Whose Congress Are They Anyway?
Undermining foreign policy on the Hill.
By Victor Davis Hanson
The president establishes American foreign policy and is commander-in-chief. At least thats what the Constitution states. Then Congress oversees the presidents policies by either granting or withholding money to carry them out in addition to approving treaties and authorizing war.
Apparently, the founding fathers were worried about dozens of renegade congressional leaders and committees speaking on behalf of the United States and opportunistically freelancing with foreign leaders.
In our past, self-appointed moralists from Charles Lindbergh and Joe Kennedy to Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson have, from time to time, tried to engage in diplomacy directly contrary to the presidents.
But usually Americans agree to let one elected president and his secretary of state speak for the United States abroad. Then if theyre displeased with the results, they can show it at the ballot box every two years in national or midterm elections.
But recently hundreds in Congress have decided that theyre better suited to handle international affairs than the State Department.
The U.S. Senate late last month passed a resolution urging the de facto breakup of wartime Iraq into federal enclaves along sectarian lines even though this is not the official policy of the Bush administration, much less the wish of a sovereign elected government in Baghdad.
That Senate vote only makes it tougher for 160,000 American soldiers to stabilize a unitary Iraq. And Iraqis I spoke with during my recent trip to Iraq are confused over why the U.S. Congress would preach to them how to split apart their own country.
Then, last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution condemning Turkey for genocide against the Armenian people, atrocities committed nearly a century ago during the waning years of the Ottoman Empire.
If the entire House approves the resolution, the enraged Ankara government could do everything from invade Iraqi Kurdistan in hot pursuit of suspected Kurdish guerrillas to curtail U.S. over-flight privileges and restrict use of American military bases in Turkey.
This new falling-out could interfere with supplying our soldiers in Iraq. And it complicates a myriad of issues, from the NATO alliance to Turkeys bid to join the European Union.
The speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, earlier this year took another hot-button foreign-policy matter into her own hands when she made a special trip to reach out to Syrias strongman, Bashar Assad.
That visit to Damascus was played up in the government-run Syrian press as proof that ordinary Americans dont feel that Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism. Never mind that the Assad dictatorship helps terrorists get into Iraq to kill American soldiers, is suspected of involvement with the assassinations of journalists and democratic leaders in Lebanon, and recently had bombed by the Israelis a facility reported to contain a partially built nuclear reactor.
What are we to make of a Congress that now wants to establish rather than just oversee U.S. foreign policy? Can it act as a foil to the president and so give our diplomats leverage abroad with wayward nations: "We suggest you do x, before our volatile Congress demands we do y?"
Maybe but any good is vastly outweighed by the bad. Partisan politics often drive these anti-administration foreign policies, aimed at making the president look weak abroad and embarrassed at home.
House representatives too often preach their own district politics, less so the American peoples interest as a whole. What might ensure their reelection or win local campaign funds isnt necessarily good for the United States and its allies.
And too often we see frustrated senators posture in debate during televised hearings, trying out for the role of chief executive or commander in chief. Most could never get elected president many have tried but they seem to enjoy the notion that their own under-appreciated brilliance and insight should supersede the collective efforts of the State Department.
So they travel abroad, pass resolutions and pontificate a lot, but rarely have to clean up the ensuing mess of their own freelancing of American foreign policy.
Congress should stick to its constitutional mandate and quit the publicity gestures. If it is unhappy with the ongoing effort to stabilize a unified Iraq, then it should act seriously and vote to cut off all funds and bring the troops home.
If the House wants to punish Turkey for denying that its Ottoman forefathers engaged in a horrific genocide, then let congressional members likewise deny funds for our military to stay among such a genocide-denying amoral host.
If Speaker Pelosi believes that Syria is not a terrorist entity but a country worth re-engaging diplomatically, then let her in mature fashion introduce legislation that would resume full American financial relations with our new partner Damascus.
Otherwise, its all talk and dangerous talk at that.
Via Richard M, who attended a meeting of anti-war activists in Los Angeles on Sunday:
Congresswoman Diane Watson (D-Culver City) spoke in front of an audience of some 150 activists from various LA antiwar organizations at an Iraq Town Hall meeting in Los Angeles on Sunday, October 14th . . . .
The audience responded angrily when Watson responded to a call for the impeachment of President Bush by saying, "We simply don't have the votes." After groans and boos and at least one cry of "At least do something!", Watson went on to say, "Right now, Speaker (Nancy) Pelosi is working very quietly and very effectively, behind the scenes. We need 285 votes to uphold an impeachment, and so far we have 260 members telling us they support impeachment."
[Watson] went on to say, "Our goal has to be the White House in 2008 and 60 seats, then we can think about an impeachment," apparently referring to winning a veto-proof majority in the Senate and [raising] the possibility that a Democratic administration might undertake a prosecution of George Bush after he's left office.
When contacted by LA conservative activist Deborah Leigh, Pelosi's office repeated the Speaker's position, [outlined] before the 2006 election, that "impeachment is off the table." They declined to comment on Congresswoman Watson's statement and numbers.
If Congresswoman Watson was telling the truth to the assembled activists, this raises the question of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's control over her own delegation, and even her awareness of what is going on in her own party; [either that], or that Ms. Pelosi has not been dealing forthrightly with the American people and the Adminstration. [Alternately] Congresswoman Watson was willing to [deceive] a gathering of the Democratic Party's most gullible active supporters.
Sadly, each of these explanations seems equally plausible. Which -- equally sadly -- speaks volumes about today's Congressional Democrats.
. . .
update: One of the most intriguing soundbites from Rep. Watson is her claim that the Dems have evidence of impeachable offenses.
Tellingly, she doesn't cite any -- and I'm not sure "carrying out a war that we were for before we, like, changed our minds and stuff" carries that kind of weight with the American electorate -- so I'd be curious to know just what "evidence" the Dems think they have.
Something to do with the NSA program, is my guess -- but that's a loser, both legally and politically.
Still, I do so love when their synapses get to firing like that. Makes the whole room smell like Jiffy-Pop.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/18/2007 10:35 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...when Watson responded to a call for the impeachment of President Bush by saying, "We simply don't have the votes."
Gridlock, a plot by the people to try to control a run-a-way Congress.
#3
"Our goal has to be the White House in 2008 and 60 seats, then we can think about an impeachment,"
WTF??? They think they can impeach him after he's not in office? How bizzare is that. Or are they already planning to impeach any Repub that might win in 2008?
#5
More babble from a Democrat in an open forum. Face it, Congresswoman Watson spewed whatever came to her little mind to get the halfwits off her ass.
And you'll get your ass handed to you just like the Repubs did over impeachment.
Want to impeach him for something that EVERYONE can get behind? Start wih hthe mess at the Mexican border, the kowtowing to Mexico in our legal system, and abandoning our sovereignty for cheap labor.
#1
Can we have some sort of warning when the link leads to "Frontpage Magazine"---they've that, really scary, picture of Hillary that kinda jumps at you.
#1
Mods: If any of you are reading this may I suggest you go to the LGF website. There is a photo of a female muslim TSA employee wearing her veil frisking an elderly, wheelchair bound Catholic nun at the Detroit Internatioanl Airport. The photograph featured at LGF seems more approriate to the subject matter of the article above than does the photograph currently featured.
Thank you in advance.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
10/18/2007 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
gromky -- I agree with you.... but... I once posted an objection to a "permanent" pic ... and got taken behind the barn from folks here like I hadn't been since some, oh, many years ago.
I had never liked that pic, and, just what I needed, I'm at work, work person walked into my area just as I did a click on a Rantburg article..... there was the pic.....
So -- I gave a little to Fred -- and stayed at the Rantburg U. It's worth it, pics and all.
It took me a few weeks to come back after that experience -- so.... here's hoping your wish to the Abyss works out better than mine. My experience didn't get me fired.... but, well, there were lots of explanation needed.
#4
Love RB, love that picture. The one I would choose would get you fired! :-)
So Mohamhead says playing chess is forbidden?! He must have been a really bad chess player and a really sore loser. Plug that into your psychological profiles of the pigdogmonkeyrat guy.
#5
Look, I'm not kidding. I mean, fired, as in LOSE YOUR JOB. If I was still an admin, and I didn't like someone, I'd certainly get them busted for viewing this pic.
#7
Actually I think chess was still not invented in Muhmmad's times. Now, Mullahs have ever loved to make Muhammd speak from the tomb against everything who could distract people from Jihad. Did I mention that there is a 20% cut for the Mullahs on the booty amassed in Jihad?
From Koran: "a fifth will go
to God and his envoy" (ie Muhammad wehen he was alive).
#9
AoS note: I'll raise the pic issue with the other mods at the Aruba Beach and Tennis Club. Perhaps we'll get a 'brown wrapper' over the pics that you can click if you want to see ... or not ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/18/2007 14:27 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I always wondered about the pic also; it brought up thoughts of a circle of nekked dancing Rosie O'Donnells.
Forty Lebanese members of parliament belonging to the pro-Western, anti-Syria March 14th majority bloc currently reside in Tower 3 at Beirut's Phoenicia Intercontinental Hotel. With plush couches, stereos and flat-screen TVs, the two-bedroom units at the Phoenicia are swank.
But the lawmakers aren't guests; they're prisoners. To get into the Phoenicia, you have to traverse no fewer than three security checkpoints, pass through a metal detector and show ID. Armed escorts from Lebanon's Internal Security Forces accompany guests to their rooms. Inside, curtains are permanently drawn to discourage snipers from targeting the MPs. One confined parliament member described the setup as "Abu Ghraib."
As the isolation of these legislators suggests, the March 14th bloc is taking its security seriously, and with good reason. Since 2005, four members of parliament affiliated with this bloc have been assassinated in Beirut. These killings, the death by natural causes of one MP and the political defection of yet another have sorely depleted the ranks of the majority. A government that once had 72 out of 128 legislators now rules by a razor-thin margin of 68 of 127 seats.
The Bashar Assad regime in Syria is widely assumed to be behind the campaign of assassination. Its goal is to weaken, supplant or intimidate the democratically elected government in Beirut and thus end the international tribunal that will almost certainly implicate Damascus in the 2005 murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Presidential elections -- which began on Sept. 25 and run through Nov. 25 -- have only increased the threat to the majority. The president in Lebanon is elected by parliament, and the majority has made clear that although it would prefer to choose by consensus, it will elect the chief executive by a simple majority if no acceptable compromise candidate can be found.
The Hezbollah-led, Syrian-backed opposition says it will not recognize a non-consensus president. For its part, Damascus has stipulated that the next Lebanese president should be moqawam, i.e., a supporter of Hezbollah, and "of Arab belonging," i.e., pro-Syrian. Should the Syrians and the opposition succeed in either toppling the government by attrition or installing a crony like outgoing President Emile Lahoud, the tribunal could be delayed if not derailed.
The tribunal, convened at the behest of the U.N. Security Council, appears to be a train that has left the station. But election of a "compromise" president -- someone more sympathetic to Damascus -- could weaken Beirut's commitment to and undermine international support for the tribunal. Syria could also scuttle the tribunal by ending March 14th's control of the government.
The good news, if there is any, is that in the short run it will be difficult for the Syrians to kill enough March 14th MPs to change the majority before the end of presidential elections. This is because, unlike what occurred following previous assassinations, Lebanon will not hold new elections to fill vacant seats before Nov. 25. The simple, macabre math means that the Syrians would have to kill eight more parliamentarians -- leaving March 14th, with 60 of 119 seats, short of a half-plus-one majority -- in order to force new elections.
Of course, given Syrian persistence, the math is not reassuring. For Damascus, the numbers game likely makes the Phoenicia a more appealing target. And even if the majority survives the presidential elections intact, there is no indication that the campaign of assassinations will stop.
Clearly, Lebanon cannot protect itself. Likewise, to date, the U.N. resolutions censuring Syria for its role in Lebanon have not proved an effective deterrent to Syrian misdeeds. Given the stakes -- a revitalized Syrian and Iranian presence in Lebanon and the potential reorientation of Beirut away from the West -- the preservation of the current Lebanese government is a must.
For Washington, the key will be to craft a policy to prevent Syria and its Lebanese allies from subverting the government in Beirut. One possibility is to deploy, at Lebanon's request, international forces -- under the auspices of already-in-force U.N. Security Council resolutions -- to protect targeted politicians. A more effective but politically difficult option would be to hold Syria accountable for all future political murders in Lebanon.
Regardless of how Washington proceeds, immediate action is required. The ongoing thinning of the majority raises the very real specter that the results of the 2005 parliamentary elections in Lebanon will be reversed by terrorism. Should this trend of assassinations continue unchallenged, the pro-Syrian opposition, led by the Iranian-sponsored Shiite terrorist organization Hezbollah, waits in the wings.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/18/2007 09:02 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
Rolf Mowatt-Larssen is paid to think about the unthinkable. As the Energy Department's director of intelligence, he's responsible for gathering information about the threat that a terrorist group will attack America with a nuclear weapon.
With his shock of white hair and piercing eyes, Mowatt-Larssen looks like a man who has seen a ghost. And when you listen to a version of the briefing he has been giving recently to President Bush and other top officials, you begin to understand why. He is convinced that al-Qaeda is trying to acquire a nuclear bomb that will leave the ultimate terrorist signature -- a mushroom cloud.
We've all had enough fear-mongering to last a lifetime. Indeed, we have become so frightened of terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, that we have begun doing the terrorists' job for them by undermining the legal framework of our democracy. And truly, I wish I could dismiss Mowatt-Larssen's analysis as the work of an overwrought former CIA officer with too many years in the trenches.
But it's worth listening to his warnings -- not because they induce more numbing paralysis but because they might stir sensible people to take actions that could detect and stop an attack. That's why his boss, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman, is encouraging him to speak out. Mowatt-Larssen doesn't want to anguish later that he didn't sound the alarm in time.
Mowatt-Larssen has been gathering this evidence since a few weeks after Sept. 11, when then-CIA Director George Tenet asked him to create a new branch on weapons of mass destruction in the agency's counterterrorism center. He helped Tenet prepare the chapter on al-Qaeda's nuclear efforts that appears in Tenet's memoir, " At the Center of the Storm." Now that the uproar over Tenet's mistaken "slam dunk" assessment of the Iraqi threat has died down, it's worth rereading this account. It provides a chilling, public record of al-Qaeda's nuclear ambitions.
Mowatt-Larssen argues that for nearly a decade before Sept. 11, al-Qaeda was seeking to acquire weapons of mass destruction. As early as 1993, Osama bin Laden offered $1.5 million to buy uranium for a nuclear device, according to testimony presented in federal court in February 2001. When the al-Qaeda leader was asked in 1998 if he had nuclear or chemical weapons, he responded: "Acquiring weapons for the defense of Muslims is a religious duty. If I have indeed acquired these weapons, then I thank God for enabling me to do so."
Even as al-Qaeda was preparing to fly its airplane bombs into buildings, the group was also trying to acquire nuclear and biological capabilities. In August 2001, bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, met around a campfire with Pakistani scientists from a group called Umma Tameer-E-Nau to discuss how al-Qaeda could build a nuclear device. Al-Qaeda also had an aggressive anthrax program that was discovered in December 2001 after bin Laden was driven from his haven in Afghanistan.
Al-Qaeda proclaimed a religious rationale to justify the WMD attacks it was planning. In June 2002, a Kuwaiti-born cleric named Suleiman Abu Ghaith posted a statement on the Internet saying that "al-Qaeda has the right to kill 4 million Americans" in retaliation for U.S. attacks against Muslims. And in May 2003, at the same time Saudi operatives of al-Qaeda were trying to buy three Russian nuclear bombs, a cleric named Nasir al-Fahd issued a fatwa titled "A Treatise on the Legal Status of Using Weapons of Mass Destruction Against Infidels." Interrogations of al-Qaeda operatives confirmed that the planning was serious. Al-Qaeda didn't yet have the materials for a WMD attack, but it wanted them.
Most chilling of all was Zawahiri's decision in March 2003 to cancel a cyanide attack in the New York subway system. He told the plotters to stand down because "we have something better in mind." What did that mean? More than four years later, we still don't know.
After 2004, the WMD trail went cold, according to Mowatt-Larssen. Many intelligence analysts have concluded that al-Qaeda doesn't have nuclear capability today. Mowatt-Larssen argues that a more honest answer is: We don't know.
So what to do about this spectral danger? The first requirement, says Mowatt-Larssen, is to try to visualize it. What would it take for al-Qaeda to build a bomb? How would it assemble the pieces? How would the United States and its allies deploy their intelligence assets so that they could detect a plot before it was carried out? How would we reinvent intelligence itself to avert this ultimate catastrophe?
A terrorist nuclear attack, as Tenet wrote in his book, would change history. If we can see how this story might end, perhaps we can deflect the arrow before it hits its target.
The writer is co-host ofPostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.
#2
We've all had enough fear-mongering to last a lifetime. Indeed, we have become so frightened of terrorism since Sept. 11, 2001, that we have begun doing the terrorists' job for them by undermining the legal framework of our democracy.
The voice of someone with his head stuck so far up his own ass he can see daylight.
#3
So, David, show me one example of how you've been affected by the alleged "undermining of the legal framework of our democracy"?
And maybe, so far, the reason "we can deflect the arrow before it hits its target" has been the information that has been learned by some of those things you wring your hands over.
You want it both ways, David. Which way is it going to be?
#4
Iff US high schools and university students can make lightwieght, man-portable, WORKING NUKE REACTORS as part of their normal academic projects, or just to impress their girlfriends wid their ability to make large explosions, then it shouldn't be difficult for Radical islamists. LEST WE FERGIT, MANY DEDIC ISLAMISTS WERE WHOLLY = PARTLY EDUCATED IN THE WEST, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NUKE ENGINEERING AND LIKE. This is exclusive and separate from any tech transfers from nations hostile to the US-West. VARIOUS NET PUNDITS ALREADY BELIEVE THAT RADICAL ISLAMISM POSSESSES SUITCASE- AND OTHER NUKE WEAPONS FROM THE POST-USSR BLACK MARKET.
Boom! And down goes the biggest newspaper name of all.
As you may have read, yesterday brokerage giant Morgan Stanley dumped its entire stake -- $183 million worth -- in the New York Times, in which it was the second largest shareholder. Not surprisingly, Times stock immediately slumped, bottoming at a nearly 3 percent drop to $18.28 -- the lowest it has been in a decade.
The actual damage is probably even larger than that. . . .
On the surface, this appears to be a battle about power. The Sulzbergers have run the Times for several generations -- long enough to be synonymous with the enterprise. But, despite having the family scion, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. running the business, time (and the need for capital) have reduced the family's control -- and allowed in less sympathetic investors like Elmasry and Morgan.
It was in an effort to shore up that slipping control that the Sulzberger's created a "dual-class" stock structure for the Times, which gave the family super-voting over and above the hoi polloi of mere investors. The second, unstated, reason for this unusual financial structure was to protect the position of "Pinch" Sulzberger, whose leadership has been increasingly under fire.
But speaking as a technologist and a veteran journalist (and someone who once wrote for the Times), I think there are even deeper levels to this story -- those dealing with the often foolish choices entrenched companies make in the face of technological revolutions. . . .
As hard as may be for younger readers of this column to believe, twenty years ago, the New York Times was unquestionably the newspaper of record for the United States and (with the London Times) for much of the rest of the world. It had the most famous reporters and columnists, its coverage set the standard for all other news, and its opinions, delivered ex cathedra from the upper floors of the Gray Lady on 43rd Street set the topics of this country's political debate.
Incredibly, almost every bit of that power has been squandered over the last two decades. It's been a long time since anyone considered the Times to be anything but the newspaper of opinion for anyone but the residents of a few square miles of midtown Manhattan. Indeed, about all the newspaper has left of the old days under "Pinch's" dad, Arthur "Punch" Sulzberger, is that old Time's imperiousness -- earned back then, and more than a little absurd today.
Would this decline in reputation have occurred without the rise of the Internet? To some degree, yes. You can mark the turn in the Times' reputation from the early 1990s, when it began to put, on the front page, an increasing number of opinion pieces and feature reporting (most infamously, a glimpse into the apartment of William Kennedy Smith's purported rape victim). . . .
Increased editorial influence on its reporting, an on-going effort to enforce a business model on a market that didn't want it -- the Times wasn't alone in making these mistakes; indeed, they characterized almost every newspaper in America. Which is why they are all in trouble.
But the Times made one more mistake -- one which it alone could make, and which I think ultimately led to yesterday's meltdown. Most newspapers adopted the always dangerous strategy of trying to become more like one's competitors rather than establishing the defensible position of being even more true to oneself. Like most newspapers, the Times decided to become more timely, more hip, and more judgmental than the electronic media -- when it should have become better reported, more objective, and better written; professionalism being the one arena where the new competitors would have a hard time competing.
What made the Times' decision not to pursue this strategy particularly stupid was that it was, after all, 'America's newspaper of record', a role in which it justly reveled. But you can't hold that title while pandering to the political and cultural views of readers on the Upper West Side. And you can't claim "all the news that's fit to print" when you neglect to notice that an American soldier in Iraq just won the Medal of Honor. In the old days, if the Times didn't cover it, it didn't happen. That insulation is long gone: if the Times doesn't cover it, the blogosphere will -- and millions of readers will starting wondering about the judgment and biases of the New York Times.
Frankly, investors in the Times would be fools not to question the business judgment of the company -- and major shareholders, like Morgan, would be criminally irresponsible to their clients if they didn't start challenging the decisions of Times management -- or not read the "dual class" stock structure as a way for the Sulzbergers to not answer those questions.
If you surfed the Web yesterday you couldn't miss the fact that millions of folks out there were cheering the impending End of Times. I didn't. I want the Gray Lady to straighten out, clean herself up, and regain her old dignity. America needs an honest woman as its newspaper of record.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/18/2007 17:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He didn't mention the part about them being traitorous, anti-American shitbags.
#2
they chose a clearly partisan agenda over reporting, in a red-tinged America. Suffer the consequences imperious beetches! I won't be satisfied til Pinch loses everything he owns and, begging for welfare, is reminded it's workfare and time to get a real job!
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/18/2007 19:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
They chose to be partisan, without openly admitting it. That amopunts to a lie, a lie at the core. And NOBODY trusts someon who is lying liek that. I may not like Kucinich, but at least he is up front and saying loony crap and not trying to deny it.
The NYT became too intersted in pushing its agenda and too disinterested in simply reporting ALL the facts dispassionately.
#4
In the old days, if the Times didn't cover it, it didn't happen.
In the old days, the Times was just as biased in its coverage, it was just less obvious given the measured tone and the lack of competition. Like the dinosaurs, when the climate changed they couldn't compete -- that planet-buster comet was merely the final straw.
A small part of a much larger essay. Go read it all.
I'm of the generation that was too smart for patriotism. It was called "flag-waving" and it was sneered at. Politicians who invoked it were chauvinists, jingoists, cynical exploiters of trite public sentiment.
Then a funny thing happened. Patriotism, the thing that the Smart People all inveighed against, disappeared. Not everywhere -- just among the Smart People. It was a motivation that other people had. Strange people that the Left never actually met.
Oh, when you say the Smart People aren't patriotic, they get so angry and righteous! Suddenly they wave the flag and say, "How dare you impugn my patriotism!" As soon as they've silenced their critics, of course, they flush their "patriotism" down the toilet; it's a flimsy garment that, if you get up close, you can easily see through.
I have been that close, many times; I have hung out with the Smart People and listened to them talk. I've heard them jeer at patriotism, mock the military, sneer at ordinary Americans who shop in malls and watch television. Their contempt for the Stupid People is so thick and deep that if the target of this hatred were members of a minority group, we'd know them for the bigots they are.
They deny it, like Klan members pretending not to know what you're talking about.
Meanwhile, the Stupid People who believe in patriotism and volunteer for the military -- they're not a minority, they're the majority. They still have the power to elect presidents and change the makeup of Congress. And since the Smart People try to avoid ever meeting or spending time with any of these Stupid People, the only thing they can do to get control of the parts of the American power structure they don't already own is to lie.
The Smart People don't even think they're lying, though. They don't count it as a sin (they don't even believe in sin) to lie to Stupid People. It's sort of the Santa Claus principle. You tell them whatever you need to tell them in order to get them to let you have your way. . . .
The biggest lie in this little flap about Limbaugh is not what they say about Limbaugh. It's their pretense that they actually care about American soldiers.
They don't care. Give me a break. Most of these Smart People are so filled with bile about the military that when they actually meet a soldier in uniform they are revolted or frightened or angry.
Nobody that they know ever enlists in the military. Since patriotism doesn't exist in their social circles, they have to invent other motivations for people to become soldiers.
It's like science fiction to them. Soldiers are an alien species. These people must love violence, that's what it is. Or they're such losers they can't think of another career. Or they're bullies. Or simply stupid, so that recruiters can trick them.
(And you watch: Some Smart Person would just love to quote that paragraph and claim that it's what I said about American soldiers!)
Yet whatever the motivation is, the military keeps filling up with volunteers; hopelessly underpaid, often badly led, whenever they're called upon to do something, they perform ...
Superbly.
When it's time to destroy an enemy force, they're very good at it. But when it's time to restrain themselves and avoid inflicting harm on the civilian population, no Army in history has ever been better at it than the American Army (with the possible exception of the Israeli Army, but that's not a good example, since the vicious propaganda against U.S. soldiers pales in comparison with the vile slanders heaped on the soldiers of the Jewish nation).
The task of the Smart People would be so much easier if our military really were what they claim it to be. But instead our soldiers are smart, courageous, disciplined, resourceful, and creative -- traits that aren't supposed to coexist with "patriotic" and "self-sacrificing." And when they're well led, they run circles around their enemies and, later, compared to other victorious occupying armies, they are astonishingly well liked by their defeated enemies. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
10/18/2007 07:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
dividing up americans as smart and stupid is kind of over simplifying the argument, I lnow plenty of smart people in the military or that were in the military and are now in the private sector. The populations "intellegence" runs along a standard bell curve, most everyone is " in the middle " there are some very smart people at the high end of the curve and some not so smart peopel at the bottom end. pretty standard.........
Whining and speculating about the "smart" people running you ( the stupid people ) is false, they run the stupid people and the middle people. It would probably be more accurate in the USA to denote the VERY rich people withe the normal income people and the "poor". The very very rich people run this country, always have... including you favorit,George W. he aint poor.
#3
Viking: if you read the whole thing, you'll see that OSC is using "Smart People" as a synonym for "educated liberal power elite" and "Stupid People" for everyone else because that is how the educated liberal power elite thinks: they think they're "smarter" than the rest of us. They're not, and OSC is mocking them for believing otherwise.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/18/2007 17:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
IIRC, Laura Bush grew up middle class.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/18/2007 17:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
old money IS who runs the place, I mean is there any doubt? And those kids go to college, George W. went to the best the land has to offer. Argueing that this will change is nearly akin to beating your head against a brick wall.
#6
old money IS who runs the place, I mean is there any doubt? And those kids go to college, George W. went to the best the land has to offer. Argueing that this will change is nearly akin to beating your head against a brick wall.
#9
yep, Ark and TX are "old money" to strangers in America. Viking ain't from here
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/18/2007 20:37 Comments ||
Top||
#10
So if "old money" puts kids through college, and they grow up to rule the world, who's funding all the dirty hippies that are studying liberal arts in Berkley? Must be those damn Pell Grants, by agreeing you enter into a contract with the NWO, and become a David Iche-like lizard man.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Quran based cartoon stories. More of a pictorial on Islam. We can't make this stuff up. Muhammad already did.
