I haven't posted anything in a while, so I thought I'd serve up a nice plate of fifth columnist. Enjoy
The lives of our troops are being sacrificed every day by cynical conservatives like James Taranto, who don't mind seeing them maimed and killed indefinitely if it helps their partisan political interests. And as for the rest of us -- we're all Sistah Souljah now. And here I thought this was a war on terror. How'd Taranto manage to get the world's best military to kill troops for partisan political interests? And as usual, he misses the point. Troops are being killed by an armed and hostile enemy which must be destroyed
They're selling out our national security for an electoral strategy - and they call themselves "Americans."
They've been insulting our patriotism for years, just because we tell the truth they'd rather hide. Suppressing free speech through slander and intimidation is as un-American as it gets. You have to have partiotism before it can be slandered.
So why are liberals or Democrats so polite to them? Wow. Polite? I'd hate to see them being nasty if this is polite.
Let's face facts: Taranto and his ilk would, in fact, rather see more young soldiers wounded and killed than see the Republican Party lose at the polls. And those innocent Iraqis who are also losing their lives aren't even on their radar - despite the fact that each such death helps breed more anti-American terror. Liberals love dead Americans... Especially if they are killed by an armed and hostile enemy of the United States.
They have no clearly-articulated purpose for being there, no plan, no goals, no timetable - and where they should be providing a strategic vision, we get only partisanship and name-calling. We have a goal: military victory.
The best way to protect the Republican Party's faltering electoral chances is to obscure the fact that the GOP has plunged us into a catastrophe. They don''t want to withdraw because they would "lose face," and therefore lose votes. But once the election's over? They'll "cut and run" without a second thought. We ain't withdrawing because we ain't won yet, but we are winning.
Meanwhile, if they can hide the truth and accuse their opponents of treason at the same time, so much the better. The best defense is a good offense - at least in the voting booth. Too bad about your kids, Mr. & Mrs. America -- but the Right wants to win at any price, particularly if you pay it. Let's face it: in another time, many on today's mainstream left could be charged with treason
You have to hate a country, on some deep level, to be so cynical about the suffering of its people. And how must they feel toward the soldiers they treat so callously? Leftist projection here...
Think about that as you watch those flag-draped coffins they tried to hide, the maimed young Americans with ruined lives, and those young Iraqi children killed by stray bombs. They're all "collateral damage" - in the right-wing war to preserve their political power. The coffin are not being shown because the left has been abjectly irresponsible concerning military deaths, preferring to use photos to dishonor the sacrifice many have made and are making now ..snip..
Take Taranto. Here's a gem from his June 14 OpinionJournal.com post on Hillary Clinton:
"Kerry, like Mrs. Clinton, is believed to be planning a presidential run in 2008. Right now he is merely pandering to his party's pro-surrender base. But in order for him to win, it will be necessary to break the nation's will. That is, most voters will have to be convinced of the position he has now taken: that it's better to lose in Iraq than to continue fighting."
Deception and calumny: How do I count the ways?
"Pro-surrender": Kerry's position, and that of many (if not most) Americans, is that the fighting should be turned over to the Iraqis on a clear timetable. You don't signal your intentions to an armed hostile enemy. Taranto and his bosses say that Iraq has a sovereign government. How is it "surrender" to let them defend their own country? (Unless, of course, you don't really believe it is their country.) Nice try, but the Iraqis are defending thier own country
"Break the nation's will": The polls are clear: Americans want this war brought to an end. Why is Taranto determined to break our will? I want this war brought ot an end in the only acceptable way: victory ..snip..
He's referring to the cynical ploy Republicans used to respond to Murtha's war plan. Cynical because it mirrored Murtha's own cynicism
Murtha never demanded "immediate withdrawal" - and both the Republican leadership and James Taranto know it. He advocated a scheduled withdrawal and re-deployment. The Republican House leadership, in their never-ended willingness to abuse power for selfish ends, then put up a phony resolution for "immediate withdrawal" in an attempt to embarrass him.
It didn't work.It didn't? Were I to call for immediate withdrawl and then called on it I would be embarassed. What's more, it was another base and unpatriotic Republican act.
They hijacked the US Congress and interrupted its work to score a phony propaganda point. Using our governmental institutions for partisan gain is yet another case of un-American Republicanism. Unpatriotic souls like Taranto are only too eager to provide them with cover. Dja get that, folks? Voting to end the war, just as Murtha demanded "hijacked the US Congress"
This whole piece is an attempt to help the Republicans peddle their Death-For-Votes, Love-the-GOP But Hate-Our-Troops strategy. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. For too long, they've slandered those who disagree with them. Rank-and-file Republicans and conservatives who love their country really do think that Democrats are traitors - even if they're people of good will - because Taranto and his kind spout their deceptions without being challenged. This isn't challenging them?
And please don't tell me Democrats and liberals are no different. They don't attack people personally. They honor every human being's sacrifice, every human being's loss, and every human being's point of view. Even an armed and hostile enemy. They honor terrorists' sacrifices...
What they shouldn't honor is character assassination, or the use of our fighiting ( sic ) men and women as political footballs. That's not the way we're supposed to do things in this country. The left should get some character so the right can assasinate it...
Conservatives and Republicans: They've got no plan for success in Iraq. It's called victoryThey can't even define it.Victory Still, they'd rather stay there indefinitely than hurt their own political chances, even as more Americans die and our national security is weakened. Leftists can't even tell the truth within the body of their own polemics. Before this fella said the right "don't mind seeing them maimed and killed indefinitely if it helps their partisan political interests."
This is a perfect example of leftist/liberal logic. It cannot be understood unless it is posed as a direct contradiction often within the same thought. This is the very thing Taranto often points out in his column...
Maybe Taranto and his cynical friends can answer this question: Is "treason" too strong a word for that kind of behavior? Democrats and liberals shouldn't be afraid to ask. But don't get mad if we ridicule the notion... I believe that have reached a turning point strategically in Iraq and the left senses it. They must repudiate any military victory in Iraq because their pro-surrender base demands it, but I believe the left senses a terrible event is about to take place: victory.
#3
And please don't tell me Democrats and liberals are no different. They don't attack people personally. They honor every human being's sacrifice, every human being's loss, and every human being's point of view.
I guess he doesn't spend much time at the Daily Kos.
#9
"Kerry, like Mrs. Clinton, is believed to be planning a presidential run in 2008. Right now he is merely pandering to his party's pro-surrender base. But in order for him to win, it will be necessary to break the nation's will. That is, most voters will have to be convinced of the position he has now taken: that it's better to lose in Iraq than to continue fighting."
Deception and calumny: How do I count the ways?
"Pro-surrender": Kerry's position, and that of many (if not most) Americans, is that the fighting should be turned over to the Iraqis on a clear timetable.
This is the EXACT thing Taranto was chiding them about (it was from earlier this week, after the killing of Zarq-boy). In fact, what Taranto was pointing out was the left's favorite thing, polls. Many polls after Zarq was sent to his raisins showed that the MAJORITY of Americans want to "stay the course," until victory, but at the same time feel killing Zarq is getting us closer to that time (but don't want a "timetable"). When quoted in CONTEXT of what Taranto actually said, his logic is sound. YES, the majority of Americans want to get out, but not now, and after killing Zarq, some polls had close to 70% of Americans seeing light at the end of the tunnel (but, at the same time, wanting to stay in that tunnel until ALL the rats are cleared). Enough said. If this isn't the most abject piece of liberal projection tripe I've ever seen, I guess I need to hang out at Kos more.
Posted by: BA ||
06/16/2006 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Be sure your shots are all current. Lately some parts of Kos' site have started resembling the sewers and runoff drains of DU.
#11
Instapundit sez Kos is starting to tack towards the center in advance of the election, but I wonder if his parishoners will allow him to deviate from the liturgy of the Church of Orthodox Progressivism...
#12
And please don't tell me Democrats and liberals are no different. They don't attack people personally.
followed by
Maybe Taranto and his cynical friends can answer this question: Is "treason" too strong a word for that kind of behavior?
Feel the irony wash over you.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
06/16/2006 14:58 Comments ||
Top||
#13
And please don't tell me Democrats and liberals are no different. They don't attack people personally.
Let's see how many of our college and university instructors and professors are registered Democrats. Now check the level of raising anti-Semitism that is openingly displayed and supported on those campuses. I guess like the terrorists he believes jews aren't persons therefore they can't be 'personally' attacked.
#15
Now the leftists are accusing those on the right of treason? For awhile now the right has been accusing various leftists of the same thing (and with more justification IMO).
It won't be long until some of these loons believe they have the right (whch they do under the Constitution - technically) to foment revolution against the government and to start shooting or hanging those they believe are extremists and treasonous traitors.
Not too long after that those on the right will show them exactly who has the guns and the ammunition.
Hat tip: Tim Blair. This is what happens when pacifists attack. It's not pretty.
My friend Nikki Miller and I were on Air America Radio this last Saturday evening, supposedly to talk about how we resisted military shipments being used by the Port of Olympia. Going up to Seattle and being on Air America was a total waste of our time. They didn't give a damn about one word of what we had to say. They certainly didn't want us talking about how we resisted the military shipments. "I mean, I Spoke Truth To Power! I Stuck It To The Man, man! Yet they didn't seem to admire my Brave Dissent."
They just wanted us to sit there so they could sound like they're on top of the antiwar movement, when in fact, they wouldn't know the antiwar movement if it had a die-in on their doorstep. I double dog dare you to all die in on Air America's doorstep.
Liberal talk radio is a corporate, profit squeezing enterprise, just like right wing radio, just like NBC, just like Fox News. Except for the lack of actual, you know, profits.
They have their niche. It's a place for rich liberal pundits who don't feel comfortable being full-fledged Republicans to sit and be waited on and eat fancy foods and feel good about themselves, ... Dang! The boy sure got that part right!
... and NOT a venue to convey any actual information, share meaningful viewpoints, build up the disenfranchised, give a voice to the voiceless, or disrupt the true status quo in any way. In fact, it is especially dangerous, in that it adds to the establishment's illusion of satisfying these needs without actually doing one lick of good. It satiates peoples' natural desire for such diversity of knowledge while withholding it. . . .
. . . Nikki and I drove up there in her car, all the way from Olympia.
all 47 miles!!!
We both expressed concern about going on liberal radio and talking about the Port of Olympia stuff. I defended Air America. "They're a force of some good in the world," I said. "They aren't all bad," I said. "They're having two Olympia anarchists come on the show to talk about how they ripped a gate off the Port of Olympia fence." (By association, that is - neither Nikki nor myself were personally involved in the removal of the gate).
We started to think, Maybe they won't be nice to us. Maybe they'll try to skewer us for going too far, tearing a gate off the fence and stuff. For not being nice and liberal enough.
It turned out Nikki didn't have a cell phone either. I didn't get to call in sick to work until we got to Seattle, like 45 minutes after my shift was supposed to start. :D . . . "Lucky for me my boss don't read my blog. He only reads right wing stuff like Rantburg, and this'll never get quoted there! Never in a million years."
. . . I could kind of hear the music that was playing on Nikki's and Laura's headphones. Something from the new Dixie Chicks album. Laura told us what the deal would be. Our half hour would consist of about 17 minutes of us talking, and about 13 minutes of commercials and music. Laura admitted that she had read almost none of the preparatory stuff, and was just brushing up on it right then. Nikki and I, sitting on different ends of the massive radio contraption that Laura was encased in, exchanged smirks.
Laura got on the air and talked, and talked, and talked. She got our stories completely wrong. She said Nikki was a member of "Resistance to Port Militarization" and a founding member of the newly formed "Port Militarization Resistance," or something like that. She said I was a Navy Veteran that was inspired by Camp Casey to become a part of the peace movement, or something like that. (I was, in fact, a peace activist for more than a year before my trip to Crawford.) It was a little amusing when it started out, and Nikki and I would look at each other and chuckle, but it kept happening and happening, and soon reached ridiculous lengths. Now, what she said was a simple misinterpreting of what I said in the pre-interview, but geez, could we just tell our own stories and get them really right? . . .
Then came the questions. Laura barely stopped to take a breath from her own telling of our stories to go into question mode. She asked very, very, very specific questions. "How did you feel, Wally, about your time in the Navy immediately after you were discharged?" Things like that. I got to answer two questions, and I think Nikki got three. When we answered, Laura would make hand motions to tell us we needed to speak quicker. Less verbose. Sound-biteier. . . . "Remember, stay within the comprehension level of your audience, such that it is."
We didn't get to tell any of the cool stories from the demonstrations. We didn't get to talk about the guy from the Stryker brigade that told my buddy, "Thank you," when he found out we were the port protesters. We didn't get to talk about how Ultimate Fighting champion Jeff Monson single-handedly made the Stryker convoy turn around just because they didn't want to squash him and get goo all over their tires the police were scared of him. "Or about the time we put Maynard's pet frog in an Estes rocket and launched him at Widow Krupnik's house, an' the wind caught the parachute an' he came in through the window three houses down landed in Mrs. Wilberry's bathtub when she's takin' a bath an' she like starts screaming. Dudes, we were so totally wasted that day."
We didn't get to talk about how, when the sheriff's department was beating and pepper spraying people, telling them the public was not allowed on port property, members of a local neo-con group called Operation Support Our Troops (regular citizens who are pro-war) were secretly given a tour of the USNS Pomeroy. "It's not fair. The neocon Zionazi fascist election-stealing Christers who wanna take away a woman's right to choose an' kill everybody an' stuff all get to go on the ship an' see the boilers an' the turbines an' the Close In Weapons System an' all that kewel stuff, an' we don't! I mean, that's just wrong! I'm 'way cooler than them; I got more Green Day albums than they'll ever see! I'm gonna stamp my tiny feet in impotent rage an' hold my breath 'til I turn blue--that'll show 'em"
. . . Yeah, it was kinda cool to have been on national radio, and I don't ever regret anything, but it was a fucking waste of time, money, and energy. "Which I don't regret. Even though I do."
Nikki spent a bunch on gas to drive up to Seattle. I skipped out on five hours of work, or about $35, and risked losing my job altogether. We both spent our entire evening on this. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
06/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
America's enemies wanna destroy her iff they can't control her - iff anything, there should be MORE SHIPMENTS OF ARMS-MIL SUPPLIES GOING THRU SEATTLE-OLMPIA, NOT LESS. Too many Lefty Radicals-Anarchists-Governmentists want WAR, REVOLUTION, and SECTARIANISM/FRACTIONALISM in AMERICA WITHOUT KNOWING OR EXPLAINING WHY??? Its NOT Communism or Socialism, Govt'ism or Absolutism
Totalitarianism, etal. but PC-NEUTRAL, FEEL-GOOD, POPULIST EVERYMAN SAFETY, SECURITY, CONVENIENCE, RESPONSIBILITY, and ACCOUNTABILITY, etc.
#4
She said Nikki was a member of "Resistance to Port Militarization" and a founding member of the newly formed "Port Militarization Resistance," or something like that.
#5
Some people contribute to society while others pass their time here on Earth by making up stuff to do.
Perhaps if they raised the minimum wage you'd see less of this kind of stuff . . . . :-)
Posted by: grb ||
06/16/2006 1:26 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Snigger, just what I needed to get me grinning ready for a new day ;)
I just read the comments on Olyblog, hmmmm - 'interesting' bunch aren't they? I cracked up when I read the first one;
Sounds like a not so fun experience. If it makes you feel any better I have no idea what "air america" is. I thought you were talking about that bad helicopter movie with mathew broderick in it.
LOL! - I'm an ignorant Brit (Engerlaaand!) and even *I* knew who Air America is.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
06/16/2006 1:30 Comments ||
Top||
#7
grb, if they raise minimum wage, it will still be minimum wage, so you'd see this kind of stuff unimpended.
#11
Chris did seem a little shocked that I didn't have a cell phone (only a landline), or even a car. I assured her Nikki had both. She was also insistent on being able to contact me at any time of day she needed me. I had to explain to her, "Hey, I have to work, as in, at a shit job that I don't just get to chat on the phone at."
Somehow this seemed relevant, but, I... I... just can't offer any comment. I guess Wally speaks for himself.
Someday, he'll be president. Of something.
Posted by: Bobby ||
06/16/2006 6:35 Comments ||
Top||
#12
He earns 7$ an hour? Doesn't look like his PhD in Indian Studies with "professor" Ward Churchill has allowed him to get a good job.
#14
Lemme see, Wally. You're part of a group that ripped a gate off of a fence, and you are wondering why they let the other guys in to see the kewl stuff on the warship?
Take another hit off the bong, and I'm sure it will all come clear.
#16
Like , dood, it's rilly far from Olympia to Seattle, like maybe an hour and a half.
Bugwits. Let themselves be used. Enjoy your 15 minutes?
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/16/2006 8:01 Comments ||
Top||
#17
If it makes you feel any better I have no idea what "air america" is. I thought you were talking about that bad helicopter movie with mathew broderick in it.
Oh man... Air America had Mel Gibson. It played like a "pre-quel" to the Lethal Weapon pics.
#20
3 quotes sums up these losers (in order). My comments are what I thought while reading (w/o reading the comments below it):
(1) It turned out Nikki didn't have a cell phone either. I didn't get to call in sick to work until we got to Seattle, like 45 minutes after my shift was supposed to start. :D . . .
So, he works at a low wage job where people don't really care if he shows up?
(2) (I was, in fact, a peace activist for more than a year before my trip to Crawford.)
Man, your boss must REALLY not care, if you had time to drive to Crawford. Either that, or Mother Sheehan paid your way, and you went on a non-eco friendly gas guzzling airplane, dooood!
(3) I skipped out on five hours of work, or about $35, and risked losing my job altogether. We both spent our entire evening on this.
Confirms thoughts above, and that he's either a nowhere teenager lookin' for somethin' kewl to do, or he really is a loser. Oh, and the comment about his comrade-ettes listening to the NEW Dixie Twits album fits right in with my preconceived notions of them. My guess...Mc'Ds or Wally-World.
Posted by: BA ||
06/16/2006 10:16 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I think he's just pissed cause he can't find his bong.....
#22
"Or about the time we put Maynard's pet frog in an Estes rocket and launched him at Widow Krupnik's house, an' the wind caught the parachute an' he came in through the window three houses down landed in Mrs. Wilberry's bathtub when she's takin' a bath an' she like starts screaming. Dudes, we were so totally wasted that day."
#23
1) Air America must be hurting if even its core target audience hasn't heard of it.
2) As I recall, this wasn't even an Air America show. It was a show that's syndicated by Air America, among others. So they've never heard of Air America, but immediately begin blaming it for their "shabby" treatment.
#27
Air America's tenure in Asia began when Civil Air Transport (CAT) crossed the river into Shanghai in 1946. It ended on a rooftop in downtown Saigon in 1975. First in, last out. That was CAT and Air America in China, Korea and in Southeast Asia.
Quit creating problems, follow Condi's lead, and focus, focus, focus on Iran
At Harvard Business School, young George W. Bush learned "management by objective" or maybe he didn't.
A look at the Bush administration policy toward Iran shows that the president has allowed multiple objectives to get in the way of pursuing a single objective: keeping Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.If Mr. Bush is going to succeed, he must unite the world against Iran. Confronted by a united world, Iran might yet back down. And if military action proves inevitable, a grand coalition increases the chance of success.
To gain perspective on the value of coalitions, we might look at the difference between U.S. military action against Vietnam in the 1960s and against Serbia in the '90s. The Vietnamese had help from Russia and China, and so Hanoi prevailed. By contrast, neither Moscow nor Beijing helped Belgrade, and so the Serbs capitulated.
The key potential allies for the United States against Iran are Russia, China, the European Union and the U.N. Security Council. So, if Mr. Bush were managing his policy to focus laserlike on Iran, he presumably would be seeking to minimize friction with these potential partners.
Strangely enough, manager Bush has let others in his administration freelance their own friction-creating policies. In each instance, there's a logic to the friction-creating sideshows, but, nonetheless, each bit of freelancing undercuts the prime objective, which is a non-nuclear Iran.
Freelancer No. 1 is Vice President Dick Cheney. Last month, Mr. Cheney traveled to the former Soviet republic of Lithuania to denounce Russia for using "tools of intimidation and blackmail" against other countries and against its own people. That's exactly what the Russians are doing, of course, but if we choose this moment to restart the Cold War, will the Russians help us against Iran?
Freelancer No. 2 is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. Earlier this month, he was in Singapore, chastising China for spending too much on defense. These comments must have both amused and annoyed China, because Beijing spends perhaps 15 percent as much as Washington on arms.
Freelancer No. 3 is our ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, who routinely antagonizes both the EU and the Security Council. Mr. Bolton makes no secret of his disdain for traditional diplomacy and seems to relish telling EU and Security Council types what they can do with their diplomatic niceties and nuances. Mr. Bolton has long opposed any direct contact between the United States and Iran over nuclear concerns or any other matter.
He might be correct in his view that the Iranians are so hostile to the United States that fruitful negotiations are impossible. If he's right, that's all the more reason to go through the motions of negotiating, so that Tehran, not Washington, suffers the onus of being perceived as "intransigent." Indeed, thanks to the influence of Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bolton, the United States insisted until recently that it would not talk to Iran about nuclear issues unless Iran scrapped its program first.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice finally changed that shortsighted policy, pleasing the EU and the United Nations the folks we'd need in an anti-Iran showdown.
But Mr. Bolton noisily rejects such politesse; thus the headline in last Saturday's Financial Times: "Bolton rejects 'grand bargain' with Iran." Mr. Bolton is not the final word in U.S. foreign policy, of course, but as long as he is free to speak out, others will wonder whether the United States is really interested in a deal with Iran.
And if those other countries and institutions don't think the United States is negotiating in good faith, they are less likely to support us, either in diplomatic action now or in military action down the road. As we learned in Vietnam and are learning in Iraq an inadequate coalition to bolster our efforts is a formula for failure.
If Mr. Bush wants to succeed in de-nuclearizing Iran, he must focus his entire team on that one objective. But he's not forcing such focusing. And that's bad management.
#1
"Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice finally changed that shortsighted policy, pleasing the EU and the United Nations the folks we'd need in an anti-Iran showdown."
Every now and then Jim Pinkerton comes out with something that leaves me scratching my head, wondering what the hell he's using for brains.
What the hell is wrong with these damn liberals, that they think everything in the whole world is America's responsibility alone, and that no one, anywhere, does anything that isn't somehow "caused" by some American action?
If the EU and the UN aren't behind us 100% in the effort to de-fang the Mad Mullahs, it's because of their own stupidity, short-sightedness and venality-- not anything we've done.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/16/2006 7:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
DD, Man do I agree.
Just look at this "...allowed multiple objectives to get in the way of pursuing a single objective: keeping Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.If Mr. Bush is going to succeed, he must unite the world against Iran."
How in the name of all that's holy can he not see that EVERYONE ELSE HAS THEIR OWN OBJECTIVES? A large part of the world WANTS Iran to win this struggle. This is typical leftist bigotry that denies that anyone other than Americans can think and act and be responsible on their own.
#3
well said. The idea that we need to pretend that the Europeans non-actions are helpful, in order to soothe their egos, is a waste of our precious time. Those with a liberal mindset who fantasize that they can win a war by getting the proper phrasing in a sternly worded letter are like children manning a lemonaid stand to help their parents forestall foreclosure on their parents mortgage. Sure, kids, thanks for the help, but don't expect mommy and daddy to take time off from work to help you make the lemonaid.
#4
Good gawd...can we get over Vietnam already? And, just because Russia/China assisted in Vietnam (where we "lost") but didn't in Serbia (where we "won"), that DOES NOT MEAN that Russia/China can beat us. Heck, Micronesia didn't assist Serbia either, but does that mean Micronesia could go toe-to-toe with us? These people always want to find black/white "causes" but use shades of gray to get results. But, as we know, the opposite is true. Bizarro world indeed.
Posted by: BA ||
06/16/2006 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
heres his bio
"James P. Pinkerton has been a columnist for Newsday since 1993. Prior to that, he worked in the White House under presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, and also in the 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992 Republican presidential campaigns.
Pinkerton is the author of What Comes Next: The End of Big Government--And the New Paradigm Ahead (Hyperion: 1995). He is also a contributor to the Fox News Channel and a Fellow at the New America Foundation in Washington DC. He is a graduate of Stanford University"
so James Pinkerton is a damned liberal?? I guess if he criticizes Rummy and Cheney he must be, huh? Id mention that the buzz is that Rice was upset at the very things Pinkerton is talking about, but y'all will deny that. Just like folks here denied for years that there was a split between Powell and Rumsfeld.
#6
Based on your information, liberalhawk, it sounds like the gentleman in question is another old-style Republican, like Ronald Reagan's Navy Secretary, the one who is running for office on an anti-Iraq War platform. It was several of George H.W.Bush's staffers who wrote op-ed pieces before the invasion of Iraq arguing against such actions, and who've spoken out since against every move in this president's war on terror. Like their boss, they best like to use the tools of diplomacy and spying to maintain the status quo, and cannot grasp that, post-Cold War and post-9/11, the world has changed. Now the key thing we know is that the old status quo is too dangerous to let stand.
As for the idea that President Bush should have been focussed solely on Iran's nuclear program, that wasn't even known to be an issue until fairly recently, so it seems a bit unfair to charge that he should have ignored all lesser issues to deal only with that. Not to mention all the strawmen the writer stands up so that he can knock them down:
Putin has been working against most of our efforts just to prove that Russia is still a playa, and anyway they aren't going to help us with Iran any more than they did with Iraq. They've too many contracts riding on the other side.
It clearly has not occurred to the writer that Secretary Rumsfeld's speech may have been aimed at reassuring China's neighbors that we are aware of China's little games, and have not deserted them.
Ambassador Bolton is correct in what he says, and these things have overlong needed saying if reforms are to have any possibility of succeeding (a probability that has moved up to slim from none, by my reckoning). The majority of the UNSC are at best neutral, and at worst enemies, of our efforts, and with the world as it is it's dangerous not to be aware of this fact. As for the EU, pretty words don't seem to make them happy, and ugly words don't really change the fact that too many of their componant countries consider themselves on the other side.
And, if we're to succeed with Iraq, a major question in how we will manage the remaining battles in the War on Terror, we cannot let things ride there until Iran has been resolved. We should be grateful to Mr. James Pinkerton's service to our country, and suggest that it is time for him to pass his burdens on to those with stronger backs to bear them upon, while he takes a well-deserved rest.
#7
TW, as you may know I dont like Jim Webb, i voted against him.
But I havent called him a damned liberal - in fact ive been quite vocal that he ISNT really a liberal, despite Kos' support for him.
Look, I call myself a liberalhawk. (Well, im really a New Democrat with Social Democrat leanings, but thats too hard to explain on the net) But im quite willing to say there are liberals I think are jerks. There are moderates I think are jerks. Its possible to say someone is wrong, or stupid, or a jerk, without putting them falsely into the "opposite" camp.
Pinkerton may well be wrong (as I beleive Jim Webb is wrong) but hes NOT a liberal. Unles, of course, you think anyone who disagrees with Cheney and Rummy (other than from the far right) is a liberal. Which is just silly.
And, btw, I dont think his views are that far out, at least based on whats quoted here. AFAICT this is the thinking of Condi and company.
#8
liberalhawk, thanks for naming the gentleman -- my memory is a bit porous these days. And I know you're a warhawk who happens to be liberal -- you predate me here at Rantburg, and I've stood by you quite a few times when some have had a reflexive reaction to the "liberal" part of your name; I know this war doesn't belong just to the Conservatives or the Republicans. As for the rest, I'm afraid the various splits of both parties are too complicated for me to keep track of -- I haven't your extended political training. ;-)
Nor did I call Mr. Pinkerton a damned liberal, as a few others in this thread have mistakenly done. I just think he is dangerously wrong, his article is badly argued, and it's time for him to spend time with his wife and children, rather than trying to influence a world that has changed beyond his understanding. Regardless how many on the left, right or center may agree with him.
#9
running as a Donk to win disqualifies him as a principled conservative. He's had good times, and good points, but so has McCain. His opposition to the Iraq war IMHO is seen through Viet Nam glasses, and he's afraid the Cut and Run's will succeed...so why join em, if you have principles. I support Allen for Pres. Will be interesting...
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/16/2006 20:17 Comments ||
Top||
... The Left got nuttier, more extreme, less contributory to the public debate, more obsessed with their nemesis Bush - and it drove me further away. What Democrat could support Al Gore's '04 choice for President, Howard Dean, when Dean didn't dismiss the suggestion that George W. Bush had something to do with the 9/11 attacks? Or when the second most powerful Senate Democrat, Dick Durbin, thought our behavior at the detention center in Guantanamo was equivalent to Bergen Belsen and the Soviet gulags? Or when Senator Kennedy equated the unfortunate but small incident at Abu Ghraib with Saddam's 40-year record of mass murder, rape rooms, and mass graves saying, "Saddam's torture chambers have reopened under new management, U.S. management"? What Democrat could not applaud the fact that President had, in fact, kept us safe for what's going on 5 years? What Democrat - even those who opposed the decision to go into Iraq - wouldn't applaud the fact that tens of millions of previously brutalized people had the hope of freedom before them?
What made me leave the Left for good and embrace the Right were their respective reactions to 9/11. While The New York Times doubted that we could succeed in Afghanistan because the Soviets in the '80s hadn't, George W. Bush went directly after the Taliban and Al Qaeda and crushed them in short order. Although many on the Left claim to have backed the President's actions, the self-doubt leading up to it, crystallized my view of the Left as weak and terminally lacking in confidence...
Posted by: Fred ||
06/16/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Left hates the West. It's that simple. Every once in a while a lefty realizes this and drifts away from a self-hating ideology that leads it to embrace every nutbag dictator who claims to be anti-colonialist or whatever.
Interesting that his experience in NYC with Rudy was a turning point for him. I hear that a lot.
#2
Some one once mentioned that the Left expected Western civilisation to willingly decline and fade away after the Cold War. Since that has not happened, especially after 2001, the Left has become apoplectic.
#3
Fred, thanks for posting this. I could have written something very similar to what Mr Swirsky wrote (except for the Giuliani part....hey, I grew up in Phoenix!)
Maybe I should just print it out and pass it out to some of my friends with a "What he said!" post-it on top, right after I put a W sticker on the ol' Subaru.... ;)
Lately, it has become popular to recant on Iraq. When 2,500 Americans are lost, and when the improvised explosive device monopolizes the war coverage, it is easy to see why especially with elections coming up in November, and presidential primaries not long after. . . .
But for all the despair, note all the problems for those who have triangulated throughout this war.
First, those who undergo the opportune conversion often fall prey to disingenuousness. Take John Kerrys recent repudiation of his earlier vote for the war in Iraq. To cheers of Democratic activists, he now laments, We were misled.
Misled?
Putting aside the question of weapons of mass destruction and the use of the royal we, was the senator suggesting that Iraq did not violate the 1991 armistice accords?
Or that Saddam Hussein did not really gas and murder his own people?
Perhaps he was misled into thinking Iraqi agents did not really plan to murder former President George Bush?
Or postfacto have we learned that Saddam did not really shield terrorists?
Apparently the Iraqi regime neither violated U.N. accords nor shot at American planes in the no-fly zones.
Senator Kerry, at least if I remember correctly, voted for the joint congressional resolution of October 11, 2002, authorizing a war against Iraq, on the basis of all these and several other casus belli, well apart from fear of WMDs.
Second, those with a shifting position on the war sometimes cannot keep up with a war that is shifting itself, where things change hourly. And when one has no consistent or principled position, the 24-hour battlefield usually proves a fickle barometer by which to exude military wisdom.
Even as critics were equating Haditha with My Lai, al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda mass murderer in Iraq, was caught and killed. And what was the reaction of the stunned antiwar pundit or politician? Either we heard that there was impropriety involved in killing such a demon, or the former fugitive who was once supposedly proof of our ineptness suddenly was reinvented as having been irrelevant all along. . . .
This is really too good to EFL -- you gotta go read the rest of it. However, there is one good passage in the latter part that I can't resist quoting:
Aside from the bias that counts always our losses and rarely our successes, we are sick and tired of manipulations like the lies about flushed Korans, forged memos, and the rush to judgment on Haditha. Most weary Americans want at least a moment to savor the death of a mass-murdering Zarqawi, without having to lament that he might have been saved by quicker medical intervention.
Ouch!
Posted by: Mike ||
06/16/2006 09:49 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Chasing the infidel American crusaders out of Iraq is the jackpot. And that is precisely what the Democrats are for.
By Jonah Goldberg, National Review
Let me get this straight. For a couple of years now Democrats have increasingly demanded that America get out of Iraq now, soon or by a date certain. The Murtha bug-out chorus says its not our fight, let the Iraqis handle it, lets stay out of a civil war, and, we cant win.
I think I have that right.
So on Thursday the Washington Post ran a front-page story on how the democratically elected Iraqi government is considering offering amnesty for some insurgents as part of a larger national reconciliation plan.
In response, the Democratic leadership in Congress went ass over tea kettle.
The mere idea that this proposal may go forward is an insult to the brave men and women who have died in the name of Iraqi freedom, shrieked Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez a co-sponsor of the resolution demanding that the amnesty plan be immediately quashed, thundered: We ask you Prime Minister Maliki, are you willing to have reconciliation on the pool of American blood that has been spilled to give your people and your country a chance for freedom? He continued: We reject that notion and are outraged that the sacrifice of American troops and the American people could be so devalued.
Florida Senator Bill Nelson says Terrorists and insurgents shouldnt be rewarded for killing American soldiers. And, Chuck Schumer in a pitch perfect pose of deep regret and sadness lamented that insurgents were getting a get out of jail free card.
This is repugnant. Shame on them.
What on earth do these people think cutting and running from Iraq means? When they say, its not our fight and its a civil war, how do they envision this non-American conflict to be resolved after we depart?
If America left Iraq tomorrow and then the Iraqi government granted amnesty the day after that, would these sanctimonious champions of military honor protest? I doubt it. . . .
Look: Bugging out of Iraq is the greatest amnesty possible because its the only way the men whove shed American blood can not only get off scot-free but actually win the war. But that is precisely what Democrats want to do. These guys talk about how the sacrifices of American troops would be devalued by amnesty, but they see no devaluation of such sacrifice in surrender. They say they dont want to reward those who spilled American blood through amnesty. But amnesty is the consolation prize. It is the set of steak knives and coupon to Chucky Cheeses of rewards. Chasing the infidel American crusaders out of Iraq is the jackpot. And that is precisely what the Democrats are for.
This sanctimony is so dishonest it stews the bowels. . . .
Now, it turns out that the story was wrong and the Iraqi government isnt actually moving ahead with an amnesty plan. I think thats for the good. But I dont think America would be wise to tell the Iraqi government they cant ever find a solution to this conflict that lets insurgents off the hook at all. Wars against insurgencies always involve cooptation. Telling the insurgents - as opposed to the foreign fighters who should be hung from the nearest lamppost that its death or victory is not a path to peace.
The details are obviously complicated. The normal rules of war dont fully apply, since the insurgents use terror tactics, dont wear uniforms, etc. But, we didnt ask that every German be put on trial who had American blood on his hands after World War II and we didnt ask that every North Vietnamese soldier face a tribunal.
Oh wait, thats because we bugged out, just like the Democrats want to now.
The Democrats say we cant win. They also say we cant find a political solution. In other words, it seems their message to American troops is surrender or fight to the death. Winning is not an option.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/16/2006 09:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
lets stay out of a civil war, and, we cant win.
The internal document portrayed the terrorists as lying on the ropes, speaking of their "current bleak situation." Their self-evaluation was wildly at odds with the interpretation of events foisted upon the American people by left-wing elements in our media and by the leadership of the Democratic Party. Those who called for us to quit Iraq would have handed a broken terrorist movement a strategic victory.
For patriotic Americans and freedom lovers everywhere, for the enemies of terror and the friends of tolerance, for the people of Iraq and of the United States, the captured terrorist documents contained nothing but great news - confirmation that we're winning, that terror is being defeated and that Iraq is on the road to recovery.
As for me, as I wrote this column yesterday afternoon, I pledged to myself that I was going to pick up The New York Times this morning. The Times has been reporting terrorist propaganda as Gospel truth for three years. Now I can't wait to see how the shady Gray Lady spins the truth the terrorists told each other.
Betcha we'll start hearing that the captured documents are all forgeries - so a badly burned "mainstream" media can get back to reporting "the truth" about Haditha, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. In the meantime, our troops will continue to win this war.
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.
