Liberty Star
11-24-2007, 01:02 PM
Why are such discredited pundits with grossly flawed judgments and tarnished visions still allowed to show their faces in US media?
How is it that Mona Charen had Iraq on top of her list 3 days after 9/11?
Surely it was not an alphabetically arranged list as Afghanistan is way down on her list.
Or was she bent on cheerleading US into a blunderous war in Iraq because of her ulterior agenda regardless of facts?
Sept. 14, 2001 /25 Elul, 5761
Mona Charen
Time for courage
Timing is everything in human affairs. At this moment, President Bush has a completely united country ready to support him in every way. The U.S. also has, for a brief window, the total cooperation and sympathy of the civilized world. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has invoked Article V -- an attack on one is an attack on all.
Even in Congress, many are saying "But we don't know who they are." If they don't, it's because a long peace has made them complacent and soft. But those who study the Middle East can tell you who they are. They are Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iran, among others.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen091401.asp
June 7, 2002 / 27 Sivan, 5762
Mona Charen
Must congress declare
war on Iraq?
A pre-emptive attack on Iraq would certainly be self-defense on our part, but it would also clearly not meet the case of an emergency use of military power.
What if Congress declines to declare war? This seems a long shot. Even in 1991, when we were fighting merely to "liberate" Kuwait and prevent Saddam from enjoying the fruits of aggression (our war aims were too narrow, but that's a different column), a Congress dominated by Democrats gave its approval (narrowly, it's true, but still).
Today, the nation is in a changed mood, though admittedly the post 9-11 unity has sagged a bit. Still, large majorities of Americans favor all of the common-sense steps one could propose: arm pilots, profile passengers, diss Saudi Arabia, topple the Taliban, tighten border controls, support Israel, destroy Saddam. One house is controlled by the Republicans, and the other is almost evenly divided. Also, the stakes are far higher. The president needs only to assemble one of his home-run speeches outlining the nexus between Iraq and terrorists of various stripes. Only a fool could fail to see the horrible possibilities if a terrorist should lay hands on a weapon of mass destruction. And while we have fools in Congress, they do not comprise a majority.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen060702.asp
August 9, 2002 / 1 Elul, 5762
Mona Charen
Think big on Middle East
Now we are faced with the threat of Iraq, and many Americans -- not just those on the left -- have difficulty accepting the use of our power.
More than anything else, the Middle East desperately needs an infusion of democracy, opportunity and freedom. Iraq is an ideal place to set an example. Its people are relatively secular and more literate than those in many other Arab nations. Iraq has plenty of oil, and it is strategically located at the crossroads of three poisonous regimes -- Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Since we must prevent Saddam from transferring weapons of mass destruction to our terrorist enemies, and since the only way to do so is to overthrow him, it would be stupidity squared to allow him to be replaced by another tyrant.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen080902.asp
Jan. 28, 2003 / 25 Shevat, 5763
Mona Charen
Is Iraq a distraction?
And what do the Democrats mean when they fret that the war against Iraq (which will probably begin in mid-February) will distract us from the war on terror? Someone should ask them what their concept of the war on terror is. Do they mean the tracking and arrest of individuals around the world? Those tasks, and others -- including blocking money flows -- are important, but they are primarily police work.
Disarming Iraq is necessary for our safety and the world's, but it is also an opportunity, because by invading and pacifying this crucial crossroads of the Middle East, we may go far toward defusing the fires of hatred that now burn in Arab hearts. If we are able to leave behind a functioning democracy in Iraq, however flawed it will doubtless be, the entire region will eventually be transformed for the better.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen012803.asp
June 10, 2003 / 10 Sivan, 5763
Mona Charen
Today's Nazis aren't Aryan
The whole world is focused on what we've failed to find in Iraq -- to the point of neglecting what we have found. In doing so, the press is missing the significance of what the United States and Britain have achieved.
The banned weapons will eventually be accounted for. Of that there can be no doubt. But the more important story is that the coalition overthrew a regime that can fairly be compared with Nazi Germany. Such a deed would be applauded by the world -- if we lived in a better world.
Antiquities were stolen from the museum (by the way, only 47 unaccounted for out of the originally suggested 170,000), water and power supplies took more than a couple of weeks to stabilize, and we haven't yet laid hands on the well-hidden weapons of mass destruction. The weapons will be found. The rest is nonsense. The United States and Britain have done a magnificent thing. Even if nothing else follows from it -- no liberalization of the Arab world, no breakthrough between Israelis and Palestinians, no hobbling of the terror masters -- it will have been worth it.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen061003.asp
Absurdity of her logic here is astounding as she tries to catch at straws:
Sept. 19, 2003 / 22 Elul, 5763
Mona Charen
The Iraq/9-11 link
Democrats point to polls showing that large numbers of Americans believe there was a link between Saddam and the attacks on 9/11. Now how could people come to that belief? Perhaps because they've heard the uncontradicted reports that Saddam did have ties with Al Qaeda.
Saddam the Baathist (Baathism is a kind of socialism) had in his later years seen how the wind was blowing in the Arab world and begun to adorn his terror state with certain Islamic trappings. Cozy relations with Islamic terrorists suited his purposes. They had the same enemies - Israel and the United States. But like other Arab leaders, Saddam was aware of the Islamist threat. While the Islamists were at war with the West, they were also casting covetous glances at the secular states in the Arab world. Saddam followed the Sun Tzu logic to keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen091903.asp
How incompetent much of our media has become that it has failed to hold accountable such gutless prophets of lies dressed as ‘journalists’.
How is it that Mona Charen had Iraq on top of her list 3 days after 9/11?
Surely it was not an alphabetically arranged list as Afghanistan is way down on her list.
Or was she bent on cheerleading US into a blunderous war in Iraq because of her ulterior agenda regardless of facts?
Sept. 14, 2001 /25 Elul, 5761
Mona Charen
Time for courage
Timing is everything in human affairs. At this moment, President Bush has a completely united country ready to support him in every way. The U.S. also has, for a brief window, the total cooperation and sympathy of the civilized world. For the first time in its history, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has invoked Article V -- an attack on one is an attack on all.
Even in Congress, many are saying "But we don't know who they are." If they don't, it's because a long peace has made them complacent and soft. But those who study the Middle East can tell you who they are. They are Iraq, Libya, Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iran, among others.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen091401.asp
June 7, 2002 / 27 Sivan, 5762
Mona Charen
Must congress declare
war on Iraq?
A pre-emptive attack on Iraq would certainly be self-defense on our part, but it would also clearly not meet the case of an emergency use of military power.
What if Congress declines to declare war? This seems a long shot. Even in 1991, when we were fighting merely to "liberate" Kuwait and prevent Saddam from enjoying the fruits of aggression (our war aims were too narrow, but that's a different column), a Congress dominated by Democrats gave its approval (narrowly, it's true, but still).
Today, the nation is in a changed mood, though admittedly the post 9-11 unity has sagged a bit. Still, large majorities of Americans favor all of the common-sense steps one could propose: arm pilots, profile passengers, diss Saudi Arabia, topple the Taliban, tighten border controls, support Israel, destroy Saddam. One house is controlled by the Republicans, and the other is almost evenly divided. Also, the stakes are far higher. The president needs only to assemble one of his home-run speeches outlining the nexus between Iraq and terrorists of various stripes. Only a fool could fail to see the horrible possibilities if a terrorist should lay hands on a weapon of mass destruction. And while we have fools in Congress, they do not comprise a majority.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen060702.asp
August 9, 2002 / 1 Elul, 5762
Mona Charen
Think big on Middle East
Now we are faced with the threat of Iraq, and many Americans -- not just those on the left -- have difficulty accepting the use of our power.
More than anything else, the Middle East desperately needs an infusion of democracy, opportunity and freedom. Iraq is an ideal place to set an example. Its people are relatively secular and more literate than those in many other Arab nations. Iraq has plenty of oil, and it is strategically located at the crossroads of three poisonous regimes -- Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia. Since we must prevent Saddam from transferring weapons of mass destruction to our terrorist enemies, and since the only way to do so is to overthrow him, it would be stupidity squared to allow him to be replaced by another tyrant.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen080902.asp
Jan. 28, 2003 / 25 Shevat, 5763
Mona Charen
Is Iraq a distraction?
And what do the Democrats mean when they fret that the war against Iraq (which will probably begin in mid-February) will distract us from the war on terror? Someone should ask them what their concept of the war on terror is. Do they mean the tracking and arrest of individuals around the world? Those tasks, and others -- including blocking money flows -- are important, but they are primarily police work.
Disarming Iraq is necessary for our safety and the world's, but it is also an opportunity, because by invading and pacifying this crucial crossroads of the Middle East, we may go far toward defusing the fires of hatred that now burn in Arab hearts. If we are able to leave behind a functioning democracy in Iraq, however flawed it will doubtless be, the entire region will eventually be transformed for the better.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen012803.asp
June 10, 2003 / 10 Sivan, 5763
Mona Charen
Today's Nazis aren't Aryan
The whole world is focused on what we've failed to find in Iraq -- to the point of neglecting what we have found. In doing so, the press is missing the significance of what the United States and Britain have achieved.
The banned weapons will eventually be accounted for. Of that there can be no doubt. But the more important story is that the coalition overthrew a regime that can fairly be compared with Nazi Germany. Such a deed would be applauded by the world -- if we lived in a better world.
Antiquities were stolen from the museum (by the way, only 47 unaccounted for out of the originally suggested 170,000), water and power supplies took more than a couple of weeks to stabilize, and we haven't yet laid hands on the well-hidden weapons of mass destruction. The weapons will be found. The rest is nonsense. The United States and Britain have done a magnificent thing. Even if nothing else follows from it -- no liberalization of the Arab world, no breakthrough between Israelis and Palestinians, no hobbling of the terror masters -- it will have been worth it.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen061003.asp
Absurdity of her logic here is astounding as she tries to catch at straws:
Sept. 19, 2003 / 22 Elul, 5763
Mona Charen
The Iraq/9-11 link
Democrats point to polls showing that large numbers of Americans believe there was a link between Saddam and the attacks on 9/11. Now how could people come to that belief? Perhaps because they've heard the uncontradicted reports that Saddam did have ties with Al Qaeda.
Saddam the Baathist (Baathism is a kind of socialism) had in his later years seen how the wind was blowing in the Arab world and begun to adorn his terror state with certain Islamic trappings. Cozy relations with Islamic terrorists suited his purposes. They had the same enemies - Israel and the United States. But like other Arab leaders, Saddam was aware of the Islamist threat. While the Islamists were at war with the West, they were also casting covetous glances at the secular states in the Arab world. Saddam followed the Sun Tzu logic to keep your friends close but your enemies closer.
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen091903.asp
How incompetent much of our media has become that it has failed to hold accountable such gutless prophets of lies dressed as ‘journalists’.