New president, new line of credit. A lot of people kept us safe. Bully for Burris. Plus more.
SPEND, SPEND, SPEND
Re: G. Tracy Mehan Of Rachmaninof and Economics:
Oh, ye of little faith! We Americans can spend our way to prosperity. And if we fail to do so, it will be because we haven’t spent enough.
— David Govett
BUT THAT’S NOT SAYING MUCH
Re: Philip Klein’s The 9/11 Presidency:
I was embarrassed for Mr. Klein to read the following statement in his essay “The 9/11 Presidency.”
“Whatever criticisms can be made about President Bush — and there are plenty of valid ones — it must be said that he prevented another terrorist attack on American soil, which became the focus of his presidency since Sept. 11.”
It is true that there have apparently been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11, but to assert that it is because Mr. Bush “prevented” them is embarrassing to read. It is embarrassing because we cannot know if that statement is true, it implies only Mr. Bush acted on this issue, and because it is probably very misleading in many respects… and perhaps even substantively inaccurate.
(1) The statement is simply impossible to prove — no one can know whether any actions he may have taken or may not have taken reduced (or increased) the likelihood of such attacks … and there is good reason to suspect many of his actions (if they were his actions) actually increased the likelihood of future attacks on American soil,
(2) obviously there are hundreds of thousands of Americans and non-Americans who worked together to reduce the likelihood of such attacks. Mr. Bush is only one person among many who had a role to play, and whether or not he played a positive role in this matter is open to very serious questioning,
(3) if we wish to speculate about what he did that may have had some impact on terrorist actions, his decision (if it was his) to invade Iraq paired with his decision (if it was his) to do so with clearly insufficient troops against compelling advice he had received about the need for about twice the number of troops his administration committed to the action combined with his decision (if it was his decision) not to concentrate on seeking out and destroying Al-Qaeda and continuing the progress in rebuilding Afghanistan rather than attacking Iraq almost certainly greatly increased the number of attacks against Americans (and many others) outside the United States, and
(4) those actions have very likely increased the likelihood of future attacks from a still active Al-Qaeda and perhaps others who have become enemies of America because of his decisions (if they were his decisions).
To ignore Mr. Bush’s contributions to the creating of such
destruction and to the loss of American and many more other lives
because those tragedies occurred outside of America’s borders,
and to ignore the future problems for which the seeds have been
sown (if he did make decisions that contributed to those events
and problems) is bizarre and surely unworthy of a person of Mr.
Klein’s intellect and, I am sure, caring for others.
— James A.F. Stoner
WAR ON VOINOVICH
Re: Enemy Central’s Private Diplomacy:
A former employer of mine, in a moment of candor referred to a seasoned but slovenly co-worker I managed as “body.” “We hire thinking that we are getting an asset. But sometimes,” he said, “you just pile up bodies.”
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?