KRamsauer
TreoCentral Staff
Registered: Apr 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 734 |
 One Year On
The folks at The Economist are, in my opinion, the greatest collection of publishing intellects in the world. The folks at the NY Times, while often far left of where I find myself, are perhaps the smartest editorial board on this country. I'd like to post selections from 9/11/02 editorials, first The Economist's and then the Times':
"Some of the successes lie in what has not happened rather than what has. America has not turned in on itself, seeking to hide from a hostile world: rather, its international engagement has been reinvigorated, even if its tolerance of opposition or of compromise in that engagement has diminished. The process of globalisation has not been put into reverse, either by the demands of security or by a disenchantment with open markets: if anything, the chances of a new round of trade liberalisation have increased, despite a weak world economy. And, most important of all, if Mr bin Laden and his sort hoped that their atrocities, and the American military response to them, would bring to life a mass movement in the Islamic world, they have so far been sorely disappointed. Not in Pakistan, not in Saudi Arabia, not in Egypt, not in Palestine, not in Indonesia, not even in Afghanistan itself have the numbers fighting, or even marching, against America ever gone beyond a few thousand at a time. Moreover, there has been no big terrorist success since September 11th, although several attempts appear to have been thwarted. "
and
"Although America was bound together by emotion on Sept. 11, 2001, America isn't bound together by emotions. It's bound together by things that transcend emotion, by principles and laws, by ideals of freedom and justice that need constant articulation, perhaps especially when America's virtues seem most self-evident. What we suffered on that day will be an important part of the story of this country. But in the long run it will not be as important a part of the story as what we choose to do in response to what we suffered. It is possible to confuse temperateness with indifference and democracy with indecision, just as it was possible on 9/11 to feel terribly weak in the midst of our undiminished strength. But time will help us make those distinctions, if we continue to seek them out. "
Now, the editorial board I respect most, that of the Wall Street Journal, I must admonish them for using this anniversary to put down other institutions, and to further their agenda.
"Here at home we have been struck above all this year by the American public's consistent determination. This can be measured in the high approval ratings for Mr. Bush, despite economic news that would normally take him down toward 50%. We'd measure it as well by the public's refusal to heed persistent media alarms about an alleged war on civil liberties as part of the anti-terror campaign. The public has more faith in our democracy's ability to adapt to new threats while preserving our freedoms than do the Vietnam-era elites now running some of our institutions."
|
09-11-2002 03:20 PM
Seriously, though, what mass movement are you referring to? The second statement you makes seems anti-bush, but the WSJ is very pro-war. Please reconcile the two for me.
Email This Page to Someone! |
Receive updates to this thread
]