Saturday, May 31, 2008
To all the liberals who have criticized (many times with justification) the United States for not supporting Democracy around the world, I ask you, where's the criticism of Barak Obama for what he said at that "appeasement" press-conference?.....................................Just to remind everybody, Obama was harshly critical of President Bush for having pushed for elections in Gaza, for not having the foresight to predict that the terrorist organization (Obama's characterization, to which I agree) Hamas would emerge victorious. Obama's point (again, I'm summarizing) was that elections alone do not constitute Democracy, that you need a firm foundation of other institutions/freedoms to support them (an analysis that I have a tendency to agree with, actually)..................................You see what I'm saying here, right? This was never, EVER, part of the left's criteria before - not to my recollection anyway. Those who pushed for elections in Vietnam in 1956, for example - they just wanted a frigging election/didn't care that a bloodthirsty killing-machine with potential Soviet ties was about to take over................................... And, no, don't get me wrong HERE, either. Me - I'm personally not in favor of foreign entanglements, period - barbarism in Southeast Asia or not. The only thing that I'm asking for is consistency (Jesse Jackson - rhyme your way out of this one buddy). Barak Obama criticized free and fair elections and, yes, I'm still waiting for some condemnation from the left. So much for guiding principles, huh?
Friday, May 30, 2008
You make a good point, Mr. O'Reilly. It appears that certain segments of the media (please note that, unlike you, I'm refraining from a blanket indictment here) have in fact been playing up the Scott McClellan book to a partisan advantage (Keith Olbermann, your competitor, in particular). Of course, what you simultaneously refuse to acknowledge here is the rather predictable pattern of your own network. I mean, come on, Bill, you have certain commentators over there at Fox (the usual suspects; Hannity, Hume, etc.) who (a large chunk undoubtedly not even having read the book) are spouting pure/down-the-line Bush administration talking-points; "the guy is disgruntled", "he's only after the money", etc.,etc.. And, yes, me-bucko, just take a look at how you yourself jumped out of the gate - YOUR "Talking Points" dressing the guy down in almost a reflexive manner, for Christ!!......................................Look, bro, I don't know if this guy is the real deal....or if he isn't. But neither do you, I'm saying. What do you say we all just take a chill-pill and hear the son-of-a-bitch out - then decide? What do you think? A deal?
Thursday, May 29, 2008
One of my critics, folks, has recently compared ME to Bill O'Reilly. Yep, that's right, I've been determined by this blogger to be just as bad as the "bad" man himself. Not that I'm taking it too seriously, mind you, in that, if in fact you really do get down to it, me-buckos, one of the O'Reillyisms that truly burns me most is when he himself makes these same stupid, idiotic, hyperbolic comparisons. I mean, think about it, when was the last time O'Reilly DIDN'T make an extrapolation that WASN'T based on an extreme paucity of evidence? Bottom-line, folks I have written nearly 300 posts, the vast majority of which have been critical of Bush - and because I, what, have the audacity to conclude differently on an issue or two, I'm suddenly the clone of some Fox News lackey? Oh well, at least this guy didn't compare me to Hitler/Arianna Huffington. Yep, there's at least THAT, I'm saying.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Another theory floating around the blogosphere (hell, even a piece pertaining to it showed up in Time magazine) is that the Bay of Pigs fiasco wasn't really a Kennedy blunder at all. It was an Eisenhower blunder. They cite, specifically, that the planning for the operation began when Eisenhower was still in office....and that Kennedy was somehow powerless to stop it..................................Of course, what these throngs of Kennedy worshippers fail to mention is that 1) Kennedy himself was totally on board with the plan (Kennedy hates Communists, remember?), 2) he clearly COULD have halted the operation if he had wanted to (he didn't), and 3) it could as well be argued that Kennedy's alterations of the initial plan were the main reason why it ultimately failed..................................I cite, specifically, the fact that Kennedy changed the landing area for Brigade 2506 (a tactic that cut off contact between 2506 and the mountain rebels). He also cancelled air-strikes and curtailed U.S. air-cover and support for the landing. Just how exactly this can be blamed on Eisenhower, I'm not exactly certain. I am sure, however, that these ever-so-true-believers in Camelot will come up with something. They always frigging do, my friends.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Unfortunately, it also must be stated that Kennedy allowed/approved of a catostrophic policy in the South called "Strategic Hamlet". This was where South Vietnamese villagers (many of whom were initially antagonistic to the Viet-Cong) were gathered up and placed (a cynical mind might say herded) into more secure/protected areas. And, while, yes, it was essentially a policy aimed at protecting these people, the heavy-handed imagery of it (soldiers dragging villagers away from their homes) clearly had unforseen consequences. The specific down-side was that many of these effected populations ended up turning not just on the South but on the Americans, too. So, yes, damned if it wasn't a major-league blunder, in other words. And, no, not the last by America in that part of the world, either - unfortunately.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Here are some facts about John F. Kennedy that I thought most people already knew. Being that I was mistaken, let us review......................................The first point is that this President, at least as much as his predecessor, was a staunch/virulent anti-Communist. This is reflected in his rhetoric as well as his actions. He was also a strong proponent of the "domino theory" (this, according to his closest advisers; Bundy, McNamara) and, yes, he applied this clearly to the situation in Vietnam. I cite, specifically, his first speech as President, where he stated unequivocally that one of our main goals should be to prevent Communist domination of South Vietnam, and National Security Action memo 52, which essentially said the same thing..................................Couple this, I'm saying, with his goal of financing the South's army from 150,000 to 170,000, his increase of U.S. military advisers to 12,000, and, especially, his recommendation that U.S. special forces (trained in guerrilla tactics) be employed for counter-insurgency and, yes, you kind of get the picture here...................................Granted, by 1963, Kennedy, sensing that a military victory was an improbability (the pragmatic side of Kennedy) and clearly becoming disillusioned with the Diem regime, appeared to be leaning toward a lessening of our presence in that region. BUT, it also must be stated, folks, this was purely a Realpolitik conclusion by Kennedy. He didn't suddenly start thinking that maybe Ho Chi Minh....was in fact the ANSWER, a small-d democrat in wolf's clothing only, etc.. No, not even remotely so, I'm saying.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
I don't think the Clinton/Obama supporters have taken into account one important detail here. I'm talking of the fact that, even after this phased withdrawal of theirs, they still plan to leave between 55-60,000 U.S. troops "in country" - to protect our bases there, to guard the "Green Zone", to guard our embassy, to keep a check on terrorism, etc.. Not, of course, that this is in any way worse than McCain's "stay the course"plan. But, having said that, I'm not so sure that it's going to be any better, either. This, I'm saying, in that to have that few troops in a very hostile region could in fact make us more vulnerable. I mean, I don't know for sure, obviously. It all depends on where they're deployed, I guess. But, think about it, folks, wasn't a U.S. military presence in Arabia one of the main "boiling points" of the terrorists (not, necessarily, that we should be taking our marching orders FROM them, of course)? Do we really want to keep alienating them - not to mention the rest of the Arab world?........................................Me, I think we need to get out totally. Protect (though, not coddle) Israel, come to the aid of the Kurds if necessary, blow up a terrorist training camp if one springs up - stuff like that, sure, but even a remnant of occupation isn't the type of impression we want to be leaving over there. I'm pretty sure of that.
Seriously, though, how often is it in fact that a fellow's jaw factually/actually drops? And the repetitive nature of it, too, I'm saying - she, the lady with the special smile prevailing - she prevailed kerplunkingly! Unfortunately (and, yes, as is always the case at Sassy's, damn it!), this beauty was itself as temporal as the putrid fumes from every departure - matters, of a desperate nature completely!
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Alright, so we allow the Vietnamese to elect Ho Chi Minh, then what? They all live happily ever after (i.e., he doesn't kill, torture, or starve hundreds of thousands of land-owners, cause millions of other people to flee for their lives, etc.)? I mean, come on, does anybody in his right mind actually think that there would have been a second election....or a third (Fidel Castro, anybody?)?...................................Look, as far as I'm concerned, we should have stayed completely out of that shit-hole and, yes, if in fact it was their propensity to slaughter each other, SO FRIGGING BE IT (not a lot of fire in this belly for policing the world, that's for sure)! But, seriously, folks, to say so categorically that America's "evil" transcended that of the Communists (it's actually a pretty brutal system, in case you haven't heard), I don't know, that sounds just a little TOO doctrinaire to me. Of course, that could JUST be me, right? Unbelievable.
Tom says that "we" only like elections when the people "we" like win them. A fair point, right? But does he not realize that by making such a comment (legitimate as it may be), he is also criticizing Barack Obama? This, I'm saying, in that during his recent press-conference (you know, the one where he responded to Bush's appeasement charge), Obama seemed highly critical of Bush's having allowed elections to take place in Gaza - you know, being that it was Hamas who emerged victorious there. Obama's point was that without a firm groundwork of economic and political institutions, elections themselves are just as likely as not to have unforeseen (possibly deleterious) consequences. Elections alone, in other words, are not necessarily equivalent with democracies as we currently know them.........................................Hm, that actually sounds pretty good, too. Too bad for Tom that he had to blow his wad like that - not thinking that maybe he was hurting his candidate, too. Tsk, Tsk...........................................P.S. It also makes me wonder what Obama would have said about those proposed Vietnamese elections of 1956, whether or not they had the necessary institutions, etc..
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
I'm not intending to argue the merits of what is better, a 35% or 39% rate. The only point I'm making is that 39% marginal rates, if in fact that's what Hillary is proposing, does not in any way, shape, or form constitute socialism. And to make this claim, folks, is pure demagoguery - even for Sean Hannity, I'm saying.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Another example of hyperbole that really irks me is when Sean Hannity constantly refers to Hillary Clinton as a "Socialist". I mean, he does it all the time, for Christ - so much so....that it's actually become a mantra on that new unfair/unbalanced show of his, "Hannity's America" (still waiting for "Colmes's America", by the way)...........................................Oh, and now you've got O'Reilly chiming in, too - referring to Hillary's campaign pledge to raise the marginal income-tax rates from 35% to 39% as, yes, a Socialistic ploy of sorts. It's like, talk about not having even a vague sense of history. Do not these nimrods realize that the top rate in the 1950s was an astronomical 90%? Ninety frigging percent!! And that was during the Eisenhower administration, for Christ! It's like, what, are they now going to tell me that Eisenhower, too, was a Socialist? They sure as hell better not, me-buckos. Not, that is, if they intend to have some civil discourse with me.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
I'm getting a little disgusted with this culture of ours, folks - namely, the stupidity of it, the unadulterated mediocrity of it, etc.. And, no, I am not, me-buckos, in any way coming at it from the same inanely prudish/homophobic/hypocritical standpoint that O'Reilly and the rest of the so-called traditionalists are; denouncing gay-marriage, proclaiming that Christians in America are being persecuted - stuff like that. No, folks, I just think that we're getting pathetic, embarrassingly so........................................Take, for instance, the fact that the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame has recently inducted (yes, it's true, folks) Madonna, MADONNA, into this supposed pantheon of theirs. I mean, seriously, has this son-of-a-bitch ever even done a rock and roll song, for Christ? Granted, artists from other genres have been honored over the years (inducted into the Hall); blues artists, country artists, jazz artists, folk artists, etc.. But, come on, these art-forms have been major influences in the development of rock music throughout it's history (and, yes, continue to be). Compare that, I'm saying, to pop music (Madonna's domain of choice), an art-form that is largely pablum and, hence, antithetical to the very spirit of rock.......................................And let's not forget this whole image of hers, either, a persona that, frankly, is as inane and disgusting as it's always been, period. I mean, come on, folks, have you ever, EVER, witnessed an "artist" who's had this level of longevity and, yet, remained so mediocre/glamour-oriented. I certainly can't remember one. But, no, honor the God-damned frigging mamby-pamb. Unbelievable!
Friday, May 16, 2008
Here's another example of why this left versus right/liberal versus conservative paradigm tends to drive me crazy. Nixon, who was a Republican (and, yes, ostensibly a conservative one), actually had one of the most liberal administrations of the last 100 years. I mean, granted, the guy probably didn't agree with half of what he ultimately supported, doing so only to cow-tow favor from the electorate....but bottom-line, I'm saying. Contrast this with Bill Clinton, who probably had the most conservative record of any 20th Century Democratic President ever. Granted, HE had to deal with Newt Gingrich's Republican Congress for the final 6 years of his Presidency and, yes, because of this, one could clearly argue mitigating factors here. But, seriously, folks, I don't remember Clinton too often taking on the speaker back then. Kind of rubber-stamped the son-of-a-bitch is what I seem to remember....................................Bottom-line, me-buckos, politicians (especially when you view them in retrospect) don't always do what you think they're going to do. That, I'm saying, and the fact that the parties themselves have changed significantly over the years, damned if it all hasn't gotten just a little too tricky, these labels, all-encompassing dichotomies, etc.. Fun for the simpletons, though.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
It's in "Goldfinger", the part where Goldfinger and his henchmen are just about to torture James Bond. Bond, ever so macho, of course, has to show his fearlessness by saying, "What, you expect me to talk?" To which Goldfinger, he, not to be outdone, billows back, "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
As for Obama, folks, am I the only one concerned about that "striking Al Qaeda inside of Pakistan" comment of his? I mean, THAT is totally out of the George Bush play-book, for Christ! No scrutiny, though, on the far-left blogosphere for it.....................................I don't know, I guess you could call this another example of why I hate these political parties of ours so much, how they have a tendency to blind us, etc.. I mean, think about it. They go totally out of their way to try and trash the "other" guy but when it's their guy who's under the flame, yeah, that's right, they spin it up big-time. Talk about a bunch of partisan stooges, huh? And, yes, both sides do it, O.K.? - every chance they God-damned frigging get. Ugh!
Monday, May 12, 2008
If it makes anybody feel any better, most of the conservatives I know aren't buying McCain's conversion one iota. They're convinced that once/if the Senator is elected, he'll immediately revert to form, cutting deals left and right (mostly left) with the Democrats in Congress ( the war, unfortunately, undoubtedly, being the exception). They site, specifically, how, between 2000 and 2002, McCain was in fact a de facto Democrat himself. It was only, they say, when he concluded that he'd have a chance to run (for President) again that this whole ridiculous calculus started taking place.....................................Bottom-line, folks, the right doesn't appear to trust or like McCain any more than the left does. As for what exactly McCain WOULD do, if elected, wow, that's a tough one. This, I'm saying, in that, yes, predicting this Senator has always been a risky venture indeed - which is probably another reason for not voting for him, huh?
Sunday, May 11, 2008
The illogic of these far-left bloggers (Cornell's crew, 1138, etc.), folks, is staggering. I mean, all you literally have to do is either 1) defend Senator McCain against scurrilous accusations or 2) criticize their candidate on a solitary issue and, yes, you're branded a Republican hack/partisan. Talk about having some thin skin, huh? I don't know, to me, if your stated goal is to fight back/counter the Ann Coulters of the world, you don't go flailing around like an idiot. You certainly don't do a left-wing imitation of her (Lydia Cornell, anybody?), for Christ!..................................But, seriously, though, friends, every politician out there (yes, EVEN Joe Lieberman) is a mixed-bag of sorts. Isn't it our job to weigh not just the pluses of of one guy and the minuses of the other....but to scrutinize them all? Not that you can't strongly support somebody, mind you. I'm just asking that you tone down the lunacy a little. That's all.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
I don't know, maybe it was because she was tired. That, or didn't want to seem impolitic. OR, maybe she's just not as smart as we've been giving her credit for. But, damn it, I thought Hillary had more than a few opportunities to bitch-slap O'Reilly last week (yes, the dreaded interview, I'm talking about). Take, for instance, when O'Reilly gave that idiotic assessment of his, praising the Bush administration for significantly damaging Al Qaeda (this, I'm saying, despite voluminous evidence to the contrary). She just frigging sat there! Or, when O'Reilly staked his claim to the "fact" that "torture works" by quoting George Tenent. George Tenent, of all people! I mean, seriously, I felt like yelling at her/the television, "Slam-dunk, slam-dunk, bring up the God-damned slam-dunk comment!" Nothing. And, finally, when O'Reilly told her that a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq would cause an increased Iranian influence in that country, she really fumbled. Me, I just would have said, "Duh, of course there's going to be Iranian influence. They're frigging Shia-dominated neighboring countries, for Christ! It's like, what, you want us to stay there indefinitely to keep the two populations apart?" Not, of course, that us staying there COULD prevent that anyway. This, I'm saying, in that, shit, Ahmaddinejad is already a hell of a lot more welcome there than Senator McCain is. I mean, just look at the reception the two men get when they visit there, for Christ! Damned if that doesn't signify "damage done" to me. unfortunately.
It was, I'm saying, one hell of a shit-load....of fecal-matter/prose - the bulk of it, yes, screaming out of Sassy's/the aftermath. And the fact that the legendary impetus of it, too, me-buckos, had, as ITS rationale, a burgeoning bloom, damned if it ALL wasn't a poopy-pantsed thing, etc.. I mean, just look to the fact that those fast-slipping "grins" themselves had had a terrifying effect PRIOR TO. Well, that, and the fact that it all came in the form of a nut-shell, thrice, unfortunately.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
As I read some of these more irresponsible blogs (you know, the ones that are constantly comparing Bush and McCain to Hitler - shit like that), I can't help but wonder what Elie Wiesel and the other Holocaust survivors would think of such flippant uses of terms such as "Reich", "Nazi", etc. Personally, I can't even begin to contemplate that they would like it, find it an appropriate metaphor, etc. _ whatever their frigging political views, I'm saying!...................................I mean, it's just like I was saying before about the term, "racist", people going around using it left and right, etc.. If you start to use it (it, or any epithet, for that matter) too much, it loses it's punch. So, for instance, if Bush AND McCain are both Hitler, doesn't it stand that there could be a third? Arrianna Huffington, perhaps? Oh, wait a minute, O'Reilly's already beat us to the punch on that one, huh? I forgot. Pee Wee Herman?
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Mona Charen, she's another one who gets to me at times. On C-Span the other night, for example, she throws out that tired old gem that the Democrats were on the wrong side of the "Cold War", failed to take seriously the massive arms build-up of the Soviets, etc.. I mean, it was almost a page out of the Richard Nixon play-manual, for Christ (ironic, in that, while HE was President, Nixon himself chose Detente' as HIS Soviet policy)!......................................And it's ridiculous, too, I'm saying. What, she doesn't think that Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson (the first and third actually taking us to war to STOP the spread of Communism) took the Soviet threat seriously? Even Carter, for God's sake, had a defense budget that exceeded his two Republican predecessors. I mean, sure, there was an element of the Democratic party that thought (incorrectly, if in fact history is being judged here) that, yes, maybe Reagan's build-up WAS over-kill. But to make such a swiping indictment (even in the 80s, I'm saying), I don't know, it just sounds like another example of right-wing demonizing to me.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Get this, folks, Cliffy, over there at lydiacornell.com - he actually has the audacity to blame the entire Vietnam fiasco on Eisenhower. Eisenhower, of all people!! He sites, specifically, how, after the Geneva agreement of 1954, Eisenhower and his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, helped install the pro-western (albeit, yes, authoritarian) regime of Diem in the south (something that any President of the day would have done but, whatever). Of course, what he /fails/forgets to mention is that it was Truman who initially provided aid to the French while THEY were the colonial power over there. He also forgets to document the fact that, despite a tremendous pressure to do so, Eisenhower prudently refrained from sending military assistance (i.e., troops) to the French at Dien Bien Phu (a restraint I doubt seriously Truman would have been able to muster)....and later, after the Geneva agreement (contrast this with LBJ/the escalation trap that he clearly fell prey to). And, besides, Kennedy, who succeeded Eisenhower, he could have tried to push for elections early on in his administration. But, no, BLAME THE REPUBLICAN ENTIRELY....AGAIN!!.........................................P.S. Not that this is surprising, mind you, the DNA of all those clowns over at Lydia's needing to blame Republicans, period! - yes, even the well-respected, liberal ones, for Christ!
Monday, May 5, 2008
I'd have to say it pretty much reflects the one that Brent Scowcroft has: "He's not the same Dick Cheney that I used to know." I site, specifically, that brilliant 1993 response that Cheney gave to THE $64,000 question, "Why didn't you topple Saddam after kicking him out of Kuwait?" Yep, that's right, Mr. Cheney himself once said that it would destabilize the region, cause a potential civil war, strengthen Iranian influence, make for a difficult exit strategy, et. al.. I mean, talk about a fellow who's done a 180 (textbook, as a matter of fact), huh?.....................................P.S. And, no, please, please, don't throw out that "9/11 changed everything" line yet again. This, I'm saying, in that, seriously, folks I just don't have the stomach for it anymore.
Laura Ingraham never ceases to disappoint, folks. On one of her recent O'Reilly visits (4/30), she actually compared the wide-spread corruption in Iraq's central government to the corruption that we see in America's own cities. And, yes, me-buckos, she did it with a straight face, too, I'm saying. It's like, come on (I actually felt like screaming at her, folks), when was the last time you saw any American bureaucracy be over-run by militia members, terrorists, insurgents, etc. (all of whom have blood on their hands, I might add)? It hasn't happened in my lifetime, I'm pretty sure of that. But, no, continue to paint a rosy picture over there.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
For the record, while it may be true that Senator McCain, while undergoing his torturous experiences, did give more than "name, rank, and serial number" to his captors, any evidence that he gave away vital information is nonexistent. And, really, the fact that he supposedly signed some document that specified that he, John McCain, was a terrorist, does that not take a chunk out of the assertions that both NewsMax and Tomcat are making? It hurts the NewsMax position in that, no, what he allegedly confessed to was not in any way useful information. And it hurts the Tomcats of this world in that it clearly shows, well, basically the same thing; namely, that what he "confessed" to was so far from a treasonous act....that it's not even amusing as fodder...................................I don't know, folks, it all sounds as if there might be more than enough grounds for a divorce here. And a God-damned custody-battle, too - the loser, the loser actually getting McCain!!!
Friday, May 2, 2008
I'm telling you, folks, there appears to be no limit to what a far-left blogger will do in order to slime McCain. Tomcat (politicsplus.blogspot.com), for example, in an effort to give bonafides to the recent "swift-boating" of McCain; the "fact" that he capitulated to his torturers in Vietnam, etc., has actually gone as far as to quote the ultra far-RIGHT enterprise, NewsMax. I mean, talk about a combo/strange bedfellows, huh?...................................And, no, the fact that the two camps are clearly looking at this torture issue from partisan view-points; NewsMax, to illuminate their view that torture "works", Tomcat, to underscore the Senator's unfitness to be president, apparently doesn't seem to bother the latter AT ALL! Incredible. In fact, it kind of prototypifies that old adadge, "my enemy of my enemy is my fried", rather well, don't you think?
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The thing is, folks, as much of an ass-hole as O'Reilly has been....and as badly as he's treated Bill Moyers and others over the years, I may in fact have to concede a point to him here. This, I'm saying, in that, yes, it now appears that Mr. Moyers did indeed commit journalistic negligence last Friday (4/24/08). I site, specifically, the fact that he, Moyers, failed to ask Reverend Wright a solitary question regarding the latter's caught-on-tape diatribes, baseless accusations, etc.. I mean, it's almost as if (drum-roll, please) Bernie Goldberg (another fellow who I rarely find common-ground with) may have made THE most cogent point of all, "If a journalism student had submitted this 'interview' for a grade, he would have gotten an F for it." Ouch, huh?