Before South Korean foreign minister Ban Ki-Moon was named the next secretary-general of the United Nations Friday, National Review Online editor Kathryn Jean Lopez suggested the job should go to someone like soon to be ex-British Prime Minister Tony Blair, former Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar or even President George W. Bush. Her reasoning? All three are not afraid to recognize the threats to peace from Iraq to North Korea and all points in between.
Blair, during his exit speech to the Labour Party conference, defended the strategic alliance he took with Bush. “This terrorism is not our fault, we didn’t cause it . . . it’s not the consequence of foreign policy, it’s an attack on our way of life.” He isn’t afraid to call evil “evil.” Likewise, Aznar, in response to the Muslim attacks following Pope Benedict’s sermon, said, “The West did not attack Islam, they attacked us.” And Lopez cited the Bush U.N. address in September 2002 denouncing the conduct of the Iraqi regime as a threat to the United Nations and to peace.
Posted by Angie Holladay
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
24 Comments
Angie:The National Review is not a news source. It is not even a journal of opinion.
It is where untreated meshugengas and xenophobes and former John Birchers go and hang out together to seem less loony.
As “scientology” is to either science or religion, the National Review is to journalism.
Bring in The National Enquirer, The New York Observer or even Mad magazine if you want to.
But unless you’re going to give The Socialist Workers of the World equal time, leave The National Review alone.
Thank you,
Sentient beings everywhere.
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061013/ENTERTAINMENT06/61013002
Oh my, another good Republican fund-raiser hell-raiser:
Court documents state husband’s adultery, pornography reasons for Sara Evans divorce
Country music singer Sara Evans filed for divorce Thursday from her husband of 13 years, Craig Schelske, in Williamson County, alleging that he had committed adultery, verbally abused her and frequently watched pornography at home. On Thursday, Evans announced that she has dropped out of the ABC show “Dancing with the Stars” to give her family her full attention.
According to the document filed in chancery court, Schelske allegedly has on his computer at least 100 photographs of himself posing in an aroused state. There are several photographs of him having sex with other women, the filings stated.“On his computers, husband maintains ‘Craigs Lists.’ Many of them involve requests for three party sex and anal sex. Husband’s ‘Craigs Lists’ are composed of personal ads on his personal sex engine involving him and prospective sex partners,” the documents stated.
On Sept. 28, one of the children confronted Schelske, 43, at the couple’s Franklin home when he was watching pornography on TV, the filing stated. The couple’s children are 2, 3 and 7 years old.
*****
It’s Republicans like this that have restored honor and dignity to government . . .
CapnNational Review is a respected publication.Your juvenile tendency to attack the messenger is getting old.A very large segment of the population agrees with the National Review.You can’t really say the same thing about any of the leftist rags that try to compete, can you?The truth is, the left rarely studies issues, they just attack conservatives.(I will say that the green crowd does do their share of reading and studying, I just disagree with most of their conclusions. Other than the greenies, the left just shoots the messenger.)
CapnYou are really sinking low.Sarah Evans is a good person, going through some obvious pain right now.Again, the personal behavior of EVERYONE on the “right” (me included) will come up short, sometimes.”We have all fallen short of the Glory of God.”I do not claim that Sara Evans is perfect.I doubt that she has ever thought that way of herself.I also do not know of a single instance where Sara Evans has sat in moral judgement of any other person. (Except, perhaps, NOW, against her husband.)How can you gleefully cite her husbands failures and then take pleasure in Sara’s humiliation?Did you hold Hillary Clinton responsible for Bill’s behavior?Nobody on the right is perfect, just as nobody on the left is perfect.The difference is, we on the right realize that society needs rules and limits, even if none of us can perfectly live up to all of those rules all of the time.Capn, to you the world is made up of hypocrits, since nobody is allowed to speak in favor of any moral values unless that person is perfect in every way.When we all fear being called “hypocrits” our world will begin to look like “Lord of the Flies” or “Mad Max,” a brutal place where only the bullies will prevail.Speaking up for what’s right takes courage, precisely because there are people like Capn out there, ready to laugh and kick us when we are down.That would not be true if the person speaking was really perfect, in that case no courage would be needed.
“A very large segment of the population agrees with the National Review.”
Paul,Please back this up with some data. Thank you.
“The truth is, the left rarely studies issues, they just attack conservatives.”
Paul,
This “truth” has been empirically demonstrated, how? Please tell us. A two part answer is required: 1) left rarely studies issues, 2) they JUST attack conservatives.
Paul, tip: making wild, unfounded assertions is something that any dumb ass can do. Please try to do better.
Steve and CapnShow me a single story in the National Review that was proven false?”Unfounded assertions” Steve? Scroll up and see what your buddy Capn said.It is an unfounded assertion to say that the National Review is not a respectable news publication.You libs believe that what you say requires no proof at all, but you demand proof when you are rebutted.
All these sound interesting the left and the right bashing one another. Please keep all these comments in archive for the future generation to read and know why the world they live in is the way it is.
If memory serves me Nat Review has advocated eliminating the UN.
If the Nat Review advocated that, sign me up! The UN is worthless.
Isn’t it funny how the Religious Right always defend one of their own for any moral shortcomings but if that happens to be Bill Clinton, then the gloves come off and they are ready for war?
Those defenders of Bush and Blair will always continue to defend them. This is nothing new. But why would someone want to place George W. Bush in at the UN? Bush has shown his contempt for the UN so many times in the past. After all, it was Bush that sent Colin Powell to the UN with that speech that set the tone for the Iraq War. And that speech, we now know, was full of mistruths.
“You libs believe that what you say requires no proof at all, but you demand proof when you are rebutted.”
I don’t think that being countered with statements you pull out of the air (or somewhere else) amounts to a rebuttal. Do you deny that you have a habit of making statements like the “majority of people agree with me and the National Review” without supporing data? Such assertions would be open to verification via poll data. If you don’t have any, which I doubt that you do, would it be asking too much of you to qualify these assertions as being only your opinion? Hopefully not.
“It is an unfounded assertion to say that the National Review is not a respectable news publication”
No more unfounded than your claims that Dem Underground is not e respected news pupblication.
Paul,An example of the National Review failing to report the whole story.
Hastert on the Rush Limbaugh show:”Now, we took care of Mr. Foley. We found out about it, asked him to resign. He did resign. He’s gone. We asked for an investigation. We’ve done that.”
Hastert the day before:”I think Foley resigned almost immediately upon the outbreak of this information, and so we really didn’t have a chance to ask him to resign, and I left at the very end of the session, almost, before the very last vote.”
The National Review failed to point out this obvious contradiction — which would be consistent with its conservative leanings.
Whole story here:http://mediamatters.org/items/200610030012
Would not consider this a categorical falsehood, but rather an indication of NR’s ideological bent.
“Speaking up for what’s right takes courage, precisely because there are people like Capn out there, ready to laugh and kick us when we are down.”
And the RR never kicks anyone when they’re down. Right. Uh huh. Sure.
Thanks for the laughs, Paul.
http://www.pollingreport.com/institut2.htm
See the above for a preponderance of data suggesting that, nation-wide, democrat views are supported over what the republicans have had to offer.
These data are why the likes of Rossell and his chronies have to shill what they do…
National Review is a tabloid trash piece of journalism, not a real magazine. Some of the other views of National Review is that science is really a religion:
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/west200404010900.asp
Global warming is a myth:
http://www.nationalreview.com/issue/hayward200501250748.asp
Paul will count their opinions on established science as well researched although in reality they are just taking talking points and repeating them. Where’s the real science? It’s not coming from National Review and their rag of opinionated columns. If someone wants informed news the place to go is not National Review as they only offer bumper sticker talking points, not actual facts.
Fanee–
You’re right that we libs attack the conservatives. But never forget that since Jan 2001, conservatives have controlled all three branches of government.
So you can accuse us of bickering. Guilty, as charged.
But you can’t accuse us of the mess the country is in, because we have no influence in running it.
Steven and Doug–
Thanks for taking a walk on the dark side to find examples that smacks down The National Review.
I’m not going to its website ever. After what they have done to our beloved country, I wouldn’t p*ss on them if they were on fire.
Paul–
Why did you have to pay that 2,500 dollar fine to the Kansas Ethics Commission?
Surely, it’s not because your “fallen short of the Glory of God” morality let you down, is it?
As far as Sara Evans goes, I feel sympathy for her, because I’ve been hurt by people just like she has.
The Republicans whip up their “God-squad” base with all their fake piety, and then they go home and post pictures of themselves having sex with other women.
We’re ALL Sara Evans now, Paul.
AMERICA is an abused spouse.
And the wife beaters and whore mongers and drunken perverts are the Republican party.
Yeah, let’s get rid of the UN. Let’s get rid of the perfect cover with which the US has guided the post WW2 world, kicking and screaming at times, without being seen as the arrogant imperialist victor. Let’s forget that having all the world’s nations inside the territorial USA allows for convenient foreign relation, be it official or behind the screen.
Capn,
I’d like to add to you reply to Fanee, if you don’t mind.
For eight years, we on the left were subjected to listening to those on the right bitch and moan about Clinton. We stood by while numerous investigations went on concerning both Bill and Hillary. We watched as the right made taking Clinton out their main objective. Even six years after the man left office, we are still subjected to the old talking points they used in the past.
The fact is and is shown here and all over the country that the right can dish it out, but they have a real hard time taking it. Hey, we on the left learned from the “best.”
Doug,
Thanks for the link to Hayward’s National Review column, ‘Cooled Down’, re global warming.
Paul F. Rosell,
“(I will say that the green crowd does do their share of reading and studying, I just disagree with most of their conclusions. Other than the greenies, the left just shoots the messenger.)”
Paul, TELL us WHY you believe NR’s “messenger” is credible on global warming,
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=46http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_more.html
and WHY you disagree with most of the conclusions of this large, international group of scientists.http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/558.htm
Also, compare your NR’s claims to these,’How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic’http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/guides-by-category.html
As soon as anybody uses the word “terrist” call an Ambluance and have them hauled-off to the Funny Farm.
And if you don’t know why, then you’re next.