Charles Krauthammer in his column today enlarges on his complaints about President Obama’s non-eloquence at West Point.
It was meant to be stirring. It fell flat. In August, he called Afghanistan “a war of necessity.” On Tuesday night, he defined “what’s at stake” as “the common security of the world.” The world, no less. Yet, we begin leaving in July 2011?
Now keep reading.
Despite my personal misgivings about the possibility of lasting success against Taliban insurgencies in both Afghanistan and the borderlands of Pakistan, I have deep confidence that Petraeus and McChrystal would not recommend a strategy that will be costly in lives without their having a firm belief in the possibility of success.
I would therefore defer to their judgment and support their recommended policy.
So Charles’ advice is for the president to go out and deliver a Churchillian address … on behalf of a policy of whose merits Charles himself remains dubious. But that kind of gap between rhetoric and reality is much more dangerous to a policy and a presidency than an underwhelming speech.
91 responses so far
1 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 11:58 am
David, I find myself agreeing far more on this topic –namely, was the policy in Obama’s speech as bad as it sounded– with Charles Krauthammer than you… and that worries me.
I think your past profession of speech-writer has tainted you to a point where you suppose that just putting great words (from your brain & pen I might add) into the mouth a politician will make the pol an oracle.
I think it really didn’t matter what Obama said in his speech. He could have made his decision, announced it in a press release, moved forward with the Fake Jobs Summit and it would have been as successfully delivered a speech as he could make before some snoozing West Point cadets and future leaders of our Army.
An anti-war Left democrat talking about military strategy is as believable as listening to Carter tell us how to improve relations with Iran or Elliot Spitzer on ethics in govt or Bernie Madoff on investor confidence. Obama was not an authentic voice and it showed. He knew it. They knew it. Our allies know it. The only one who can’t seem to see the big purple donkey in the middle of the room is you.
Charles Krauthammer has it right. He’s a good writer. Speech writers don’t need to be good writers; they just need to have a flare for drama and be able to speak in an authentic voice for their boss.
The problem wasn’t with Obama speech writers. The problem was with Obama’s policy and his delivery and the use of cadets as props.
2 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:04 pm
BTW, I said earlier that before endorsing Obama’s policy, it would be important to wait until we saw the Administration and pundits clarify, re-clarify and re-clarify the reclarifications… it’s started with Hillary reinforcing in Brussels that the time table for withdrawl MUST rest on decisions to be made based on the situtation on the ground and advice of the combat leaders.
Good to clarify. It helps make the policy more tenable. But Pakistan is still worried that US actions will leave their country exposed, vulnerable and in crisis. We can’t have Pakistan questioning US resolve but that’s what happens with a tentative, uncertain, inexperienced CIC.
3 balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Obama was being heavily faulted on Fox after the speech for being “academic”.
But wasn’t he at a University which is dedicated to the academic study of war, and how to win it? West Point isn’t a pep rally for uber-patriotism – it is a place dedicated to the discipline of training young men and women to be able to lead our troops into war. Physical discipline, emotional discipline, and intellectual discipline.
Perhaps that was the real signal behind Obama choosing West Point. Winning in Afghanistan isn’t going to be a matter of podium thumping and rhetorical flourish. It’s going to be hard work. And many of those young men and women are going to be graduating in 6 months or 18 months and be thrown right into that hard work. And they need to prepare themselves for it – the way West Point has always been designed to prepare Cadets.
West Point doesn’t use cheerleaders to teach West Pointers how to win. It uses academicians. So perhaps it’s best that we have an academician leading us now, rather than a cheerleader?
4 sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:08 pm
MI-GOPer:
You go to war with the President you have.
We went to war with Woodrow Wilson too.
I’m no fan of Obama, but I intend to support him at this crucial juncture, where American lives are at stake.
I wish you would too.
Don’t do what the Dems did, and let your personal dislike of the President cause you to oppose a reasonable war policy.
5 balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:13 pm
sinz: Don’t do what the Dems did, and let your personal dislike of the President cause you to oppose a reasonable war policy.
Come on, Sinz. Once again, you’re a bit inconsistent here.
You can’t accuse those on the left who oppose an Obama troop expansion in Afghanistan as having opposed Bush’s wars simply out of personal dislike, can you?
That seems to be to be utterly nonsensical, like saying an umpire who consistently calls the high strike is doing so with one team because he dislikes them, and the other team because he consistently calls the high strike.
6 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Sorry Sinz. Bush did not have a reasonable war policy. It was gung ho into Iraq and ignore Afghanistan. If that is reasonable the please.
This week it was confirmed that Bush refused to reinforce the Afghan force for 2 years despite repeated requests from the top brass. How is that a reasonable policy.
7 DFL // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:22 pm
At least President Obama hints that American troops will be leaving Afghanistan in eighteen months. He knows that heavily indebted countries can not afford expensive military operations in mountainous backwaters 10,000 miles from America’s Atlantic shores. He’s actually showing a maturity that the neo-conservatives have yet to show. One cheer for Obama!
8 balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:31 pm
BarryS: This week it was confirmed that Bush refused to reinforce the Afghan force for 2 years despite repeated requests from the top brass. How is that a reasonable policy.
Well, in all honesty, it was a reasonable policy given that meeting that demand and conducting the surge in Iraq simultaneously would have broken the Army.
Now the decisions that got us to that ugly dichotomy were most certainly not reasonable, but at that point a choice had to be made. I suspect that even without the glitz and show of the troop surge, Iraq would have been pretty much where it is today due to other factors, but that is not provable. I believe that it was more critical for Afghanistan to have been stabilized over that time, as the approval polling among Afghans for American involvement plummeted from the 80’s to the 40’s.
But if Bush was hell bent on sending a lot more troops into Iraq, and he most certainly was, then not also sending 60k more troops into Afghanistan at the same time was reasonable.
9 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:33 pm
DFL, don’t hold your liberal, left wing breath on that point… Secy of State Clinton says the time line isn’t as real or important as assessing conditions on the ground as the timeline approaches.
Our allies are skittish. Our enemies will be holding their powder and shot. What was the best year for the Taliban since they kicked out the Soviets in 1988 has been Obama’s 1st year as CIC and now it will become a waiting game and undistinguished patrols… in a real way, Obama may have signaled his interest in a truce with the Taliban.
We’ll see if Karzai starts reaching out to Taliban leaders and doing the ol’JoeBiden thing: partition the country, divide up the spoils, spread the American wealth.
10 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Balcon are there not the most troops in Iraq at the moment than there has ever been? Not sure of that but I did not see any great withdrawal yet post surge. So if Obama can send 30,000 into Afghanistan NOW why could not Bush?
11 balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Barry – nope. At the peak of the surge (October 2007) we had 170,000 troops in Iraq. Per the AP, we’re now down to 115,000 troops.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j1bBjr_tTTXaVRXckza_PUyGPfEwD9CAMV900
12 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:43 pm
balconesfault, exiting the echo chamber, says: “West Point isn’t a pep rally for uber-patriotism”.
Well, I can tell you are a solid liberal who’s never served, never visited West Point and, like candidate Obama, wouldn’t know patriotism if it snapped at your rear end. As a Marine, even I am in awe of the unflenching patriotism that West Point cadets routinely display throughout this Nation’s history. The Long Grey Line??? Ring a bell, my faux-intellectual friend?
I love how liberals think patriotism and academic rigors are mutually exclusive. Way to show your true stripes, balconesfault. Or was that you just trying to annoy and irritate and distract again, gleefully?
Like Chrissie Matthews, the uber Liberal defender of the far Left, West Point for Obama was “enemy camp”. He nailed it. Obama needs to avoid the truth tellers and real patriots whenever he travels in public.
Obama should have FedEx’ed the policy announcement to interested parties or found another venue with more adoring props… maybe the defendant’s table in a courtroom with ACORN criminals? Nawh, that would be too easy. A WH room full of labor goons? Nawh, they’re more anti-war than CodePink. How about a bunch of biz execs interested in sack time in the Lincoln Bedroom with the trophy wife? Now, we’re getting closer.
13 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:46 pm
Ok so if there were 170,000 in 2007 and the requests were being refused up to the end of 2009. At some point there must have been spare troops to go to Afghanistan. 55,000 troops have come home in that time frame. Obama has heeded the commanders requests and made the decision as soon as he had power to do so. He sent troops in early spring of this year.
If he could do it as soon as that why could not Bush?
14 DFL // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Wilsonianism is a left-wing foreign policy spasm and not a conservative foreign policy. And that is what Bush’s attempt to mold democracy in the Middle East was. And that is what neo-conservatives support, fiscal prudence and national bankruptcy be damned. If President Obama wants to phase out the Wilsonian project in the Middle East, I support him.
15 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:56 pm
BarryS inclines an ear toward Neverland and says: “This week it was confirmed that Bush refused to reinforce the Afghan force for 2 years despite repeated requests from the top brass.”
Didn’t happen and Def Secy Gates has now backpeddled to say that the request from the military didn’t get past his desk.
Spin away, BarryS. The simplest truth is that this year, Obama’s 1st in office, has been the best year yet since the Taliban kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan in 1988-89. The Taliban has been able to overrun US and NATO forward posts while Obama dithered away the summer and fall. His decision to now send troops is delayed another 3 months because of weather conditions making glaciers the only thing that moves in Afghanistan in winter.
302 American troops killed on the fields of Afghanistan under Obama. The worst year on record for Bush was 1/2 that amount. Our enemies and the Taliban sensed Obama’s weakness and his uncertain political quandry. They tried to push his decision toward an immediate pull out. They misjudged the final decision but 302 troops paid the price.
Using caskets at Dover as props won’t ease the pain of those American families. Anymore than the political correctness and diversity mindset of Obama, read by military leaders, can help address his role in the slaughter at Ft Hood by a muslim extremist.
16 balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:07 pm
MI-GOPer: Obama’s 1st in office, has been the best year yet since the Taliban kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan in 1988-89
As I noted elsewhere … this is SO MUCH BETTER for the Taliban than when they actually had complete rule over the nation of Afghanistan. I’m sure every one of them would gladly trade occupying the seats of power in Kabul for the privilege of hiding in the mountains while getting to kill a few hundred US troops while we kill many more of them. I’ll bet that’s their favorite thing in the world, being hunted like dogs with the hope of maybe killing a US soldier before they themselves are killed, instead of RULING THE WHOLE DAMN COUNTRY.
In October 2001, we invaded Afghanistan, and quickly killed many many Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. By MI-GOPers logic, 2001 was the best year ever for the US in our fight against terror.
Or, I should say, “logic”.
17 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:08 pm
“An Uncertain Trumpet” says the headline.
The trumpet was heard loud and clear as far away as al Jazeera… here’s how their top political analyst calls it:
Al Jazeera: We very much expected much of what Obama said – but has anything changed in the speech that would make Americans think this war can be won?
Marwan Bishara: No, nothing new was laid out on the way to victory. Rather, Obama underlined how his war strategy of escalation is the best of bad options to deal with a national security threat that was imposed on America by al-Qaeda and the Taliban and for eight years was mishandled by the Bush administration.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/12/200912220020985331.html
And here I thought the democrat activist trolls on this site were getting their talking points from the DailyKos?
They get ‘em from al Jazeera. One part Bash Bush, one part cry into Obama’s beer glass.
18 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:11 pm
…….Instead of reading Krauthammer’s mindless nonsense (when has this guy EVER been right about anything) David would have been better employed reading this really intelligent take by Max Hastings (former editor of Britain’s most conservative newspaper and noted military historian) on the Afghan dilemma……he correctly suggests that no strategy is likely to succeed because we don’t have a viable partner in Karzai and that to a large extent Obama’s decision is driven by a)the need to prevent things from deteriorating further in Pakistan and b) domestic US politics……he also recognizes its acuity in both respects……either way at the end of 18 months Obama emerges with an enhanced reputation
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/04/opinion/04hastings.html?th&emc=th
19 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:12 pm
balconesfaulty says: “As I noted elsewhere…”
Yep, it wasn’t exactly the put-away shot you think it is, though. Facts are stubborn things for you balcones… simple facts, simply confound you. Obama in office; US troop deaths climb at 100%. Only difference over the time period? Obama in, Bush-Cheney out.
Best year ever for the Taliban since the Soviets were driven out in 1988.
What next? Time out to check al Jazeera for your next talking point?
20 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Mi-Goper. I see that you are hiding in this thread. Aw sucks I thought that you had gone missing.
So I will ask the question here.
Are you a birther, do you believe the President was born in the USA, is he a citizen of this country?
Give me your answer please.
21 balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:19 pm
Best year ever for the Taliban since the Soviets were driven out in 1988.
You really think that the Taliban judges whether they are well off or not by how many US troops they kill, and not by whether they control the country of Afghanistan?
Seriously – that’s the proposition you’re putting forth. Do you really believe that this is how the Taliban judges whether they’re successful or not?
Only difference over the time period? Obama in, Bush-Cheney out.
And this, my friend, is an absolute bald faced lie. I can’t even call it an error, because I am sure that you are aware of the truth.
Just as took place during the early part of the surge in Iraq, increasing the number of combat troops going out into the countryside in Afghanistan coincided with an increase in troop casualties.
I know you’re not stupid enough to not understand this linkage. I can only conclude that you are a pure, unadulterated liar, willing to keep spouting lies over and over even long after they’ve been disproven.
Once again – “Only difference over the time period? Obama in, Bush-Cheney out.” A pure, easily demonstrable, lie.
22 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:19 pm
sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 12:08 pm
“MI-GOPer:
An anti-war Left democrat talking about military strategy is as believable as listening to Carter tell us how to improve relations with Iran
You go to war with the President you have.
We went to war with Woodrow Wilson too.”
……we also went to war with FDR and we emerged enormously strengthened from both wars……the US entered WW 1 as the worlds greatest debtor nation and emerged from it as the greatest creditor nation and it’s greatest naval power…….we emerged from WW2 as the world’s sole superpower……When it comes to statecraft Democrats are usually the more effective managers (you can add Truman, Kennedy and Clinton to the list)…….the only comparable Republicans have been TR and Nixon (and maybe Bush senior)
23 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:25 pm
balconesfault, will all of us have to go back to calling you BlankHead? Because, really dude, this line is just so typical of far Left drivel, when you write:
“In October 2001, we invaded Afghanistan, and quickly killed many many Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters. By MI-GOPers logic, 2001 was the best year ever for the US in our fight against terror.”
First, you didn’t get the memo that we can’t say “terror” under Obama or refer to the War on Terror or else we could be reported to Obama’s Office of Fishy Blog Comments?
I’m sure you think the best year in the War on Terror, oops, was when Eric Holder announced Gitmo was closing, the DOJ would move prosecution to a more intern’l media center like NYC so the terrorist can tell their story and we announced a time table for withdrawl from Afghanistan?
Or was it the Clinton bombing run on that aspirin factory to divert attention away from the perjury?
Maybe it was when bin Laden escaped? Or Saddam was captured and his two sons terminated? No, that last one wouldn’t be in keeping with Obama’s BigHugsHeal strategy… that can’t be it.
Yeah, balconesfault. I think the best year was when we were killing Taliban and alQaeda terrorists… we had finally exited the national nightmare of impotency that BillClinton and JanetReno created. America under Bush 43 was more like Bush 41’s and RR’s time and less about sacking interns in the Oval Office.
24 balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:28 pm
Mi-GOPer. You will deserve respect when you acknowledge that your claim … “Only difference over the time period? Obama in, Bush-Cheney out.” … is a complete lie. Until then, you are purely a propogandist.
25 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Mi-GOPer.
You are here I know you are, please answer my question. Are you a birther?
26 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:38 pm
balconesfault: “And this, my friend, is an absolute bald faced lie. I can’t even call it an error, because I am sure that you are aware of the truth.”
Well, let’s see… your truth is loaded with so much far Left spin and ObamaSpeak that would make RobbieGibbs smile with envy and you can’t swing that cat fast enough over your head… my reiteration of the simple truth points out that the Taliban sensed Obama’s dithering and quandry and acted to influence his decision toward immediate pullout –just like the far Left commentators back in December were telling anyone who would listen that more US troop deaths would mean Obama would have to leave– attack, attack, attack.
They did. They overran two military outposts and killed a lot of troops. This year so far, 100% more under Obama than under Bush-Cheney. Now, you think that a Talibanist is most happy sitting back and ruling over the ol’ poppie fields back home? Nawh, they were happiest fighting. That’s the lesson of Afghanistan’s history. They love to fight. Between themselves, with others, against neighboring tribes that once stole a goat from the village in the 14th C… fight.
The Taliban had a very successful year recruiting and fighting against what they see as the armed invaders. Obama’s time in office coincides perfectly with the Taliban’s surge/assault on American troops. 302 US troops killed while Obama was CIC. We have to add up three years to get to that total under Bush-Cheney.
You can’t admit a simple truth because it reinforces that American voters who didn’t pull that Obama Messiah lever were right.
JoeBiden was right.
HillaryClinton was right.
When the phone rang at 3 AM, the guy who answered it is a weak, uncertain, tentative CIC. I’m just glad the Cold War is over because we could never trust Obama with that call.
27 balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:41 pm
MI-GOPer – your claim … “Only difference over the time period? Obama in, Bush-Cheney out.” … is a complete lie.
If you cannot accept that the US roughly doubled their troop presence in Afghanistan during this time – an unmutable fact … then you really don’t have a seat at the discussion. It is you who are broadbrush denying reality. You are simply a propogandist.
28 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:44 pm
balconesfault, you may want to spin away from truth and start labeling others as trolls, propagandists, etc. It doesn’t work –you were the guy who’s got “dishonest” stencilled across your forehead in red letters. Remember, this is a site dedicated to rebuilding the conservative movement and restoring the GOP to majority status… it isn’t the DailyKos or HuffPo.
The problem is you’re stuck with the president you elected. Under his watch, this year, the Taliban has had the most successful year to date since they succeeded in kicking the Soviets out of their country.
Who knows if Obama’s tipping point had been lower, we’d now be suing for peace in Kabul and helping Karzai count his dollars in a villa in France? And, I think, Pakistan would be in ruins.
29 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Think I need to get the waterboard ™ (not torture under any circumstances) out for MI-GOPer.
BIRTHER OR NOT DUDE.
30 balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:45 pm
MI-GOPer balconesfault, you may want to spin away from truth
Sir, it is you who is spinning. You made the statement:
“Only difference over the time period? Obama in, Bush-Cheney out.”
This is clearly a lie. You can recant it, you can qualify it – but you have done neither. Thus, you are a liar.
31 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:50 pm
He is a liar and also the color of the deepest yellow there is. I have asked him on two threads over several hours to say if he believes the president was born in the USA and he just runs away. Typical wingnut no balls.
32 txanne // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:51 pm
balconesfault, do you really expect Goper to admit he is wrong? He will never do it.
But let’s see, some other differences: ramping of troop levels, change of commanding general, New strategic review process…
War is hell goper, soldiers die. Each and every death is part of our national sorrow.
If you look at the rate of deaths in Afghanistan it had already strtred to escalate over the past few years, since 2007.
http://www.icasualties.org/
Look at what happened in Iraq, the loss nearly doubled from 2003 to 2004 and stayed that way for 4 years.
33 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:55 pm
balconesfault does his best Chicago Thug impersonation: “(Admit I’m right or else) you really don’t have a seat at the discussion. It is you who are broadbrush denying reality. You are simply a propogandist”
No, balconesfault. Thuggery works in the Obama WH. Rahm can twist arms and break legs like a modern day Capone crime boss, but that his ground… that’s his turf.
Here, you as a far Left democrat activist, are on a site dedicated to rebuilding the conservative movement and returning the GOP to majority status… it isn’t your turf. It isn’t your place. Thuggery styled strong arming may have worked on your playground but it really belongs back on DailyKos. Strong armed pressure is the last resort of those who realize they’ve lost the debate.
You’ve failed to offer a single truthful fact to refute that Obama’s 1st year in office has been the best year for the Taliban since they kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan. US troop deaths now approach 300+ and this will be the worst year for US losses including the initial invasion phase.
Obama in, US troop deaths double; Taliban recruiting and success rises. Bush-Cheney in, US troops deaths at half the rate, enemies cower so much that we have to bring the battle to them across the border into Pakistan.
The only difference, it seems, is that under Bush-Cheney, our enemies were cowering and cutting & running… I hope Obama doesn’t get his way and the US is the one cowering and cutting & running this time next year.
34 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:57 pm
ahh, txanne now joins the echo chamber: “balconesfault, do you really expect Goper to admit he is wrong? He will never do it”
Sweetie, you got dispatched in enough threads so far today you’ll link up with anyone with any opinion to spitefully try to get even. Sad, pathetic. Oh wait, time to resort to making up some more lies and saying others are saying you’re a liar or traitor? Gee, it worked so well last time; not even the echo chamber of trolls rose to your defense and honor.
35 PracticalGirl // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Krauthammer says
“It was meant to be stirring. It fell flat.”
Was he talking about Obama or his own snoozapolooza on Fox News directly after the speech? This man should never, never, never, never quit speaking for the right wing. Better than drugs to put them all in deep slumber.
The lack of “stir” in his speech was certainly part of the right wing memo. Sionce they couldn’t bitch about his decision, they chose to criticize his speaking style.
Honestly, the right bangs whatever drum they want, no matter how inconsistent with what they said yesterday. Krauthammer and friends droned on and on during the election about Obama’s fancy rhetoric, his superior speaking ability and his cult of personality to demonstrate their displeasure. When Obama takes a sober tone to what we can all admit was a difficult decision in front of a body of cadets who will one day (possibly) be leading these efforts, all of the sudden he wasn’t inspiring enough.
36 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:59 pm
You need a happy face on your posts Mi-GOPer to match the color of the stripe down your back. Here is the color.:-)
37 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Try again
38 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:00 pm
BarryS weighs in at the echo chamber with: “He is a liar and also the color of the deepest yellow there is.”
Wait, BarryS, were’nt you calling others here yellow and cowards because they wouldn’t immediately respond to your demanding, impertinent question? Yeah, I thought that was you. Learning some school yard bully taunts from balconesfault, eh? Or are you guys the same person?
You question is answered, no.
39 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:01 pm
BarryS, you are pure juvenile. I think you were typing that babyish nonsense as I was answering your Attention Deficit Disordered moment.
40 PracticalGirl // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:03 pm
BarryS:
Asked and aswered through silence. MiGOPer is a birther, like his hero Glenn Beck.
Let’s move on to issues that aren’t between MiGOPer and his psychiatrist.
41 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:04 pm
BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 1:59 pm
“Try again”
…….I wish you’d stop stirring up gopher, his barking is waking the kids
42 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:04 pm
We are getting somewhere, so you are a bither, thought so. Can you please expand on your answer for me. I will ask it in three parts so I can be sure.
Do you believe that the President Barak Obama was born in the USA Yes/No?
Do you believe that the President is a US citizen Yes/No?
If No where was he born?
43 txanne // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:08 pm
goper, you are indeed laughable. What say you about the link I provided? Is it a lie too?
44 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:13 pm
PracticalGrrrl, looking like the heel she’s become, says: “Was he (CK) talking about Obama or his own snoozapolooza on Fox News directly after the speech?”
Did you know that Charles is wheelchair bound and suffers from respiratory deficiencies brought about by the disability from a diving accident?
I think it happened either before or just after he entered Harvard Medical School. It’s gotten progressively worse over the years as his diaphragm further atrophies and his thoracic cavity can’t lift or expand to afford him enough oxygen to breath properly. That’s why the drooping eyelids, my mean-spirited gal. He’s literally starved for O2 on air.
That’s why he has trouble gaining enough breath to complete a more complex spoken sentence. Of course, even with all that –and an advanced degree in psychiatry and a Pulitzer… he needs to work harder at keeping intellectual lightweights like you entertained and away from your utter self-absorbtion.
Mean spirited, practicalgrrrrl. I would have expected that kind of meanness from your echo chamber bud, BarryS.
BTW, isn’t it beyond time for BarryS to turn back into balconesfault? Or is it Mr Face next?
45 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:15 pm
BarryS at 42, you got it wrong –no surprise from the guy who made an art out of being able to last the longest in the shallow end of the gene pool.
Juvenile. Damn that captures you in a single word. The thread is about Obama’s Uncertain Trumpet. Try to stay on topic… maybe you can peruse the al Jazeera website for talking points? It works for Otto.
46 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:17 pm
txanne, that’s the site I referred to in a thread two weeks ago!
Wow, so you can read? 302 deaths under Obama in Afghanistan.
If you want to spin the discussion away to Iraq, go ahead and do it when an article on that topic hits. Otherwise, join balconesfault in the “Smarting and Licking His Wounds” room.
47 PracticalGirl // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:19 pm
I am aware of Krauthammer’s issues, arising from a diving accident. Stephen Hawkings had issues, as well, which didn’t ever stop him from original thought. A wheelchair does not stop somebody from thinking. CK just chooses not to, and it’s his content, not his style, that bores us all.
He should never, never, never, never quit. Banging that hipocritical gong for the right wing media-he’s very good at that.
48 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:20 pm
You still have not answered my question birther boy. Your gonads are still some guys trucknutz ™
49 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Practicalgrrrrl, it is truly a heel that tries to make fun out of other people by labeling them as ill.
First it was the mean-spirited attack on CK. Now it’s time to join BarryS & otto and txanne in the echo chamber for a little bitchslapping of your intellectual superior?
Wow, the compassionate far Left goons and trolls are earning their DailyKos pay today, kids.
50 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:23 pm
BarryS or balconesfault… asked and answered counselor. You can try to make it into something it’s not… that’s you being an annoyance and irritant to all. I thought that was balconesfault’s job? or rbottoms? I get ‘em confused.
51 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:23 pm
“Of course, even with all that –and an advanced degree in psychiatry ”
I would recommend you sign on as a patient birther boy. At the same time while in hospital get your gonads re attached.
52 txanne // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:24 pm
So
increased casualties in Afghanistan=entirely Obama’s fault
increased casualties in Iraq=lets not talk about that
Gotchya
53 balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Otherwise, join balconesfault in the “Smarting and Licking His Wounds” room.
Nope. Just pointing out that you are a liar seems so self-evident by now, that it’s hardly worth doing.
But since you asked for it …
You made the statement:
“Only difference over the time period? Obama in, Bush-Cheney out.”
This is clearly a lie. You can recant it, you can qualify it – but you have done neither. Thus, you are a liar.
You also don’t know the difference between the deficit and the debt level, but that’s for another thread.
54 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I asked you “Do you believe that the president was born in the USA”
You answered Quote
You question is answered, no. do you wish to change your answer?. Gong.
55 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:28 pm
Practicalgrrrrl at #47 says “I am aware of Krauthammer’s issues, arising from a diving accident” –right, I just told you about it.
I also noted it was a heel –even if it’s a dyke’s heel in a bikers boot– that would take a person’s disability and make light of it just because she can’t be completely entertained all the time on cable news.
Here’s a tip for you, flannel gal pal, sometimes people try to speak to you and reach your minimal intellect… I know, it doesn’t happen a lot with the friends you have. But here, we’re trying to get declutter all those small engine repair magazine articles bashing around your brain and get you to understand more complicated, complex ideas.
Hell, some days, I’d be happy if we could just keep you on topic and out fo the mean-streak phase you seem to always fall into here.
56 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:30 pm
BarryS, I answered your first question –not the variations of it as you stomped and threw another infamous far Left tantrum here. 1st question, ADD-boy. First. Look at your hand, raise the index finger… first. Come one, need a banana?
57 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:31 pm
I’m trying to imagine a site that is more about rebuilding the conservative movement and the GOP and less about far Left democrat activists whining about losing all the arguments?
I guess that captures it.
58 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:34 pm
Sinz wrote: “Don’t do what the Dems did, and let your personal dislike of the President cause you to oppose a reasonable war policy.”
Yet, Sinz also believes Dems (particularly liberal Dems) are opposed to all wars.
Doesn’t this mean that the Dems who opposed Bush’s war policy did so because they were opposed to the policy NOT because they disliked Bush?
59 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Ok then Mi-Goper just answer one straight question as three are so hard for you.
Was the President born in the USA Yes/NO
Pretty simple question, should not need a great deal of research or thought.
Give it to me birther boy.
60 balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:44 pm
Spartacus: Doesn’t this mean that the Dems who opposed Bush’s war policy did so because they were opposed to the policy NOT because they disliked Bush?
Yeah, I pointed that out back at #5.
I’m beginning to believe that MI-GOPer has embarrassed all the other conservatives that might participate here enough that they’re avoiding the thread. He’s pretty much sucked all the oxygen out of the room on their side.
61 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:50 pm
balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 2:25 pm
“You also don’t know the difference between the deficit and the debt level, but that’s for another thread.”
…….hardly surprising surely, since he doesn’t know his ass from his elbow
62 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Balcone wrote: “I’m beginning to believe that MI-GOPer has embarrassed all the other conservatives that might participate here enough that they’re avoiding the thread.”
Actually, I think the problem is broader than MI-GOPer. It’s very rare to hear sound conservative opposition on the merits of the argument anywhere – not just on NM. I believe that it is as difficult to make an intellectually honest argument against many of the policy proposals of today as it would be for liberals to start arguing that we should have a top marginal tax rate of 90%.
When conservatives do make sound arguments against current policy proposals, they don’t propose, as an alternative, policies that would be embraced by most conservatives. So, even when Dem/liberal proposals are fraught with flaws, conservatives still can’t come up with a better “conservative” proposal. Conservatism today is literally intellectually bankrupt despite that fact that there are still many conservative intellectuals.
63 txanne // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:33 pm
62 SpartacusIsNotDead
There are some sane voices out there like Bruce Bartlett, and to David Frum’s credit, he does link to him from the front page on a failry regular basis. But in general he is ignored by the right or ridiculed.
64 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:44 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:23 pm
“Conservatism today is literally intellectually bankrupt despite that fact that there are still many conservative intellectuals.”
……..Well we don’t see many conservative intellectuals here do we to test your proposition (gopher is much more typical of the uneducated voice machines we hear)…..but I’m sure you are right in your first proposition……basically the GOP has gotten wedded to a bagload of economic, social, military, scientific and diplomatic garbage that doesn’t make sense, can’t be explained and has very little empirical evidence to support it……..so the lumpen mass of the party has reverted to shrieking while the honest conservative intellectuals (and I’ll concede there are some) twist themselves into pretzels trying to avoid coming down on the side of logic (Douhat is a typical example) which is usually the Democratic position……of course the dishonest intellectuals just lie (well they have kids to put through school)….a few really honest conservative intellectuals like Brooks, Sullivan, Larison, Manzi, Bartlett are now regularly going off the reservation ……Frum can’t make up his mind it seems to me although he’s getting more adventurous by the day…….to some degree though gopher is doing a Greshams Law on discourse here…….tripe driving out semi sensible contributions from Chek or Sinz
65 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:48 pm
txanne // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:33 pm
…..I really urge you and Spart to read Brooks piece in today’s NYT on Obama’s governing style……..it’s really superb, and I mean it, one of the best opeds I’ve read for a long time…..he definitely off the reservation
66 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:53 pm
Have to agree, where are all the middle of the road conservatives this site was actually designed for? Apart from Check and Sinz they are AWOL.
A Palin story linked to Drudge or other RW sites brings a spate of lunatics. Some like MI-Gopher stay and argue black is white. It’s a pity because I would really love to discuss with rational intelligent conservatives why when they believe in small government it all actually goes down the tubes when it’s their turn to govern.
This conservatives = less spending smaller debt is historical nonsense but it still gets a lot of play.
67 txanne // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Thanks ottovbvs, off to read!
68 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 3:57 pm
balconesfault or BarryS or whatever name you’re posting under now, you did say: “I’m beginning to believe that MI-GOPer has embarrassed all the other conservatives that might participate here enough that they’re avoiding the thread. He’s pretty much sucked all the oxygen out of the room on their side.”
Actually, my troll tribe manager, that would be you and your ilk that scattered away any conservatives from posting on this site… you know, the one dedicated by Frum to rebuilding the conservative movement and returning the GOP to majority status?
I think you can declare “Mission Accomplished”. You’ve irritated, inflamed, annoyed, incited, vexed, disrupted and distracted enough people from enough threads that the site is becoming nothing less that AmericaBlogEast.
http://www.americablog.com/
Or maybe it’s that it is just Friday and most people can’t be bothered chasing trolls back under the bridge?
Yeah, probably the latter. Scoot… here’s a dead ferret… back under the bridge with you.
69 MI-GOPer // Dec 4, 2009 at 4:04 pm
SpartyIsBrainDead writes: “It’s very rare to hear sound conservative opposition on the merits of the argument anywhere.”
Honest? Because I’m looking back on some 2 dozens threads right now and I count 43 separate occasions that smarter, quicker, more intellectual conservatives handed you and your trolling pals their lunch bag, SpartyIsBrainDead.
43 in 22 threads. That’s some serious whooping. I can see you’d have to resort to entering the echo chamber and asking Otto or balconesfault’s many named hydra or taAnnie to reassure your faltering ego… which is ok. You guys need to stick together… what with losing the NJ governorship… the Va governorship… 2010 mintues away from total ruin on the far Left Democrat Party’s war machine… vote getting ACORN in the toilet… Obama held up in the WH uncertain and tentative… Health Scare Reform on the ropes… scientists in disarray on whether they’ve lied enough on faking a global warming craze…
It’s tough. And more US troops killed with Obama as the dithering CIC. Dick Cheney and CK are right: he’s a weak president leading a losing political cause.
70 sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:11 pm
balconesfault:
yes, I can.
The loony left never forgave Bush for the 2000 election recount mess in Florida. They put aside their “Bush stole the election” meme after 9-11. But by 2004, it was back in full force.
Other conspiracy theories included the one by Ted Rall and the MoveOn crew that the Afghanistan war was “really” about building a UNOCAL pipeline or something.
71 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:21 pm
sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:11 pm
” yes, I can.”
……This alas is what the conservative brain has been reduced to today…….they think Democrats opp0sed Bush’s Iraq fiasco because they didn’t like his aftershave……Sinz admits Iraq was all a catastrophe……. but Democrats didn’t oppose it because they had the savvy to perceive it was all going to end in tears ……no…….. they opposed it because they didn’t like the guys aftershave…..go figure
72 sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:30 pm
BarryS:
No doubt they’ve been scared off by the one-two punch of:
a) The loony Left–ottovbs, rbottoms, etc.–who insist on employing gratuitous personal attacks and invective against conservative posters in almost every one of their posts
b) The loony Right, some of whom fortunately have departed–who insist on any departure from conservative dogma makes one a “RINO”.
Basically, the ideologues from both the hard Left and the hard Right have just barged in here (this includes YOU, by the way) and monopolized the discussion. And the moderators seem reluctant to take action.
I’m all for a free exchange of ideas. But these ideologues aren’t interested in a free exchange; they’re more interested in drowning out or chasing away those who disagree with them.
73 ottovbvs // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:37 pm
sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:30 pm
“a) The loony Left–ottovbs,”
……I’m the loony left because I point out in 71 the essential irrationality of your comment in 70 above…….the sad thing about all this is that Sinz despite mountains of bizarre, contradictory and racist statements is perceived as the “moderate” right…..in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king I suppose
74 sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:38 pm
ottovbs:
Most of them opposed it for the same reasons they opposed the Gulf War of 1991, which turned out to be a major strategic and tactical success. And the Moveon.Org left is proud of having opposed all U.S. military actions since they were toilet trained.
With liberal Dems, being antiwar isn’t a judicious exercise on a case-by-case basis; it’s a perpetual reflexive hostility to U.S. military action. They really need to remember that all wars aren’t Vietnam. Even President Obama had to point that out to them in his West Point speech–but from the comments on HuffPo and elsewhere, they haven’t taken his message to heart.
But they were right that the Iraq War was not advisable. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, you know.
75 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Otto, I will definitely read both of the op-eds you recommended.
76 sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:42 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead:
I listed all the public statements (many on YouTube) of liberal Dems who said openly, bluntly, and even PROUDLY that the public option is a stealth road to a single-payer system. I stated my reasons for my opposition to a single-payer system–I’m not a fan of monopolies that can stagnate free of competition.
But I guess you don’t consider my pointing out what liberal leaders actually say to one another when they think the CNN camera isn’t on them to be an “intellectually honest argument.”
77 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:44 pm
I don’t think I am “hard left”
I support the Afghan war always have, fiscal sanity even though conservatives in office always spend and spend, sensible foreign policy not just bomb the hell out of everyone. Get Bin Laden and crew, sensible social net for the under privileged but not entitlement unlimited.
Those seem pretty middle of the road positions to me.
78 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Sinz Part I: “Don’t do what the Dems did, and let your personal dislike of the President cause you to oppose a reasonable war policy.”
Sinz Part II: “Most of [the Dems] opposed it for the same reasons they opposed the Gulf War of 1991 . . . ”
Unless Sinz does not know that Bush II was not the President during the Gulf War, it’s really, really hard to think we are dealing with someone who is rational and disciplined in his thinking.
Unfortunately, this is a classic example of the pretzel-forming “thinking” that is occurring on the Right today.
79 sinz54 // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:54 pm
SpartacusIsNotDead:
As I’ve said before:
Yesterday’s reasonable ideas become today’s inflexible dogma.
This has happened with the Dems in the 1970s, when they couldn’t think of anything besides New Deal 2.0 (or Great Society 2.0) and “All wars are just like Vietnam.”
And now it’s happened with us conservatives:
The Cold War is over, and most of the thinking that went into it is no longer applicable. And free market ideas that made sense when the world’s population was a fraction of what it is now, and natural resources seemed infinite, are starting to show their age. Finally, these two trends have reinforced each other. During the Cold War, a Reagan or a Goldwater could be both a nationalist and an advocate of free markets. Today, globalization and unrestricted immigration often benefit other nations (some, like China, that do not have our best interests at heart) at America’s expense.
The Dem Party got out of its 1970s hole when new organizations like the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) were formed, and when new politicians like Clinton and Tsongas steered the Dems on a more moderate course. But it wasn’t easy–and there’s an unreconstructed left-wing that still seems to think that we’re back in the 1960s.
I believe that the basic conservative philosophy of maximizing personal opportunity with minimal government interference is still valid. Otherwise I wouldn’t be a conservative. And I love this country deeply; I still believe it to be the “last, best hope of Earth.”
But I also believe we can’t just continue to rehash the same policy prescriptions from 30 years ago. We need to clean the blackboard and start over, much as Buckley did in the 1950s.
80 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 4, 2009 at 5:55 pm
Sinz wrote: “But I guess you don’t consider my pointing out what liberal leaders actually say to one another when they think the CNN camera isn’t on them to be an “intellectually honest argument.” ”
Actually, I’d like to think that your opposition to a major policy intiative on healthcare reform would be based on the merits of the policy and not on the wishes of some reform proponents as expressed in a Youtube video.
With respect to your oppostion to “monopolies that can stagnate free of competition,” well, this is wholly irrelevant to the actual reforms that were proposed. But when presented with ample, uncontroverted evidence that the monopoly argument was a straw man (e.g. the CA workers comp market and various foreign health insurance markets, etc.), you responded by simply saying “conservatives will never stand for a public option no matter what, that’s just the way it is and liberals will have to get over it.”
And, somehow, you think you have presented an intellectually honest opposition?
81 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 4, 2009 at 6:02 pm
“Yesterday’s reasonable ideas become today’s inflexible dogma.”
I agree completely, which is why I likened today’s conservative arguments to a Democrat arguing today for a return to a top marginal tax rate of 90%. But somehow the “reasonable” conservatives seem compelled to defend conservatism despite its transformation into inflexible dogma that has no usefulness for today.
As for the statement, “I believe that the basic conservative philosophy of maximizing personal opportunity with minimal government interference is still valid.”
This is a perfectly fine philosophy, and I don’t believe I have ever condemned many basic conservative philosophies. But, with respect to governance, a philosophy is, at most, only a first step. The key issue is how those philosophies and ideologies get translated into actual policy. On that score, conservatism is simply a miserable failure today.
82 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 4, 2009 at 6:06 pm
“All wars are just like Vietnam.”
My post from another thread:
[T]he comparisons to Vietnam are not reflexive. They are based on features of that conflict that have also been present in subsequent conflicts (no clear and substantial U.S. interest at stake, no objectively measured goal, no defined exit strategy, lukewarm public support, etc.). These features by themselves do not mean these subsequent conflicts are another Vietnam, but they do mean that extra caution and analysis are required before going to war.
With respect to the Gulf War, that very well could have turned into another Vietnam had Bush I not exercised the wisdom that he did both leading up to the war, during its conduct and in the aftermath. Bush II showed just how easy it is to screw up a war and waste trillions of dollars, thousands of American lives and over a hundred thousand foreign civilian lives.
Lastly, if either side is guilty of reflexively characterizing all military conflicts, it is the Right, who seem to reflexively compare every conflict to WWII despite that fact that none of our conflicts since then have had any of the significant features of that war. This is quite ironic given the Right’s posture leading up to WWII.
83 BarryS // Dec 4, 2009 at 6:38 pm
As I have said before what most “Normal” people want is competence in government. The GOP particularly over the 8 years of the Bush administration was simply incompetent. Katrina, mis managed wars, fiscal stupidity, entitlements without any way of paying for them, and on and on.
People got fed up with the sheer incompetence of it all. Not sure they will change their minds when presented with the current crop of GOP leaders. They are not bringing solutions to peoples problems thay are bringing slogans and supporting the latest “outrage”. Won’t work.
84 balconesfault // Dec 4, 2009 at 6:52 pm
“All wars are just like Vietnam.”
Oddly, I see this coming from the right just as often from the left. Although it’s a different perspective.
In the minds of the right, every Dem who opposed the war in Vietnam was some kind of cross between a Jane Fonda gladhanding with the Viet Cong while calling our POWs war criminals, or some mythological San Francisco yippie who sat at the gates of SFO to spit on the uniform of every soldier who returned from abroad. Opposing the war, even if you had fought in it, immediately made you a dirty f’ing hippie … supporting the war, even if you did everything in your power to keep from participating in it, made you a patriot.
Following this mythology, the US didn’t lose in Vietnam because of the will of the Vietcong, or because of the corruption of the South Vietnamese government. Instead, it was all because the dirty f’ing hippies didn’t let them win … the dirty f’ing hippies weren’t excited about being drafted, weren’t excited about seeing their friends come back in boxes, and weren’t ever really convinced why they should want to go over to another country and walk around in the jungle waiting for some guy to shoot at them so that they could shoot back, when nobody from that country had ever done squat to Americans before we stuck our nose in their civil war.
The problem is, that this ended up shattering the illusion that the right wing could summon Americans to fight in any country, at any time, under any premise, and sustain the support of the American people needed to eventually win. This kind of sucked, because if we couldn’t sustain American support long enough to win in Vietnam, then how would we ever someday sustain American support for the long hard slog to Moscow that had wore down Napoleon and Hitler?
Thus, every opposition to America getting into, or deeper into, a war has become a reflection of “Vietnam” – once again, that opposition to the idea that Americans would be willing to support a fight in any country, at any time, under any premise.
85 SpartacusIsNotDead // Dec 4, 2009 at 9:40 pm
txanne: “There are some sane voices out there like Bruce Bartlett . . . ”
Well, there are still sane voices who used to be associated with conservatism. But based on Bartlett’s writings over the past year or so, which side is more likely to agree with his views? Clearly it’s the Dems and liberals and not conservatives.
Again, I’m not saying there are no intellectuals or even sane people on the conservative side anymore. I’m saying that when it comes to policy and governance today, there are no “conservative” positions that can be supported by anyone who is both intellectually honest and seeking to advance the country’s best interest.
86 sdspringy // Dec 5, 2009 at 9:12 am
There is absolutely no comparison between the right and left concerning the ability to invoke the “Vietnam Analogy”. Whether January 2002 in Afghanistan or 2006 in Iraq the voices of Dem politicians, NYT columnists, or Liberal bloggers have consistently invoked the “Vietnam Analogy”.
That in its self is not unusual, nor unexpected. To truly appreciate the Liberal War Philosophy you have to be able to invoke the “Vietnam Analogy”, in Afghanistan, apply same to Iraq, then declare Iraq lost and Afghanistan the good and neglected war to now invoking the “Vietnam Analogy” in Afghanistan again.
You only have to review the Messiah speech at West Point to understand that our national security only has 18 months of political capital. For, when Dems talk about the ‘Cost of War”, they are not referring to actual dollars but whether they can still be elected.
And in 18 months what will the Taliban do? Will they surrender? Will they throw down their arms and declare themselves defeated? Only the Liberal mind could conceive a strategy where they declare the game over in 18 months and their side wins.
It is now completely possible that the Taliban’s strategy will be to build up, and wait 18 months to regain control. And anyone else will hedge their support based on the chances of survival in 18 months.
87 sinz54 // Dec 5, 2009 at 9:53 am
balconesfault:
The right-wing didn’t send tens of thousands of troops to either Korea or Vietnam. Both were under the command of Democratic Presidents. In fact, the President who sent half a million U.S. troops to Vietnam was the same President who gave us Medicare.
Who was it who FIRST advocated the idea of fighting “in any country, at any time, under any premise”?
Taft? No. (If anything, Taft was an isolationist like Ron Paul.)
Goldwater? No.
Nixon? No.
Reagan? No. (Reagan’s motto was “PEACE Through Strength.”)
Let me jog your memory:
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
— John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address, 1961
Now as often happens, we Americans weren’t aware of everything JFK was doing to live up to that promise. Such as sending the CIA to fight secret wars around the world (wars that would sometimes eventually require U.S. troops as reinforcements). Sending the Green Berets into direct ground combat with the Viet Cong for the first time. Etc.
88 sinz54 // Dec 5, 2009 at 10:03 am
BarryS:
What most Americans want is to be able to pass Reagan’s famous test: At the end of a President’s term, they want to be better off (or at least not worse off) than they were at the beginning of that term. There’s an old-fashioned term for that, now scorned by liberal sophisticates: It’s called “progress.”
Liberal intellectuals are now once again flirting with American declinism: America has passed her peak, her best days are over, she’s not going to be the superpower she once was, the best we can do is learn to live with less, our children and grandchildren will inevitably grow up to live with less than we currently have. But that’s OK, they say, because the rest of the world will do better at our expense, and liberals care more about the whole world.
That was rejected in the 1970s.
And if the liberals keep up this sing-song, it’s going to be rejected again.
89 athensboy // Dec 5, 2009 at 11:36 am
My big question is are we fighting a Taliban insurgency, or has it morphed into a movement of Pashtun nationalism that wants foreign,Christian,troops out of their tribal lands?Karzai will be no help in our fight, he’s as corrupt as the day is long.Karzai controls nothing from Kabul,the entire country is like the Old West. How do we define sucess in a country like that? The Taliban/Pashtun insurgency will never end. The only way to break their resolve would to exterminate every man, woman, and child. Is this what we want to do?
90 sinz54 // Dec 5, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Kagan and Kristol, who had pushed the Iraq surge and got Bush to sign off on it, have now come out in support of Obama’s surge in Afghanistan:
91 txanne // Dec 5, 2009 at 1:35 pm
85 SpartacusIsNotDead
Good point! You are right, conservatives are stuck in a one size fits all economic solution. Tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts.
You must log in to post a comment.