status quo. I am proud of what little I have done to forward this revolutionary cause."
Appearing in National Review Online, Noemie Emery reports that the mainstream media are angry with Pres. Bush because he stubbornly refuses to apologize for things he didn't get wrong.
Columnist Andrew Rawnsley of the left-of-center London Observer argues that only one Labour member of parliament would vote for Pres. Bush--but that member is Tony Blair: "The mind of Mr Blair was summarised for me in vivid terms by someone who has an extremely good claim to know what is going on inside it: 'Tony thinks the world is a very dangerous and precarious place. Bush is the tough guy who keeps the bad guys under their rocks.'"
Weekly Standard essayist Joshua Muravchik contends that Sen. Kerry has continuously misrepresented his anti-war activities, and the mainstream media are complicit in promoting his very selective account.
National Review Online political columnist John J. Miller analyzes the Senate races state-by-state. His prediction: GOP +2.
Ruth Wisse notes how the faculty from our carefully "diverse" elite universities are participating in the political process: "Campus bloggers computed the percentages of Kerry contributions over Bush: Cornell 93%, Dartmouth 97%, Yale 93%, Brown 89%."
The Moslems support Kerry because it is in their interest to do so. New York Times columnist William Safire wonders why the Jews refuse to support Bush for the same reason.
World Tribune White House correspondent Trude B. Feldman conducts an superb and detailed interview of Pres. Bush. Subject: Israel and the Middle East.
Belmont Club blogger "Wretchard" supplies a superb piece about the "Arab way of war," Okinawa, and how we're winning in Iraq.
Well, this is disappointing. Last night the blogs were agog--yes, agog--speculating over the blockbuster anti-Kerry piece that Joel Mowbray was to splash this morning in the Washington Times. But alas, it's a ho-hum "gotcha" piece that no one's going to give a rat's about. Kerry didn't meet with the Security Council ambassadors before the Iraq vote as he has claimed; rather, he met with several individually. Big deal.
The brilliant Christopher Hitchens, once the most formidible voice of the left and now a valuable ally in the War on Terrorism, responds eloquently to still-leftist critics at The Nation: "An irony of history, in the positive sense, is when Republicans are willing to risk a dangerous confrontation with an untenable and indefensible status quo. I am proud of what little I have done to forward this revolutionary cause."
Appearing in National Review Online, Noemie Emery reports that the mainstream media are angry with Pres. Bush because he stubbornly refuses to apologize for things he didn't get wrong.
Columnist Andrew Rawnsley of the left-of-center London Observer argues that only one Labour member of parliament would vote for Pres. Bush--but that member is Tony Blair: "The mind of Mr Blair was summarised for me in vivid terms by someone who has an extremely good claim to know what is going on inside it: 'Tony thinks the world is a very dangerous and precarious place. Bush is the tough guy who keeps the bad guys under their rocks.'"
Weekly Standard essayist Joshua Muravchik contends that Sen. Kerry has continuously misrepresented his anti-war activities, and the mainstream media are complicit in promoting his very selective account.
National Review Online political columnist John J. Miller analyzes the Senate races state-by-state. His prediction: GOP +2.
Ruth Wisse notes how the faculty from our carefully "diverse" elite universities are participating in the political process: "Campus bloggers computed the percentages of Kerry contributions over Bush: Cornell 93%, Dartmouth 97%, Yale 93%, Brown 89%."
The Moslems support Kerry because it is in their interest to do so. New York Times columnist William Safire wonders why the Jews refuse to support Bush for the same reason.
World Tribune White House correspondent Trude B. Feldman conducts an superb and detailed interview of Pres. Bush. Subject: Israel and the Middle East.
posted by S.Y. Silverstein at 8:28 AM
<< Home