Tuesday, September 07, 2004

Thomas Walkom is a twit.

Babble on.

Thomas Walkom doesn't like George W. Bush. He doesn't understand why Americans are even considering re-electing the dolt, and he feels compelled to share his confusion with us, for pay, in today's Pravda Canada:

The Iraq war has been a desperate flop. Forget the talk about bringing democracy to the area; that was never the real reason for the U.S. invasion. Vice-President Dick Cheney underscored this point at the Republican convention last week when he explained the war solely in terms of dealing with potential security threats.

Walkom, like so many of his ideological bretheren, refuses to admit that a lack of liberal democracy in the Middle East is in itself a security threat to the United States - and to the rest of the free world, as Spain, France, and Italy have discovered to their horror. Let's all bury our heads in the sand and hope helplessly that Canada isn't next.

Saddam may have been a nasty bit of business.

Really? Walkom has finally figured that out? Oh, my mistake: Saddam may have been a sociopathic tyrant. Apparently the jury is still out. And our Star columnist is only admitting the possibility exists because it's tough to cover an elephant with a fig leaf.

Moving on to Afghanistan, Walkom makes the following statement of fact:

...Osama bin Laden, is alive.

I'd love to know how Walkom knows this. Has he interviewed the man? Or is he just hoping his monthly jihad support cheques are actually reaching their intended recipient?

But saves his pitiful 'best' for last with this astonishingly self-centred line:

Bush may seem an idiot to outsiders. But he provides clear (if wrong) answers to difficult questions. In a dark way, he offers hope. As Canadians, particularly Ontarians, should know from their own experience, this counts.

In case those of you who reside outside the centre of the known universe missed his point: Bush is just Mike Harris with a Texan accent and more military firepower.

Maybe 'twit' isn't the four-letter word I was looking for after all.

Babble off.


At 1:47 a.m., Anonymous Anonymous said...

" Still, there has been no Islamic terrorist attack on U.S soil since 2001. That could be viewed as a foreign policy success and, perhaps, it is. But it's not one that Bush trumpets. Indeed, his administration routinely argues that another attack is imminent and that the "war on terror" is far from won."

Walkom, in typical Star sanctimonious fashion, stingily concedes that " perhaps " having no Islamist terrorist attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11 " could be viewed as a foreign policy success."

Two thoughts immediately jump to mind here. First off, how can there be any " perhaps " hedging on the question of whether Bush batting 1.000 on preventing attacks on U.S soil is a major success?

Secondly, does anyone seriously believe Walkom would write that " perhaps " subsequent terrorist attacks on U.S. soil after 9/11, had they occurred, could be viewed as foreign policy FAILURES? No, I think it's money in the bank that Walkom would gleefully and unequivocally have cited such attacks as proof of Bush' disastrous leadership.

It should be obvious to Walkom why Bush doesn't trumpet this success. Doing so would only intensify and provoke al Qaeda's efforts to hit America again, to both embarrass the Bush administration for making the boast, and to demonstrate al Qaeda's formidable ability to strike an enemy that was beginning to feel safe again.

Of course, it's obvious that Bush also realizes that another attack means more civilian deaths, and if foregoing the political capital gained by bragging about no attacks for 3 years makes another attack even slightly less likely, then it's well worth it. It should come as no surprise that Walkom cannot see this, and instead suggests that Bush won't play up the absence of attacks because it interferes with his fearmongering of future acts of terrorism.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home