WALL STREET JOURNAL
NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE
THE WEEKLY STANDARD
DRUDGE REPORT
THE WASHINGTON POST
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
NEW YORK TIMES


*=recently updated





Matthew Hoy currently works as a metro page designer at the San Diego Union-Tribune.

The opinions presented here do not represent those of the Union-Tribune and are solely those of the author.

If you have any opinions or comments, please e-mail the author at: hoystory -at- cox -dot- net.

Dec. 7, 2001
Christian Coalition Challenged
Hoystory interviews al Qaeda
Fisking Fritz
Politicizing Prescription Drugs

RSS FEED
<< current


Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More













A note on the Amazon ads: I've chosen to display current events titles in the Amazon box. Unfortunately, Amazon appears to promote a disproportionate number of angry-left books. I have no power over it at this time. Rest assured, I'm still a conservative.



Tuesday, December 18, 2001
Also in Wednesday's Washington Post is a letter from San Diegan Marjorie Cohn on President Bush's decision to withdraw from the ABM treaty. (Sen. Joe Biden also has an op-ed piece on the same subject that I'll talk about later.) Unfortunately, Ms. Cohn falls into the trap that so many have fallen into when arguing against an anti-ballistic missile system.


The TV stations dutifully alternated shots of Mr. Bush announcing the death of ABM with photos of the World Trade Center collapsing, even though a "Star Wars" system could never have prevented the Sept. 11 attacks.


First, no one (except Ms. Cohn) has ever tried to argue that an ABM system would have prevented Sept. 11.

Second, we shouldn't judge all of our defense systems on the basis of whether they would have prevented the tragedy that occurred on Sept. 11. Tanks? Nope. Too slow. M-16s? Nope. Too puny. Submarines? Nope. Under water. TOW anti-tank missiles? Nope. Not enough punch.

Specific weapon systems have specific jobs. To take a position on any weapons system on the basis of whether it would have affected what happened Sept. 11 is naive. No, not naive. Dangerous.

10:56 PM

Comments: Post a Comment

Powered by Blogger Pro™