Politics for Pros- moderated Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

From: LindyBill	8/2/2005 4:46:54 AM
	of 793843

PRESS GAMES David Frum's Diary Looking at the newspapers this midnight, I keep finding stories that make me wonder: Hmmm. I wonder who inserted that story - and why? First there is this this vicious short item planted in the New York Times about newly appointed UN ambassador John Bolton: "American officials say much of their reform agenda at the United Nations has been accomplished during the months while Mr. Bolton's nomination languished. 'Most of the reforms sought by the United States are well on their way to completion,' said a senior administration official, speaking anonymously to avoid undercutting the rationale for the Bolton appointment. Another said that because so much had been achieved, there was little concern that Mr. Bolton's combative personality would jeopardize the agenda." Etc. Read the story and see if you would describe what has been accomplished as "much." You might want to contrast the short list to a real reform agenda, such as that for example proposed by Senator Norm Coleman and summarized here. The Times' dig at Bolton can be dismissed as bureaucratic gamesmanship and petty personal rivalry. This over at the FT is rather more disturbing. The story deals with the emerging attempt within the Bush administration to rename the "Global War on Terror" as the "Struggle Against Violence Extremism." When I first heard the new term, I thought it had a lot to recommend it. I was cheered to note that Victor Davis Hanson thought so too, and for similar reasons: The new language seemed to expand the problem from the what of terrorism to the who behind the terrorism. If the FT is to be believed, however, the new term is a cloak for a return of the unhappy post-9/11 "why do they hate us" paradigm: "A former senior intelligence official who served in the Bush administration commented: 'Conviction has been growing steadily and strongly here that we needed to come out of the tactical phase of this war and into a strategic phase which would include this outreach to the Muslim world and it would make sense to structure this some way with a couple of allies, particularly the French, who understand that world so well.'" If this is a trial balloon, it should be popped - and fast. frum.nationalreview.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next