Sunday, July 10, 2005
Sunday Shows
I didn't catch all of the panel discussion on the Fox Sunday Show (apparently another friend is about to be arrested) but what Kristol and Krauthammer said about Gonzales rings very true to me. Gonzales is like Sandra O'Connor and his appointment would not change the ideological face of the court. (Kristol was nearly prescient about this general subject in late June). Bush promised to nominate and appoint good conservative judges like Scalia and Thomas. If he doesn't, Gonzalez will probably be confirmed, but the central portion of the President's conservative support will feel, properly, betrayed and how they react will be difficult to predict; but few, if any, of such predictions bode well for the Republicans.
There were only ten dead American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan last week. That's more like the rate for the winning side. Every death is a private tragedy, but the goals we have set out to accomplish (if only the humanitarian one of deposing Saddam and replacing him with a solid, representative government) are worth that death rate (at least to me).
Isn't the sort of attack that took place in London, where very few people were killed (I know each death is a private tragedy) and the city was back to normal within a matter of hours if not days, just the sort of 'nuisance' terror attack that John Kerry spoke of as desirable during his disastrous campaign? I ask this because almost all the questions about the significance of the London bombings to the security bureaucrats on the Sunday Shows seemed to indicate that it was some sort of major failure that the bombings occurred at all. 9/11 in America, nearly 3,000 killed and billions of dollars in damage to the economy--3/11 in Spain, hundreds killed and only a little damage to the economy (despite the political blow to the good guys)--7/7 in England, less than three score dead and no appreciable damage to the economy (our Stock Market had a huge rally). I can't be the only one seeing a very promising trend here, can I?
There were only ten dead American servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan last week. That's more like the rate for the winning side. Every death is a private tragedy, but the goals we have set out to accomplish (if only the humanitarian one of deposing Saddam and replacing him with a solid, representative government) are worth that death rate (at least to me).
Isn't the sort of attack that took place in London, where very few people were killed (I know each death is a private tragedy) and the city was back to normal within a matter of hours if not days, just the sort of 'nuisance' terror attack that John Kerry spoke of as desirable during his disastrous campaign? I ask this because almost all the questions about the significance of the London bombings to the security bureaucrats on the Sunday Shows seemed to indicate that it was some sort of major failure that the bombings occurred at all. 9/11 in America, nearly 3,000 killed and billions of dollars in damage to the economy--3/11 in Spain, hundreds killed and only a little damage to the economy (despite the political blow to the good guys)--7/7 in England, less than three score dead and no appreciable damage to the economy (our Stock Market had a huge rally). I can't be the only one seeing a very promising trend here, can I?
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 11:06 AM 
