This piece by James Robbins compares President Bush’s speech to a prosecutor’s closing argument in a jury trial. The analogy is useful and prompts the question, what would the “defense’s” closing argument sound like. I’m not talking about the kind of carping questions that I heard following the speech (“why now” and “what happens after”), but a real full-blown argument, of a seriousness comparable to the President’s, against taking military action in the near future. Maybe we’ll hear it when Senator Wellstone speaks in the Senate. But, to paraphrase Tom Daschle, so far the opponents of military action haven’t made their case.
-
-
Most Read on Power Line
Donate to PL
-
Our Favorites
- American Greatness
- American Mind
- American Story
- American Thinker
- Aspen beat
- Babylon Bee
- Belmont Club
- Churchill Project
- Claremont Institute
- Daily Torch
- Federalist
- Gatestone Institute
- Hollywood in Toto
- Hoover Institution
- Hot Air
- Hugh Hewitt
- InstaPundit
- Jewish World Review
- Law & Liberty
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty Daily
- Lileks
- Lucianne
- Michael Ramirez Cartoons
- Michelle Malkin
- Pipeline
- RealClearPolitics
- Ricochet
- Steyn Online
- Tim Blair
Media
Subscribe to Power Line by Email
Temporarily disabled
Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.