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

To: JohnM who wrote (6789)	9/5/2003 12:46:49 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) of 793856

I agree that political considerations are favoring the UN turnaround. I think it's a case where the Joint Chiefs, Powell and Rove all had common cause for this one thing. I don't think that in itself it portends a new alliance for the future, though of course it may have implications. I don't see any neocon vs Rumsfield split at all; in fact, I think that Rumsfield and the neocons are together on the losing side of this issue. The neocons were saying we don't need more troops, things are going ok, we just need to close the borders, fight the jihadists harder and lean on Saudi Arabia for real. And they're still saying that, as witness Steven Schwartz' article just posted. I just saw Fouad Ajami on Charlie Rose, together with some imbecile woman from a think tank whose name I forget. Even Charlie Rose couldn't abide her, though she was as liberal as he was. After she dismissed all humanitarian grounds for the war in Iraq as meaningless and irrelevant, Charlie Rose asked her, what was the rationale for the war in Bosnia and Kosovo? She was kind of stuck at that, not liking to admit that humanitarian rationales are admissible only under Democratic Presidents.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next