Rove Finished? And other War Stuff
The Washington Post is reporting that "senior White House official" are discussing the future of Karl Rove, and whether he needs to leave for the President to be able to move on after NadaGate (nada crime in talking about Valerie).
Here's the truth. He doesn't need to leave. The only reason it is an issue is because the media has decided it needs to be an issue. How much white space does the Post, and NY Times need to burn on a guy who wasn't indicted? Evidently the answer to that is "Just enough to get Karl to leave".
On other pages , Richard Cohen (again) tries to make the case that the war is a failure because it's not brought peace to the Middle East, and maybe made it more unstable. I disagree with Richard for one reason, every thing he's sited as a reason was going on pre-2003.
Syria was a disruptive force before the war, harboring terrorists who attack Isreal on a regular basis. Al-Quaeda was already a force in Saudi Arabia, or maybe Richard forgot about the attacks that have occured there since the 1990s.
Sorry, Mr. Cohen, but a few more years of appeasing Saddam wasn't going to suddenly have those folks become nice guys in the region. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that the war may actually be helping in Saudi Arabia, because it's gotten their leadership to concentrate more on the terrorists working and being recruited there. It has probably also helped move the slow as molasses UN in it's investigations of Syria, which have finally resulted in some condemnation for their terrorist actions. To answer your question "No, the mission isn't accomplished, but at least it's been started".
Here's the truth. He doesn't need to leave. The only reason it is an issue is because the media has decided it needs to be an issue. How much white space does the Post, and NY Times need to burn on a guy who wasn't indicted? Evidently the answer to that is "Just enough to get Karl to leave".
On other pages , Richard Cohen (again) tries to make the case that the war is a failure because it's not brought peace to the Middle East, and maybe made it more unstable. I disagree with Richard for one reason, every thing he's sited as a reason was going on pre-2003.
Syria was a disruptive force before the war, harboring terrorists who attack Isreal on a regular basis. Al-Quaeda was already a force in Saudi Arabia, or maybe Richard forgot about the attacks that have occured there since the 1990s.
Sorry, Mr. Cohen, but a few more years of appeasing Saddam wasn't going to suddenly have those folks become nice guys in the region. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that the war may actually be helping in Saudi Arabia, because it's gotten their leadership to concentrate more on the terrorists working and being recruited there. It has probably also helped move the slow as molasses UN in it's investigations of Syria, which have finally resulted in some condemnation for their terrorist actions. To answer your question "No, the mission isn't accomplished, but at least it's been started".
posted by Crazy Politico at 3:51 AM
2Comments:
That is a very good point, it has changed their attitude also. Something else the media pays zero attention to is Afghanistan. The country is still working on getting to it's feet, but it has become a fairly stable democracy, with few attacks, and a population that seems proud of what they are doing. Oh wait, that is why the media doesn't pay attention to them.
Lefties Have Their Panties In A Bunch
(in other words, everything is normal)
Post a Comment
<< Home