It’s an awfully good thing the president’s a Democrat… — 53 Comments
As bad as Obama has been – the media complicity has bothered me just as much, maybe more.
A brilliant observation by WRM. But of course, his truisms are ignored by the grandees in media and journalism.
JJ Formerly,
But the important (hidden) message is that WRM, an avowed Democrat and a member of the dreaded liberal professoriate wrote that. How many others feel the same way?
Preference cascade in November anyone?
Good point, T.
JJ,
Keep the faith.
Illegitimi non carborundum! (Don’t let the bastards wear you down)
true; but he gets a couple points from me for trying to stick it out. Its bad for all of us it didn’t seem to work. Is he a poor leader; yes. Does he get a media pass for being a dem. Of course.
and I’ll leave you all with this—another “tell”? (H/T Instapundit).
How many Democrats do you know talk like that about the Iraq mission? It’s clear that with his depth of support for the Iraq mission, Mead has been very unhappy with the Democrats’ disingenuousness, partisan politicking, and dedicated attempts at sabotaging the Iraq mission and the media’s complicity with the Democrats.
I get Mead’s point that the media has an obvious double-standard in service of Obama. However, I would caution Republicans against criticizing the Afghanistan ‘surge’ too harshly. Yes, announcing an end-date was foolish. Bush was careful not to do that with the Iraq ‘surge’. Otherwise, the Afghanistan ‘surge’ was largely formulated at the end of the Bush administration. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/21/AR2008112103504.html
The famous Obama strategic review on Afghanistan essentially circled the block and implemented the COIN-based ‘surge’ developed in Bush’s last Afghanistan review. Recall that Obama carried over Bush’s main military leaders, including GEN Petraeus, SecDef Gates, JCS ADM Mullen, and perhaps most importantly, Bush’s NSC ‘war czar’ on Iraq and Afghanistan, LG Doug Lute, who oversaw the Afghanistan review. When Obama decided for the Afghanistan ‘surge’, he actually followed the recommendation of the Bush hold-overs and rejected the recommendation of the military advisors from his presidential campaign.
I don’t have as much on my blog about OEF as I do about OIF because, like Mead, I’ve viewed Iraq as the more important one of the two occupations. Afghanistan has also been the less likely of the two occupations to succeed, whatever strategy we and NATO chose for the occupation. I did write several long comments on the blog of one of my college professors, which I preserved on my blog.
If you need a good belly laugh, watch the news report to see the Dimocrats’ bewilderment, then read the Comments — I laughed so hard I practically did myself a mischief.
Smart buck, that!
treasures: thank you for alerting me to http://www.the-american-interest.com/ and thank you for leading me to “Marilynne Robinson, Absence of Mind” on Amazon and the review of that book by David Cook. nice payoffs on a treasure hunt for a still-dark Sunday morning in California.
Eric,
I read Mead’s essays so I’m not unfamiliar with his work and I am especially impressed with his Blue Social Model theories and comments. I don’t disagree that he is not typical of the professoriate, but I made my comment with that in mind.
A Neocon? I think not. If you look at his work, there is one particular essay (within the past 12 mos I believe), in which he announces himself as a liberal Democrat and in which he notes that he essentially remains so. His diffrence from most other liberal Dems is that, IMO, his opinions rise from a sentient analysis of the facts on the ground; he’s wise enough to see the handwritingon the wall. If so, I place him in the category of Mickey Kaus who also still remains an avowed liberal Dem, but who also has a sentient head on his shoulders. Perhaps we should call them “the thinking man’s Democrats.”
T oh, c’mon. Mickey Kaus is so full of thinking he is charming that it un-charms. If Mickey ever ‘fell’ into the arms of the conservatism that awaits him, however, I suspect he would drop that hip mask of his and actually be ok.
As for Mead, maybe I’ll get disallusioned aftter a bit more exposure, but on the surface he seems to put facts and analysis before a presumed cuteness and hipness and superiority.
M of Hollywood,
I guess we agree to disagree. I don’t dislike Kaus just because I dsagree with him on numerous points. I like him as a writer because he doesn’t shirk from criticizing liberals who are out in left field, unlike say, Alan Colmes who hasn’t had an original thought in a decade and who would be rendered mute without Dem party talking points.
Furthermore, while I currently push for big conservative victories because they are needed to restore this country and a balance to it, I am just as worried about a long-term future under overwhelming Republican control as I am disgusted by the overwhelming liberal influence of the past 80 years.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the Republicans as a group have shown their willingness to be just as corruptible as the Democrats. We are a society borne of dispute; one can’t have dispute without an opposition but I want sentient thinking opposition, not the current opposition of adolescent Democrat tantrums.
And crown they good
With brotherhood
From sea to shining sea
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
T,
Neocon Democrats are rare (hence, “not representative”), but they do exist. Joe Lieberman is the poster child. Lieberman was also ex-communicated from the Democrats for a time for standing up in support of the Iraq mission in the same manner as Mead.
Messina, Barry’s Campaign Mgr., says we need to ignore the polls, now that he & Mitt are even in several of the most respected. Yep, that’s what he advises. Thus, the MSM-Slathering Lapdawgs will do exactly that. Meanwhile, Mitt will pull ahead within days, I’m guessing. Libya, anyone? Gitmo detainees being released by the Boy King, anyone? Muslim World setting fire to anything American as the widespread response to the Obama regime’s Love & Apologies, anyone??!! (-:
“…napalm in the morning..It smells like Victory.”
HOPE & Change? NOPE…Despair & Rage..!
NeoConScum: and I’ve noticed that a certain liberal troll who used to come here long ago has returned (on a different thread) to do some concern-trolling. Interesting. His last visit prior to this was in 2010.
Alan Colmes who hasn’t had an original thought in a decade and who would be rendered mute without Dem party talking points
Alan Colmes mute … Alan Colmes mute … /snaps out of reverie.
Uh, what were we discussing?
Afghan, we should note, is the place where luck is better than genius and Obama has not been lucky, and since he lacks genius and will–well, it’s a good thing he’s a Democrat.
The offensive smell to the NYT piece which Mead refers to and is entitled “Troop ‘Surge’ in Afghanistan Ends With Mixed Results,” is the “Muslims reaction to the film” narrative. Otherwise, we all know the war in Afghanistan is a mixed bag and we do it because we are afraid not to. Mead rightly and skillfully calls out the media’s “mixed” responses according to who is CIC.
But should Obama come under special criticism? The answer is Yes, of course, and the answer, in one word: appeasement.
Raymond Ibrahim, one of the best writers on Muslim culture, relates how al-Haya TV severely criticizes Mohammad. The initial reaction was predictable but al-Haya did not back down and the outrage was replaced by apathy.
Neocon Dems rare? or just not spoken of outright now that the Dem party has been taken over by the left wing. These are the Reagan Dems, many of which were ousted from congress; that doesn’t mean they cease ot exist.
As to Lieberman, he doesn’t even come close to representing a Neocon POV with the exception of his defense of Israel and support for the U.S. presence in the ME (which is related to his stance on Israel). Somewhat less so, he still seems to be in support of national security, but still not nearly a Neocon.
CAT GOES TO VET FOR FLEA BATH BUT GETS EUTHANIZED!
AMERICAN ELECTS OBAMA FOR RACIAL HEALING BUT . . .
First, Obama did NOT send anywhere near the number of surge troops requested by his Afghanistan military commander. It was entirely cosmetic and was doomed to failure, especially considering the restrictions placed upon our troops.
We lost Afghanistan as soon as Obama announced the pull out date.
But Afghanistan could never be permanently pacified as long as Pakistan provided refuge for the Taliban.
Pakistan has nukes, which means no credible military threats to compel cooperation. Pull the foreign aid and Pakistan’s government falls to its version of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The rogue nations can’t be confronted, until the following is acknowledged; “Rogue states never turn out to be quite the pariahs they are deemed. They are only able to cause, or at least threaten to cause, mayhem because they enjoy the covert support – usually by means of technology transfers – of one or more major powers within the charmed circle of global ‘good guys’.” M. Thatcher
The current technology transfer is Russia’s vital and irreplaceable facilitation of Iran’s nuclear program and China’s vital assistance in both N. Korea and Pakistan’s prior acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Any proposed effective, International economic sanctions against Iran and any other rogue nation have been consistently blocked and vetoed in the UN by Russia and China.
Afghanistan is simply one regional theater in the global ‘press’ that Russia and China are using against the West.
Islamic terrorism is being used as proxies in a covert, hot/cold war of aggression against the US.
The E.U. nations appeasement minded condoning and collaboration in this situation merely ensures that the US stands nearly alone.
If you can’t see the forest for the trees, you can only win battles, never the war.
Sooner or later, we’re going to have to “nuke the bastards” because our own feckless refusal to face reality will ensure that eventually being our only option.
Pacifistic appeasement in the face of malicious fanaticism always leads to greater suffering.
GB:
I remember reading an article a few months before 9/11/01 that said that Russia and China had formed an alliance to oppose U.S. “hegemony”. I don’t remember where I saw it and I can’t find it now.
But it’s food for thought.
Maybe Art remembers it.
T: I agree to agree: Kaus is better than Colmes, DWS, or that Holder woman they put on TV to embarass or that blonde “Political Scientist” from California they used to trot out. Yes, Kaus is better, to be sure.
Art’s licking his wounds and hopefully building a ship that sails. We all hope he does!
“Pull the foreign aid and Pakistan’s government falls to its version of the Muslim Brotherhood.”–GB
There’s the Catch 22 of Pakistan. 7 billion in aid of which 3 billion goes to opium, 3 billion to corruption, and 1 billion to whatever. What a feline farce: My butt in your face and you feed me. Yeah. But then what if kitty kat decides to become a tiger?
War on Poverty: 7,000 billion.
In that context, the “tribute” to Pakistan is a pretty damn good deal.
“our own feckless refusal to face reality will ensure that eventually”
It’s unseemly that the Obama campaign touts the Iraq withdrawal as a highlight success of Obama’s foreign affairs when it’s actually a failure of incompetence.
Eric,
Eric,
a failure of competence—fixed it for ya!
T,
Thanks. Hm. Failure due to incompetence is probably the most accurate phrasing. Doesn’t flow as well, though.
Like Neo and Mead, I’ve been a strong supporter of the Iraq mission and believer in its importance. That Obama fumbled it so badly is maddening. That the Obama campaign would try now to portray the failure as a postive in his campaign despite evidence that Obama understood he screwed up in Iraq is shameless. And misleads the American public.
Eric,
The amazing thing about this adminsitration is their penchant for consistently making the wrong decision. Given that these consistently wrong decisions are driven by their ideology, it tells one what their ideology is really worth, and Obama wants four more years to make yet more consistently wrong decisions.
Makes Bozo look like Einstein. Actually, now that I think of it, it’s like having Eddie Mush (A Bronx Tale) in the oval office. We’ve all been “Mushed.”
Obama is a dog who wants four more years to push out the turd he’s been building.
I mean, c’mon, that’s about right isn’t it? He’s not a Lenin or a Mao or a Stalin because he’s just too lazy and doesn’t really care except for now and then. Nuh uh. The way to look at Obam is biofuel: brain generated poop. He wants to poop on us.
I repeat my belief that there will be three classes of voters this November:
1) Pro-Romney
2) Anti-Obama
and
3) Pro-Obama
and something I was thinking before I just said what it was I was blinking, thanking.
Hello, governor of all the socialist states. I am grateful that I was able to infiltrate and percolate bullshit.
Ummmm hummm.
N-Neocon(1:26pm)…Can ya gimme a clue as to his/her moniker? Or, is it your rascally neo way of making me read ALL recent comments? (-:
Chose your weapon.
He lives! The womb is full.
I fold. The king has told
Nefertali’s womb is bold
And waits, assissination.
Wait for the death of Obama.
It is the only choice left to the Left.
Expect Obam to be killed. He won’t be, of couse, but he will enjoy everything while the outrage wil bring the vote.\
Still, even then, don’t give up. Because it won’t change what the Democrat’s know:\
THEY LOSE.
NeoConScum: I’ll give you more than a name, I’ll give you a link.
Curtis @10:18,
and your purpose in quoting my comment from the Florida Vote Thread @8:18 is what, exactly?
Just to chime in on Mead: T is right. Mead voted for Obama. No truly conservative person could ever do that (at least, not one who is aware of the world around him).
I think Mead’s analyses are always astute and usually right. Problem is his solutions, which tend to involve some weird fantasy of cutting-edge Democrats doing a Nixon-to-China on public sector and entitlement reform. He often falls into that lame rhetorical mode of “Democrats are hidebound and Republicans aren’t offering the right ideas,” notably failing every time to tell us just what the right ideas are. In short, for all of his brilliance and learning, he’s more than a bit wet behind the ears.
That being said, I still love the guy.
On the subject of surprise lefties, though, I was taken aback when reading Richard Landes’s reply to Ron Radosh at the Augean Stables, wherein he stated that he considers himself a man of the left. I kept re-reading to see if I was misinterpreting him, and maybe I was. But it sure seemed like he was defending a sort of idiosyncratic leftism. That made me go “Hm.”
We still love Saruman. Even though he backed the wrong guy.
A well-stated and astute distinction bettween Mead’s analyses and solutions. I agree.
Curtis: Art’s licking his wounds and hopefully building a ship that sails. We all hope he does!
what a nice comment…
bad comments if i do comment, bad comments if i don’t. and what wounds prey tell would i have other than a life more important than entertaining
I have no wounds to lick, i know my crap, and have always backed it and been consistent.
but sometimes i note that such as you practice often makes you “negatively productive”.
Rickl: I remember reading an article a few months before 9/11/01 that said that Russia and China had formed an alliance to oppose U.S. “hegemony”.
Your referring (i think) to “The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)”
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation or SCO is an intergovernmental mutual-security organisation which was founded in 2001 in Shanghai by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
Their logo, and Obama logo are very similar.
[but then again, how many notice the flame of Islam as a logo trend? ]
All SCO members but China are also members of the Eurasian Economic Community. A Framework Agreement to enhance economic cooperation was signed by the SCO member states on September 23, 2003.
afghanistan is seen to be entering the fold, but cant do that if the US doesnt back out
N-Neocon…Gracias, Senora. By the by, check out Politico’s just out polling of Middle Class voters. Mitt’s way, WAAAY ahead.
No way Art. I love you. I love your intel and comments and personality. I just want you to know we are on your side. But if you want to fight, so be it.
nah… its just not nice the licking wounds comment… no fight… not worth the time… 🙂
I think it’s worth the time to be nice to each other.
Thank you for your kind mention of my photo!
kolnai: “I think Mead’s analyses are always astute and usually right. Problem is his solutions which tend to involve some weird fantasy …”
I agree with that. Mead is grounded in his thinking until he gets to a tough spot, which he tends to bypass with a poorly explained leap. The example that stands out for me is Mead’s solution to the high cost of OIF. While still supporting the premises for OIF, Mead contends in hindsight Bush should have used harder-nosed diplomacy to push Saddam into compliance. Mead, however, doesn’t explain what that harder-nosed diplomacy should have been. The fact is we had used up every economic, subversive, and diplomatic option to convince Saddam to comply with the UNSC resolutions over 12 years. Militarily, Clinton had already credibly threatened, then punished Saddam with a sustained bombing of Iraq, which was the last remaining, penultimate threat before credibly threatening invasion and regime change, the ultimate enforcement measure short of actual invasion and regime change. In the end, Saddam was given a full, fair, and elongated opportunity to prove compliance with UNMOVIC under threat of the ultimate enforcement measure. We did our best and Saddam still refused to submit. So, I don’t know what tougher means of diplomacy Mead believes would have successfully coerced Saddam to comply with the UNSC resolutions. Mead doesn’t explain it.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
As bad as Obama has been – the media complicity has bothered me just as much, maybe more.
A brilliant observation by WRM. But of course, his truisms are ignored by the grandees in media and journalism.
JJ Formerly,
But the important (hidden) message is that WRM, an avowed Democrat and a member of the dreaded liberal professoriate wrote that. How many others feel the same way?
Preference cascade in November anyone?
Good point, T.
JJ,
Keep the faith.
Illegitimi non carborundum! (Don’t let the bastards wear you down)
true; but he gets a couple points from me for trying to stick it out. Its bad for all of us it didn’t seem to work. Is he a poor leader; yes. Does he get a media pass for being a dem. Of course.
and I’ll leave you all with this—another “tell”? (H/T Instapundit).
Enjoy!
http://lowertheboom.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/this-could-be-a-problem-for-president-obama/
G’night!
T,
Mead isn’t representative of Democrats nor the “liberal professoriate”. If he’s not a 9/11 neocon, he’s only a shade removed. Check this out:
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/05/29/memorial-day-the-war-in-iraq/
How many Democrats do you know talk like that about the Iraq mission? It’s clear that with his depth of support for the Iraq mission, Mead has been very unhappy with the Democrats’ disingenuousness, partisan politicking, and dedicated attempts at sabotaging the Iraq mission and the media’s complicity with the Democrats.
I get Mead’s point that the media has an obvious double-standard in service of Obama. However, I would caution Republicans against criticizing the Afghanistan ‘surge’ too harshly. Yes, announcing an end-date was foolish. Bush was careful not to do that with the Iraq ‘surge’. Otherwise, the Afghanistan ‘surge’ was largely formulated at the end of the Bush administration. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/21/AR2008112103504.html
The famous Obama strategic review on Afghanistan essentially circled the block and implemented the COIN-based ‘surge’ developed in Bush’s last Afghanistan review. Recall that Obama carried over Bush’s main military leaders, including GEN Petraeus, SecDef Gates, JCS ADM Mullen, and perhaps most importantly, Bush’s NSC ‘war czar’ on Iraq and Afghanistan, LG Doug Lute, who oversaw the Afghanistan review. When Obama decided for the Afghanistan ‘surge’, he actually followed the recommendation of the Bush hold-overs and rejected the recommendation of the military advisors from his presidential campaign.
I don’t have as much on my blog about OEF as I do about OIF because, like Mead, I’ve viewed Iraq as the more important one of the two occupations. Afghanistan has also been the less likely of the two occupations to succeed, whatever strategy we and NATO chose for the occupation. I did write several long comments on the blog of one of my college professors, which I preserved on my blog.
Thoughts on Afghanistan ‘surge’ following Obama’s USMA announcement of the ‘surge’:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2009/12/president-obama-announces-his-decision.html
About Afghanistan in comparison to Iraq:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2009/09/about-afghanistan.html
“Republican Deer” Repeatedly Destroys Obama Yard Sign; Leaves Neighbors’ Republican Signs Untouched
http://preview.tinyurl.com/9xqyx7q
If you need a good belly laugh, watch the news report to see the Dimocrats’ bewilderment, then read the Comments — I laughed so hard I practically did myself a mischief.
Smart buck, that!
treasures: thank you for alerting me to http://www.the-american-interest.com/ and thank you for leading me to “Marilynne Robinson, Absence of Mind” on Amazon and the review of that book by David Cook. nice payoffs on a treasure hunt for a still-dark Sunday morning in California.
Eric,
I read Mead’s essays so I’m not unfamiliar with his work and I am especially impressed with his Blue Social Model theories and comments. I don’t disagree that he is not typical of the professoriate, but I made my comment with that in mind.
A Neocon? I think not. If you look at his work, there is one particular essay (within the past 12 mos I believe), in which he announces himself as a liberal Democrat and in which he notes that he essentially remains so. His diffrence from most other liberal Dems is that, IMO, his opinions rise from a sentient analysis of the facts on the ground; he’s wise enough to see the handwritingon the wall. If so, I place him in the category of Mickey Kaus who also still remains an avowed liberal Dem, but who also has a sentient head on his shoulders. Perhaps we should call them “the thinking man’s Democrats.”
T oh, c’mon. Mickey Kaus is so full of thinking he is charming that it un-charms. If Mickey ever ‘fell’ into the arms of the conservatism that awaits him, however, I suspect he would drop that hip mask of his and actually be ok.
As for Mead, maybe I’ll get disallusioned aftter a bit more exposure, but on the surface he seems to put facts and analysis before a presumed cuteness and hipness and superiority.
M of Hollywood,
I guess we agree to disagree. I don’t dislike Kaus just because I dsagree with him on numerous points. I like him as a writer because he doesn’t shirk from criticizing liberals who are out in left field, unlike say, Alan Colmes who hasn’t had an original thought in a decade and who would be rendered mute without Dem party talking points.
Furthermore, while I currently push for big conservative victories because they are needed to restore this country and a balance to it, I am just as worried about a long-term future under overwhelming Republican control as I am disgusted by the overwhelming liberal influence of the past 80 years.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the Republicans as a group have shown their willingness to be just as corruptible as the Democrats. We are a society borne of dispute; one can’t have dispute without an opposition but I want sentient thinking opposition, not the current opposition of adolescent Democrat tantrums.
And crown they good
With brotherhood
From sea to shining sea
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity!
T,
Neocon Democrats are rare (hence, “not representative”), but they do exist. Joe Lieberman is the poster child. Lieberman was also ex-communicated from the Democrats for a time for standing up in support of the Iraq mission in the same manner as Mead.
Messina, Barry’s Campaign Mgr., says we need to ignore the polls, now that he & Mitt are even in several of the most respected. Yep, that’s what he advises. Thus, the MSM-Slathering Lapdawgs will do exactly that. Meanwhile, Mitt will pull ahead within days, I’m guessing. Libya, anyone? Gitmo detainees being released by the Boy King, anyone? Muslim World setting fire to anything American as the widespread response to the Obama regime’s Love & Apologies, anyone??!! (-:
“…napalm in the morning..It smells like Victory.”
HOPE & Change? NOPE…Despair & Rage..!
NeoConScum: and I’ve noticed that a certain liberal troll who used to come here long ago has returned (on a different thread) to do some concern-trolling. Interesting. His last visit prior to this was in 2010.
Alan Colmes who hasn’t had an original thought in a decade and who would be rendered mute without Dem party talking points
Alan Colmes mute … Alan Colmes mute … /snaps out of reverie.
Uh, what were we discussing?
Afghan, we should note, is the place where luck is better than genius and Obama has not been lucky, and since he lacks genius and will–well, it’s a good thing he’s a Democrat.
The offensive smell to the NYT piece which Mead refers to and is entitled “Troop ‘Surge’ in Afghanistan Ends With Mixed Results,” is the “Muslims reaction to the film” narrative. Otherwise, we all know the war in Afghanistan is a mixed bag and we do it because we are afraid not to. Mead rightly and skillfully calls out the media’s “mixed” responses according to who is CIC.
But should Obama come under special criticism? The answer is Yes, of course, and the answer, in one word: appeasement.
Raymond Ibrahim, one of the best writers on Muslim culture, relates how al-Haya TV severely criticizes Mohammad. The initial reaction was predictable but al-Haya did not back down and the outrage was replaced by apathy.
http://www.raymondibrahim.com/7387/what-did-you-say-about-muhammad
OB,
LOL
Eric,
Neocon Dems rare? or just not spoken of outright now that the Dem party has been taken over by the left wing. These are the Reagan Dems, many of which were ousted from congress; that doesn’t mean they cease ot exist.
As to Lieberman, he doesn’t even come close to representing a Neocon POV with the exception of his defense of Israel and support for the U.S. presence in the ME (which is related to his stance on Israel). Somewhat less so, he still seems to be in support of national security, but still not nearly a Neocon.
CAT GOES TO VET FOR FLEA BATH BUT GETS EUTHANIZED!
AMERICAN ELECTS OBAMA FOR RACIAL HEALING BUT . . .
First, Obama did NOT send anywhere near the number of surge troops requested by his Afghanistan military commander. It was entirely cosmetic and was doomed to failure, especially considering the restrictions placed upon our troops.
We lost Afghanistan as soon as Obama announced the pull out date.
But Afghanistan could never be permanently pacified as long as Pakistan provided refuge for the Taliban.
Pakistan has nukes, which means no credible military threats to compel cooperation. Pull the foreign aid and Pakistan’s government falls to its version of the Muslim Brotherhood.
The rogue nations can’t be confronted, until the following is acknowledged; “Rogue states never turn out to be quite the pariahs they are deemed. They are only able to cause, or at least threaten to cause, mayhem because they enjoy the covert support – usually by means of technology transfers – of one or more major powers within the charmed circle of global ‘good guys’.” M. Thatcher
The current technology transfer is Russia’s vital and irreplaceable facilitation of Iran’s nuclear program and China’s vital assistance in both N. Korea and Pakistan’s prior acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Any proposed effective, International economic sanctions against Iran and any other rogue nation have been consistently blocked and vetoed in the UN by Russia and China.
Afghanistan is simply one regional theater in the global ‘press’ that Russia and China are using against the West.
Islamic terrorism is being used as proxies in a covert, hot/cold war of aggression against the US.
The E.U. nations appeasement minded condoning and collaboration in this situation merely ensures that the US stands nearly alone.
If you can’t see the forest for the trees, you can only win battles, never the war.
Sooner or later, we’re going to have to “nuke the bastards” because our own feckless refusal to face reality will ensure that eventually being our only option.
Pacifistic appeasement in the face of malicious fanaticism always leads to greater suffering.
GB:
I remember reading an article a few months before 9/11/01 that said that Russia and China had formed an alliance to oppose U.S. “hegemony”. I don’t remember where I saw it and I can’t find it now.
But it’s food for thought.
Maybe Art remembers it.
T: I agree to agree: Kaus is better than Colmes, DWS, or that Holder woman they put on TV to embarass or that blonde “Political Scientist” from California they used to trot out. Yes, Kaus is better, to be sure.
Art’s licking his wounds and hopefully building a ship that sails. We all hope he does!
“Pull the foreign aid and Pakistan’s government falls to its version of the Muslim Brotherhood.”–GB
There’s the Catch 22 of Pakistan. 7 billion in aid of which 3 billion goes to opium, 3 billion to corruption, and 1 billion to whatever. What a feline farce: My butt in your face and you feed me. Yeah. But then what if kitty kat decides to become a tiger?
War on Poverty: 7,000 billion.
In that context, the “tribute” to Pakistan is a pretty damn good deal.
“our own feckless refusal to face reality will ensure that eventually”
That’s the positive outcome.
Is there anything better than VDH and song:
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/obamas-middle-east-delusions/?singlepage=true
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7IhKwvQuGA
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/world/middleeast/failed-efforts-of-americas-last-months-in-iraq.html?pagewanted=all
It’s unseemly that the Obama campaign touts the Iraq withdrawal as a highlight success of Obama’s foreign affairs when it’s actually a failure of incompetence.
Eric,
Eric,
a failure of competence—fixed it for ya!
T,
Thanks. Hm. Failure due to incompetence is probably the most accurate phrasing. Doesn’t flow as well, though.
Like Neo and Mead, I’ve been a strong supporter of the Iraq mission and believer in its importance. That Obama fumbled it so badly is maddening. That the Obama campaign would try now to portray the failure as a postive in his campaign despite evidence that Obama understood he screwed up in Iraq is shameless. And misleads the American public.
Eric,
The amazing thing about this adminsitration is their penchant for consistently making the wrong decision. Given that these consistently wrong decisions are driven by their ideology, it tells one what their ideology is really worth, and Obama wants four more years to make yet more consistently wrong decisions.
Makes Bozo look like Einstein. Actually, now that I think of it, it’s like having Eddie Mush (A Bronx Tale) in the oval office. We’ve all been “Mushed.”
Obama is a dog who wants four more years to push out the turd he’s been building.
I mean, c’mon, that’s about right isn’t it? He’s not a Lenin or a Mao or a Stalin because he’s just too lazy and doesn’t really care except for now and then. Nuh uh. The way to look at Obam is biofuel: brain generated poop. He wants to poop on us.
For me to poop on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oIORd8KhgU&feature=related
I repeat my belief that there will be three classes of voters this November:
1) Pro-Romney
2) Anti-Obama
and
3) Pro-Obama
and something I was thinking before I just said what it was I was blinking, thanking.
Hello, governor of all the socialist states. I am grateful that I was able to infiltrate and percolate bullshit.
Ummmm hummm.
N-Neocon(1:26pm)…Can ya gimme a clue as to his/her moniker? Or, is it your rascally neo way of making me read ALL recent comments? (-:
Chose your weapon.
He lives! The womb is full.
I fold. The king has told
Nefertali’s womb is bold
And waits, assissination.
Wait for the death of Obama.
It is the only choice left to the Left.
Expect Obam to be killed. He won’t be, of couse, but he will enjoy everything while the outrage wil bring the vote.\
Still, even then, don’t give up. Because it won’t change what the Democrat’s know:\
THEY LOSE.
NeoConScum: I’ll give you more than a name, I’ll give you a link.
Curtis @10:18,
and your purpose in quoting my comment from the Florida Vote Thread @8:18 is what, exactly?
Just to chime in on Mead: T is right. Mead voted for Obama. No truly conservative person could ever do that (at least, not one who is aware of the world around him).
I think Mead’s analyses are always astute and usually right. Problem is his solutions, which tend to involve some weird fantasy of cutting-edge Democrats doing a Nixon-to-China on public sector and entitlement reform. He often falls into that lame rhetorical mode of “Democrats are hidebound and Republicans aren’t offering the right ideas,” notably failing every time to tell us just what the right ideas are. In short, for all of his brilliance and learning, he’s more than a bit wet behind the ears.
That being said, I still love the guy.
On the subject of surprise lefties, though, I was taken aback when reading Richard Landes’s reply to Ron Radosh at the Augean Stables, wherein he stated that he considers himself a man of the left. I kept re-reading to see if I was misinterpreting him, and maybe I was. But it sure seemed like he was defending a sort of idiosyncratic leftism. That made me go “Hm.”
We still love Saruman. Even though he backed the wrong guy.
In the war of ages
Occams razor’s
cuts.
Como.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYf4kqnAWos&feature=related
kolnai,
A well-stated and astute distinction bettween Mead’s analyses and solutions. I agree.
Curtis: Art’s licking his wounds and hopefully building a ship that sails. We all hope he does!
what a nice comment…
bad comments if i do comment, bad comments if i don’t. and what wounds prey tell would i have other than a life more important than entertaining
I have no wounds to lick, i know my crap, and have always backed it and been consistent.
but sometimes i note that such as you practice often makes you “negatively productive”.
Rickl: I remember reading an article a few months before 9/11/01 that said that Russia and China had formed an alliance to oppose U.S. “hegemony”.
Your referring (i think) to “The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)”
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation or SCO is an intergovernmental mutual-security organisation which was founded in 2001 in Shanghai by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
Their logo, and Obama logo are very similar.
[but then again, how many notice the flame of Islam as a logo trend? ]
All SCO members but China are also members of the Eurasian Economic Community. A Framework Agreement to enhance economic cooperation was signed by the SCO member states on September 23, 2003.
afghanistan is seen to be entering the fold, but cant do that if the US doesnt back out
N-Neocon…Gracias, Senora. By the by, check out Politico’s just out polling of Middle Class voters. Mitt’s way, WAAAY ahead.
No way Art. I love you. I love your intel and comments and personality. I just want you to know we are on your side. But if you want to fight, so be it.
nah… its just not nice the licking wounds comment… no fight… not worth the time… 🙂
I think it’s worth the time to be nice to each other.
Thank you for your kind mention of my photo!
kolnai: “I think Mead’s analyses are always astute and usually right. Problem is his solutions which tend to involve some weird fantasy …”
I agree with that. Mead is grounded in his thinking until he gets to a tough spot, which he tends to bypass with a poorly explained leap. The example that stands out for me is Mead’s solution to the high cost of OIF. While still supporting the premises for OIF, Mead contends in hindsight Bush should have used harder-nosed diplomacy to push Saddam into compliance. Mead, however, doesn’t explain what that harder-nosed diplomacy should have been. The fact is we had used up every economic, subversive, and diplomatic option to convince Saddam to comply with the UNSC resolutions over 12 years. Militarily, Clinton had already credibly threatened, then punished Saddam with a sustained bombing of Iraq, which was the last remaining, penultimate threat before credibly threatening invasion and regime change, the ultimate enforcement measure short of actual invasion and regime change. In the end, Saddam was given a full, fair, and elongated opportunity to prove compliance with UNMOVIC under threat of the ultimate enforcement measure. We did our best and Saddam still refused to submit. So, I don’t know what tougher means of diplomacy Mead believes would have successfully coerced Saddam to comply with the UNSC resolutions. Mead doesn’t explain it.