Giving Wolfowitz His Due

NY Times ^ | March 8, 2005 | DAVID BROOKS

[Petronski]

Wolfowitz was/is right, and all of his psychocritics can go pound sand.

[eclectic]

Rice-Wolfowitz 2008

[clee1]

Holy shiite!

THIS was from the Slimes?

[Zivasmate]

Of course Wolfowitz was right. The MSM kept insisting he's wrong and clueless. Has the MSM ever been right about anything, I mean ANYTHING?

[oolatec]

I watch Mr. Brooks all the time on Jim Lehrer. I don't always agree with him, but he knows what he is talking about. He isn't your typical partisan hack either, which is refreshing.

[Billthedrill]

Wolfowitz worked with George Shultz in the testy exchanges with Ronald Reagan, who was less inclined to ease Ferdinand Marcos out the door.

And who, by the way, was never given a shred of credit for it by a pathologically anti-American Filipino Senate and the rabid and stupefying Manila newspapers. There are a lot of Filipinos alive today who curse these men who kept blood from flowing in the streets there by telling Marcos that the jig was up.

[Petronski]

Has the MSM ever been right about anything, I mean ANYTHING?

Gimme a couple days to think about it. LOL

[West Coast Conservative]

Wolfowitz was right. Bush was right. Just like how Reagan was right. I am always reminded of this quote, when I hear the non-stop whining, insulting, and criticism of the Bush Administration from the libs:

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat."
-Theodore Roosevelt, April 23, 1910

[dervish]

David Brooks is one of only two conservstive columnists at the NY Times. the other is William Safire who is about to retire. Brooks is excellent.

[Southack]

"Wolfowitz was/is right, and all of his psychocritics can go pound sand."

Precisely.

[smoothsailing]

They usually get the date right, but then its all downhill from there.

[Zivasmate]

They usually get the date right, but then its all downhill from there.



Whose date?

[bray]

Not one use of the word Neocon???

Pray for W and Our Troops

[ChicagoHebrew]

I was thinking the same thing ... would give liberals a shiite-fest. But I don't think Wolfowitz ever wants to run for office.

[inkling]

Let us look again at the man who's been vilified by Michael Moore and the rest of the infantile left...

He does everything but type the name "Maureen Dowd" in this description.

[The Loan Arranger]

What was that song General Cornwallis's troops played at their surrender to General Washington at Yorktown? "The World Turned Upside Down." Next, the NYT will be critisizing Ted, Hillary and Howie, calling for Social Security privatization, and blasting the minimum wage as "unconstitutional"(which it is).

[neverdem]

Safire retired last January 24, IIRC. He's being replaced by John Tierney, who's no liberal, starting in April.

[neverdem]

Not one use of the word Neocon???

It's my impression that the author, David Brooks, was the prototypical neocon at his previous employer, the Weekly Standard. I think he's been writing OpEd columns for a little more than a year at the Times.