Bush getting it right?

A number of op-ed's appearing in the NY Times recently (hardly a bastion of conservatism) have cited the wisdom of Bush's policies in the war on terror. Thomas Friedman and Bill Safire, both non-partisan writers of high repute, have touted his actions. Read these articles. What do you think?





http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/18/opinion/18FRIE.html


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/opinion/22SAFI.html

Hahahahahahahahaha.

The thread title makes me laugh and laugh and laugh.

I'm gonna go read the articles now.

Okay, a couple things.

From the first article:
"Something tells me Mssrs. Chirac and de Villepin were just assuming Iraq would end in failure"

Catching Hussein doesn't mean success, and it's certainly not over n Iraq. We went to Iraq to remove him from power, find his hidden nuclear weapons, and install (not instill, btw) democracy. So check that first one off the list. We're still failing miserably at the other two.

From the second article:
"On the whole, however, the post-9/11 Bush foreign policy — to remove the global threat of terror enabled by regimes opposing freedom — is succeeding."

What's the terror alert level today, boys and girls?

As you say, things are still developing in Iraq. One of the major mistakes made by the administration, acknowledged on all sides, is the lack of planning for "post-conflict". Rumsfeld et al did not foresee the organized guerilla warfare that would take place, and has had some difficulty explaining himself in this regard. Many think his assistant, Paul Wolfowitz, will step down in 04 in part because of this. However, the Baathists and the Sunni triangle ostensibly coordinating this warfare make up only about 10 -15 percent of the country. The vast majority of Iraqi's are supportive of U.S. efforts, and many of them are openly critical of the U.N. for not doing more to help. The U.S. even has the tacit support of Iraq's leading cleric, the Ayatollah Ali Sistani. Nine months into Iraq, things are moving well towards sovereignty, and "Insha Allah" (God willing) they will stay that way.
In regards to the highly amorphous and widespread threat that terrorism poses, I don't know who could have eradicated it by now - but at least there is action.

I think the New York Times wants me to sign up. Not a chance in hell...

its free to sign up for web access

Hindsight is 20/20, we'll see what develops. I have a lot of questions regarding the morality of preemptive warfare, but we may find that history smiles on the Bush administration, particularly if we end up with some strong allies along the Tigris and Euphrates.

I'm sorry, I've read this three times and yet its still says "Wiiliam Safire" "Thomas Friedman" and "non-partisan" in the same sentence. I'm terribly confused.

I'm sorry, I've read this three times and yet its still says "Wiiliam Safire" "Thomas Friedman" and "non-partisan" in the same sentence. I'm terribly confused.
[/QU


okay, Safire is a little right leaning, but Friedman is generally considered pretty impartial.

Safire is just slightly to the left of Pat Buchannan. He's just smarter and a different sort of egotist. As for Friedman, hes center-left, but hardly impartial. His pieces are policy pieces, and he's been hawkish on Iraq and at the very least interventionist in his stance towards most of the middle east. Sometimes their analyses are interesting, and I don't entirely disagree with either of them, but you framed your question as indicative some sort of shift in public opinion. Niether of them have changed their minds, theyre advocating the same positions they have since September 12th.

No, I don't think I was trying to indicate that they had changed their minds. I was trying to open some discussion on recent events, and point what seems to be a largely far left group to a couple of fair minded editorials. Friedman may be hawkish on Iraq but he has written for the leftist NY Times for years, and has never been considered to have been in bed with the conservatives.

No, I don't think I was trying to indicate that they had changed their minds. I was trying to open some discussion on recent events, and point what seems to be a largely far left group to a couple of fair minded editorials. Friedman may be hawkish on Iraq but he has written for the leftist NY Times for years, and has never been considered to have been in bed with the conservatives.

There's plenty of penis enlargment pills to make those guys feel better. Don't they get any spam?

to echo S5's statement, I'm curious about what metrics we'll come up w/to guage the success of the war on terrorist ideology. we obviously can guage the failures daily.

A month or two ago Bush started a media campaign to combat what he thought was too much negative coverage. I recall distinctly a press conference where he talked on the jobs, schools and hospitals being created, and found it odd considering, I believe, 2 hospitals in DC were closing, a school had been shut for mercury contamination, and I can't even start w/the job situation here.

You seem to take it as a given that we all believe the NY Times is 'leftist.' I don't. The very fact that William Safire is a staple on their editorial page would suggest that is not true. Would you care to back up that statement?

Well, maybe you got me. I can't find anything on the web (other than obviously right wing websites) to back me up. All I can say is that the editorial page is often quite critical of Bush, and executive editor Howell Raines considers himself a liberal - and if I'm not mistaken, the Times did endorse Gore in 2000. But my point, as I mentioned, was to point people to these articles because I personally believe Bush is doing a good job in Iraq.