Phillip Blosser got permission to post an article from the 2004 issue of the New Oxford Review titled "Why the Second Vatican Council Was a Good Thing & Is More Important Than Ever" by John Lamont. I found it very interesting and in fact read it twice (something I almost never do).
One example paragraph says:
The very evidence for this conclusion raises doubts. The Second Vatican Council was a valid ecumenical council, which makes it impossible that its teachings could have really given a justification for the extreme abuses that followed it. Attempts by so-called Traditionalists to demonstrate that the Council was not valid, or that its teachings should be rejected as contradicting other authoritative pronouncements of the Church, are all contrived; they involve insisting that texts which can be understood in perfectly orthodox senses must be read as making heterodox claims. They also ignore a central feature of the Council’s history, described in Fr. Ralph Wiltgen’s The Rhine Flows Into the Tiber. Several hundred of the Council Fathers became alarmed about possible heterodox tendencies in the conciliar texts. These Fathers were able to insist that the texts be framed in ways that harmonized with Catholic tradition, and that the texts explicitly state that they are meant to be interpreted in line with that tradition. This is not to say that the texts are not in some places vague, ambiguous, or simply banal; but this is not the same as heterodoxy.
This is something that I have noticed also on the part of some radical traditionalists that only a heterodox reading of phrases in documents such as Dignitatis Humanae are correct.
He also makes the argument that The liturgical movement that produced Sancrosanctum Concilium was a valuable attempt to restore Catholic tradition and that the Mass of Paul VI was a departure from the wishes of the council as espoused by its documents. Not being an expert on this subject I don’t know how valid his claims are other than to note that it is obvious that much occurred that was not in conformance to the council’s wishes as regards liturgy. This is of course not to say that the Mass was illicit or invalid in any way only that some of the changes made were not prudent.