Monday, December 04, 2006
|
|
Spanning the Web
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
3:00 PM
|
|
1) STOP THE PRESSES!!! – Sam Brownback has entered the presidential race. Bad news for you, Duncan Hunter. That ironclad lock you had on the least-plausible Republican candidacy has disappeared overnight.
But perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself. Brownback hasn’t actually entered the race. He has merely released the following statement:
“I have decided, after much prayerful consideration, to consider a bid for the Republican nomination for the presidency.”
Color me as unimpressed by that statement. At this critical point in history, can we really afford a leader so prone to vacillation that he requires “prayerful consideration” regarding whether he should even “consider” doing something. Is this how it will be if he’s in the White House? One can only shudder.
2) ALREADY TOO MANY PIXELS HAVE DIED in covering the JimWebb/George W. Bush dust-up, but I found this Daily Kos diary interesting. As even casual observers of the imbroglio know, Webb’s son was near an IED when it exploded a few days before his father’s and the president’s confrontation. The Kos Diarist reveals for the first time publicly that “Bush actually knew of Jim Webb's son's close brush with death shortly before their White House meeting.”
While the source for the Kos diarist’s knowledge is the not-particularly reliable or reputable Congressman Jim Moran, it adds an additional wrinkle to the story. To my mind, it makes the President’s inquiry a more caring rather than pro-forma gesture than it initially seemed. It also makes his response to Webb’s belligerent standoffishness small but understandable.
Of course, the Kossacks see it differently. The diarist delicately puts it:
“George W. Bush is now revealed to be the boorest of the boors, the lowest of the lows, the crudest of the crude. I hope he gets his due punishment in hell, or the International Court of Justice in The Hague, whichever comes first.”
The Kossacks’ unrelenting hatred for all things Bush reminds me of an old joke:
A guy walks into a psychiatrist’s office and the shrink begins showing him some Rorschach pictures. The first is of a squiggly blob – the guy says it looks like two people making love. The next is a series of geometric shapes – the guy says it looks like two people making love. The last is a series of straight and squiggly lines – the guy says it looks like two people making love.
The psychiatrist says, “I think I’ve diagnosed your problem. You’re obsessed with sex!”
The guy responds, “Me? You’re the guy making all the dirty pictures!”
3) WAKE ME IN ’08 – John Bolton has signaled his intention to resign from his post at the U.N. Doubtlessly the Democrat-controlled Senate will insist on sending a new emissary to Turtle Bay who will play better with the Syrians, Iranians, and Annans who populate the place. More depressing still, George Mitchell is rumored to be on the shortlist of replacement possibilities.
The link above goes to Allah’s place where he has Lou Dobbs’ video tribute to Bolton as well as one of Bolton’s greatest hits. Bolton was a voice of moral clarity at a time and place where there haven’t been many. It is a sad day when such a voice has been silenced.
4) VDH IN RARE FORM – Hugh already linked to VDH’s Friday piece, but if you haven’t read it yet, you really should. It’s an excellent summation of where the domestic intellectual battle regarding the war stands right now.
It calls to mind something from my childhood. I went to high school in the early 1980’s and the liberals of the time were convinced that nuclear weapons were evil. They thought a unilateral nuclear freeze would be neat. They were sure Ronald Reagan wanted to blow up the world. And when debating the topic, they would inevitable bray, “We already have enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world 30 times? Why do we need so many and why would we possibly need more?”
Of course, they asked theses questions only rhetorically, and had no appetite for a discussion regarding the necessary redundancy of systems because of the differing vulnerabilities and reliabilities between ICBM’s, sub-based missiles and bomber-based weapons. They were comfortable in their ignorance, and determined to remain so.
Rhetorically, when engaging such people, there were two possible tacks to take. One was to reflect their simplistic tone regarding Reagan and say in effect that they were bad people who wanted to blow up the world. The other was to give them the benefit of the doubt that they were arguing in good faith and then go about the hard task of convincing them they were wrong. The latter was the more difficult course; since many of these people were stubborn and stupid, convincing them of the folly of their ways was no mean feat. It was a lot more fun fighting fire with fire, but it wasn’t at all productive.
To get anywhere today, we’re going to have to awaken our country to the danger that the Islamists represent. If people understood the dangers, most of them would be a lot less forgiving of stunts like the one performed by the flying Imams. And most would be horrified that we’re slipping back into a mode of fighting terrorism merely by law enforcement techniques. But we’re going to have to win a lot of intellectual arguments to get our countrymen to where they need to be.
5) THE OTHER SON ALSO RISES (HT: Hugh) – Jeb Bush can’t run for president in ’08 because the country is Bushed out. But if his name were, say, Pataki, he’d be one of the front-runners for the nomination. As a hugely successful Governor of the country’s most important swing state, a Jeb Pataki would be tough to beat. Besides, Jeb Bush is I believe the only male member of his family who has mastered speaking English in complete sentences.
The Wall Street Journal reports today that Jeb might be ready to endorse Mitt Romney soon, at least implicitly. One thing you’ll learn about Romney – there aren’t a lot of people who have a lot to do with him who emerge anything less than completely and entirely impressed. There’s also buzz that Jeb might join Mitt on the ticket as his number two.
6) FF THE WHO? - I received a note today that on Michael Medved’s show today it was being discussed that James Baker has adamantly denied ever saying that thing about the Jews and that the only source for the comment was Jack Kemp. Given my commentary last week, it was only fair that I report this.
That being said, my attitude towards his coming prescriptions for achieving Middle East peace in our time remains hostilely indifferent. At best.
Complaints? Compliments? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|
|
|
...ecurity Council: "To be honest, there's no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, including those rickety old bug spray things. The UN inspectors were right; no reason for us to attack. eVERYBODY CAN RELAX." |
|
|
|
Becareful--your postings my be tagged as offensive! What the heck is happening in that UN Headquarters?
Maybe the UN needs a little more criticism from its biggest donor. Remember when UN peace keepers were recently caught raping refugees that they were supposed to protect? |
|
That's about as gracious a thing as I've read in a long time. You're a good man. Sorry if I myself came across as a bit obnoxious in that epic thread; I'd plead the corrupting influence of the Dreaded Senior Partner's manners, but I fear it's mostly just me.
In the interest of accuracy, I should point out that while there are plenty of Mormons who believe as I do, there are others whose theology, taken at face value, is harder to reconcile with what most Christians define as the essentials of Christianity. Then again, it's hard for me to reconcile that theology with canonized Mormon scripture, either, so there you go. The bottom line is that aside from some essentials, you will find a fair amount of variation in "what Mormons believe" on the individual level. |
|
|
check my blog for a mea culpa. of sorts. |
|
"* He thinks the U.N. is sapping his bodily fluids and he wants to destroy the evil U.N.*"
Now really -- is even that cartoonish portrayal of what more thoughtful people than you consider valid criticisms of the UN any more absurd than the liberal doctrine that the UN can do no wrong?
If the claim is that someone or something is infallible, I better see a funny hat. |
|
|
He thinks the UN is evil. Step right up, ladies and gentlemen: do you agree? |
|
What is this obsession on TownHall to annoint the '08 Presidential nominee from a short list of those least likely to succeed?
Are Romney, McCain, and Guiliani really the best we have to offer?
No evidence has been presented that any of the three can successfully withstand the heavily financed, ethically bankrupt, and pitifully unaccountable (MSM corruption) Democrat Left in 2008. My view is that all will be easily crushed in a national campaign due to inherent flaws (said flaws have been previously listed on TownHall).
The obsession with Romney is childish, Romney is not The GOP JFK and American politics is a long way from 1960. Another wonderkind pretty boy, Gary Hart, comes more to mind.
McCain calls to remembrance the instability of a George Wallace. Guiliani gives echo to "Rockefeller Republican".
Does Jeb bring anything to the ticket to inspire voters?
As a Florida resident for 7 years I have been generally pleased with Jeb as our Governor but his predisposition to read notes while speaking publically, his inability to solve the devastating problem of homeowners insurance (which is leading to resident-flight and has exacerbated the real estate crisis), and his inability to significantly impact key races in 06 do not inspire confidence in effectiveness on the national scale.
We need an exceptional tested and proved leader -- exceptional in his/her ability to cause change despite profound resistance & proved on the political battlefield that was 2006 -- because 2008 will be '06 on steroids.
That person's name has not yet appeared on the TownHall short list.
It would be wise for the GOP pundits here to slow down and smell the coffee. It seems that the bureaucrats at the RNC and the GOP minority in Congress are not the only ones to have failed to learn from their failures in 2006. |
|
"His successor should at least profess (and hopefully have) respect for the institution, flawed though it may be"
This comment epitomizes one of the worst aspects of the left today: its demand that certain entities be "respected" no matter what egregious evil they may perpetuate -- and to top it off, you want our ambassador to fake that respect, if he doesn't really feel it.
You want us to help the totalitarian nations of the world pretend that they are a civilized group that deserve a seat at the table with America and the (mostly) free nations of the west; you want us to help them pretend that they are not the butchers and mass murderers of their own people. This is moral cowardice, pure and simple.
|
|
I'll start having respect for the UN when it stops being a bully pulpit for dictators and islamic madman.
|
|
* He thinks the U.N. is sapping his bodily fluids and he wants to destroy the evil U.N.*
Newsflash snapdragon- so do most of us.
Should I point out the sheer amount of scandal the UN has experienced in the past 4 years ? I'd vote for any president who ran on a "US out of the UN" platform. Even if it was Hillary. |
|
John Birch? I haven't heard that in a while, but it is a funny reference--at least it made me laugh.
The UN can't possible be besmirched more than it has tarnished itself: A house of corruption and a din of thieves that goes all the way to the top. |
|
I just finished my interview with Tommy Franks #2 on what he knew about Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda while planning for the invasion. He mentioned some NEW intelligence on the link between the two. Solid intelligence yet to be seen.
3-Star General reveals additional details of former regime's ties to terror (al Qaeda) http://regimeofterror.com/archives/2006/09/3star_general_reveals_addition/
|
|
Pretty simple about Bolton, really. He is a crazy John Bircher with the typical crazy Bircher paranoid hatred of the U.N. He thinks the U.N. is sapping his bodily fluids and he wants to destroy the evil U.N.
That's fine. But obviously the ambassador to the U.N. should not be a person who wants to destroy the institution. It's like appointing a militant atheist to run a church. (Cue blather about how the U.N. is the liberal "church" yada yada yada.)
More generally, the reason Bolton was a miserably bad U.N. ambassador is that, with his obvious hatred of the U.N. and of any country that wasn't America, he made it uncool to work with America on anything. To be seen to co-operate with America at the U.N. was just not good for anybody, because co-operating with crazy Bircher Bolton would ruin your reputation. And that's why Bolton's "achievements" at the U.N. mostly consist of proposing stuff that nobody else would go along with: because to get co-operation, he'd have had to stop trying to destroy the U.N. and blow up the world and stuff, and he just couldn't do it.
I think righties have gotten the idea that it's a badge of honor to be hated: if they hate us, it means we're doing something right. In fact, it sometimes happens that they hate us for doing something wrong. In the case of Bolton, they hated him for being a crazy John Bircher who gives interviews to genocide-advocating bloggers like Pam Atlas. Not cool to have Bircher Bolton pretending to be concerned about genocide in Darfur when he hangs out with people who want to commit genocide in the middle east. Dude, not cool. |
|
Blu,
Personal remarks don't help your case; they reflect poorly on you. Snap can write, and think. You'd do well to follow his example.
As for Bolton, I don't think the universe thought that highly of him. His successor should at least profess (and hopefully have) respect for the institution, flawed though it may be. His tenure ended as expected: wrong man representing the wrong President at the wrong time. |
|
On top by a mile? Really? Based on what? Certainly not the facts. And, frankly, Snap doesn't write very well. So, it can't be based on his compelling prose. Please, Dud, humor us neanderthals and educate us on how Snap is on top.....by a mile even.
Dud, perhaps, you are just as dumb as Snap. Well, maybe not quite as dumb as you have not (as yet) tossed out any silly lies to back up an equally silly argument.
Regarding, Bolton: Let me guess, you thought Albright was wonderful? LOL. Albright, BTW, was easily one of the dumbest people ever to hold that position. She was an intellectual embarrassment and a doormat. Bolton, on the other hand, is universally regarded as brilliant and hard-working. And, unlike Clinton's trained monkey, he is willing to work for America's interest in a dangerous world.
Now slither back to your hole. |
|
While you might not like Bolton he was by far the best man for that job right now. You want Ambassadors to be the President's man and have the President's ear. Effective diplomacy is not about being polite, it's about being clear. At the UN they all knew Bolton represented the President and had his ear. That is what we should all want. Anything less sends very mixed signals and that is not good--for the whole country.
If you guys elect Billary O'Bama, then the President has the right to name his/her/their nominees. |
|
I like Jeb and agree with most of your analysis, but he would doom Romney in the general election if he was the VP spot on the ticket. If the election were held today a Bush name on the ticket would doom McCain (let alone Romney). Rightly or wrongly Jeb Bush's last name would draw in a lot of negatives .
While mistakes were made, history will be kinder to George Bush than many people suspect. However, even the people who support President Bush are not trilled with him right now. I doubt that is going to change in the short term. If Romney were to get the nomination, while a viable competent choice, he no shoe in to win the general election (I still think McCain makes more sense). His best attribute is he is not connected to the President. Of course, nothing is guaranteed in politics, but adding anyone named Bush right now is not a good idea.
The winning combination is a McCain-Romney ticket. |
|
No, Snap: those who said that Saddam was no threat to America weren't right. They were flatly wrong, if for no other reasons than (a) he was shooting at our fscking planes -- I'm reaching, here, but I'm assuming that even you'd agree that not having our planes shot at is a fairly important American interest; and (b) he was a state sponsor of terror, the likes of which had just killed 3000 Americans.
As to the latter point, wake up. Money's fungible. Petrodollars given to people attacking Israeli interests need not be used solely to attack Israeli interests; they can just as easily be used to attack Spanish, British, or American interests. The zipperheads who blow up Israeli pizza-parlors and kindergartens are equal-opportunity death cultists, and gladly kill Americans given the opportunity. Another fairly important American interest is cutting off said death cultists from the people who provide them arms, money, and safe harbor.
As to your suggestion that the oil-for-food program was quite successful aside from the unprecedented graft, all I can do is repeat myself: sell crazy someplace else.
|
|
Snap still on top by a mile, in the last exchange.
Here's the good news today, if you missed it. John Bolton gone. Like most of this administration's choices (Dick Cheney for VP), couldn't have been a worse choice for the UN. One by one. It's like the sun coming up. |
|
Hmmm harboring terrorists; and what about his own documents showing support for terrorists.
What about his ties to Philippines Al Queda, giving them money, etc.
Oh and trying to assinate our ex-president was an act of war. |
|
Explain to me again why we declared war on Germany? Or bombed Bosnia? Ever heard of Allies?
Best quote of the day: "many of these people were stubborn and stupid". I add to that: Disingenuous. |
|
Snap, Because you don't read books, you apparently don't know that these "enemies" had decided that there was a common enemy that was more important than the Shia/Sunni doctrinal differences. The fact that they were talking is only one of the many good reasons to take out Sadaam. What do terrorist need more than anything: A state sponsor with the means and willingness to assist them.
Oh, and I like how you shifted your argument to "American terror" away from terrorism generally. But I thought Sadaam had nothing to do with the world-wide terrorism. Yeah, he was just happily sitting in Iraq doing nothing against the interests of the West. |
|
"And, of course, never mind the documented contacts between OBL and Sadaam."
This is my favorite one. It's like you think that if enemies meet each other, or even work together on some things, that means they're not enemies. News flash, fella: the U.S. sometimes met and worked with the Soviet Union on stuff, but they were still enemies. And if Bin Laden met Saddam sometimes or even shared interests in common with him, it doesn't change the fact that they were enemies, representing two different movements: Islamism (Bin Laden) and secular dictatorship (Saddam).
"Oh, if Sadaam wasn't interested or connected to terror, why was he paying suicide bombers?"
Anti-Israel suicide bombers, you silly person. Saddam, like most of your Middle-Eastern dictators (religious or secular) was virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Israel. But Israel is a separate country and can take care of itself; what matters is anti-American terrorism, which Saddam hadn't sponsored since the failed assassination attempt on Bush I. |
|
"Since you didn't understand that Saddam wasn't a threat to America or that he wasn't part of radical Islam as commonly understood (unless you go the Stephen Hayes route and lie through your teeth about Saddam and Al-Qaeda)"
Never mind the terror camps; never mind how members of AQ were hanging out in Iraq. (I'm sure Sadaam didn't know.)And, of course, never mind the documented contacts between OBL and Sadaam. And, unlike you, you reverse Redneck, Hayes actually provides references to all his research. The connection between AQ and Iraq is clear. Again, you morons on the Left, will need a polaroid of OBL and Sadaam shaking hands before you will admit to the obvious truth. Oh, if Sadaam wasn't interested or connected to terror, why was he paying suicide bombers?
Snap, are you right about anything? Debating you is like shooting ducks on the pond. Too easy. Go argue with children. We prefer adults here. |
|
"To get anywhere today, we’re going to have to awaken our country to the danger that the Islamists represent. If people understood the dangers, most of them would be a lot less forgiving of stunts like the one performed by the flying Imams."
This is basically condescending talk -- like liberals who think people would agree with them if only those poor benighted rednecks would *listen* and get *educated* and stuff! Your assumption that we don't "understand the dangers" is wrong; what's more likely is that we "understand the dangers" but still don't think it's worthwhile to throw American citizens in prison without charges and torture them (look what the Bush administration did to Jose Padilla -- http://tinyurl.com/y25gn9 -- and then tell me that if we "understood the dangers" this administration's truly evil, immoral behavior would all be OK.)
But even if you think we reverse-rednecks need to be educated about The Dangers, it's too late. Because guys like you and Hanson put all your eggs in the Iraq basket: you said that if we want to fight the Islamists, the first step is to invade Iraq. If Islamists are a threat, then why would you start with the secular dictator Saddam, who would also have been overthrown when the Caliphate came around?
So you thought radical Islam was a threat, but then you bet everything on a nutty decision to overthrow a secular dictatorship and replace it with a pro-Iranian theocracy. Since you didn't understand that Saddam wasn't a threat to America or that he wasn't part of radical Islam as commonly understood (unless you go the Stephen Hayes route and lie through your teeth about Saddam and Al-Qaeda), then we have no choice but to ignore you and take our lead from the people who accurately noted that Saddam was not a threat to America. |
|
|
|