The Shotgun Blog
Friday, February 25, 2005
From today's edition of NORMAN'S SPECTATOR, where the articles are hotlinked.
PM draws fire over missiles
'Whimpering no' further sullies our image
World Anglican leaders rebuke Canadian church
Health Minister attacks makers of Vioxx
Congés parentaux: un accord imminent
Court backs deportation of Ernst Zundel
MISSILE DEFENCE: ANALYSIS AND COMMENTARY
MISSILE DEFENCE: EDITORIAL REACTION
THE FEDERAL BUDGET
Posted by Norman Spector on February 25, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NORMAN'S SPECTATOR:
Re. Missile Defense, Spector says: “Bernard Descôteaux in his editorial in Le Devoir, and Rick in the Globe provide the principled case against participation, but it’s virtually impossible to imagine the words coming out of Paul Martin’s mouth:”
Descôteaux?/Salutin?: “We are in a new phase of the post-9/11 era. I am not saying U.S. leaders want another, nuclear 9/11, or are trying to provoke it. But they seem ready to accept it as a likely consequence of their policies and perhaps as even helpful. At any rate, they press on, knowing it is likely and, in honesty, telling Americans so — though they do not admit their policies make it far likelier. How they justify this prospect to themselves we don't know. As leading to a safer world at high cost? As locking in their vision of U.S. power for a century? As necessary because the first 9/11 didn't quite solidify their control, they almost lost an election, Iraq hasn't turned out as expected? As prelude to the Second Coming? But for those of us who don't consider, say, one little dirty bomb here an acceptable cost, it's worth being aware of their assumptions. The single hardest thing for citizens under elected governments to grasp is why their chosen leaders might pursue goals that would seem hideous to almost everyone else in the society.”
Norm, am I missing something? Principled case? I hope you were being facetious. This is cynical, paranoid conspiracy nonsense together with a large dollop of anti-American, anti-Bush sentiment. It’s impossible to imagine this stuff coming out of any sensible person’s mouth (and I don’t mean that Martin is sensible.)
Posted by: JR | 2005-02-25 7:31:52 PM
… no it’s not sensible and it’s not principled. Appeasement or pacifism may be sensible if you’re Gandhi and you’re trying to make a point with the British. It makes no sense if you’re trying to make a point with Kim Jong-Il.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-02-25 8:48:12 PM
I agree with JR. The quoted section is sheer nonsense. Filled with unproven and unprovable emotive allegations and rambling ambiguous unclear, irrelevant and fallacious mutterings.
Why is a 'nuclear 9/11' a 'likely consequence' of American policies? Which policies? Why would this be a result???
'Safer world at high cost'? What does that mean? What 'high cost'?
'Their vision of US power for a century'? Who is 'their'? Who has this 'vision'? Sounds like something written by that infamous Joe Vialls, the Conspiracy Nut.
Who 'almost lost an election'? When? Who?
Iraq hasn't turned out as expected? Says who?
Second coming??? What's with this writer?
What hideous goals? What is he talking about?
Is this supposed to be journalism? Information? Or sophist chatter?
Posted by: ET | 2005-02-26 10:26:31 AM
It's a principled case one often hears on the left--one with which I disagree and can't imagine Paul Martin professing. That's why he was unable to explain our non-participation to Bush.
Posted by: Norman Spector | 2005-02-26 11:54:58 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.