« Ok...I lied....ONE more question | Main | So, what have I missed? »
March 09, 2007
The 'new tone' in Washington
I've been busy at the new house all week but that hasn't kept me from listening to the radio or briefly wandering the 'net when I'm home before collapsing in bed (usually after midnight).
The Democrat Surrender Party keeps hitting new lows, John Edwards recent behavior in declaring Jesus "appalled" by American "selfishness" then refusing to debate other members of his own party because the debate is co-hosted by Fox News, and yet another instance of petty viciousness from people who proclaim themselves "progressive" demonstrate, indeed, that there is a "new tone" in Washtington.
"Progressive" is the new "fascist".
Too harsh? Well, contemporary American "progressives" are all about teh Euro-culture and values and this is how France treats "free speech".
Paris - A new law in France makes it a crime for anyone who is not a professional journalist to film real-world violence and distribute the images on the Internet.And in France, there is no such thing as a freelance reporter/photographer/journalist. You are either part of the registered profession or you are not a "journalist" and thus can get up to five years in prison if convicted under this new law.
I'm sure right now Edwards, Harry Reid, "Fairness Doctrine" Kucinich, and other "we'll decide what is legitimate news and debate" progressives are envious.
Posted by Darleen at March 9, 2007 07:10 AM
Comments
Just FYI, Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective.
Posted by: Josh at March 9, 2007 01:20 PM
Actually, Darleen, the Democrats will need to go much, much lower into the political sewers you swim in just to reach that tiny pocket of putrid air found at the top of your Republican party. It nauseates me knowing that every day my husband and so many other true heroes’ lives are put at constant risk so that foul, vulgar women such as yourself can spew such bile and poison. People such as yourself have tainted the name and reputation of the Republican Party. The Christian in me knows that I will continue to pray for your kind but it gets more difficult every day.
Posted by: Francess at March 9, 2007 03:01 PM
Oh comeon "Francess" who are you, really?
a rather pathetic attempt at trollery so 'fess up.
Unlike your "progessive" brethren, I allow for diversity of comments.
Posted by: Darleen at March 9, 2007 04:12 PM
Francess
I've never heard of your organization. Guess I live too near so many major millitary bases and no one wants to speak up?
Never heard of your organization in my church either, and we hear lots of concerns there, but very few that reflect your view.
As for "The Christian in me knows that I will continue to pray for your kind but it gets more difficult every day."....what , PRAY TELL, does "your kind" mean?
Posted by: Hugh at March 9, 2007 04:44 PM
We can't become Iraq's police department Mz Darleen; sooner or later it'll be time to go.
If we were a colonial power and we were prepared to stay in Iraq hundred years or so, maybe we could make a difference.
But we arn't and we won't. The age of empire is over, but the Neocons are intent on creating a new one; an American Raj in Iraq.
William Kristol and that crew at the Weekly Standard are the worst offenders.
Of course, Mr Bush and the dead-enders in his cabinet bear a lot of the blame for keeping this slaughter going.
Waist deep in the Big Muddy
and the Damn fool says to push on.
--Pete Seeger
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at March 10, 2007 08:52 AM
Carl
I will agree that the Age of Empire is over. But look at US foreign policy over a period of time.
If the US had left the victories it achieved in WWII on the same timetable as those proposed by the Legislative Majority, wouldn't you agree that the world would look very different today?
We abandoned Vietnam and what was the result? Total loss of credibility in the region and the loss of millions (?) of lives. We did not abandon Japan or a bifurcated Germany, fought a Cold War for decades and what was the result? Millions of lives saved and productive democratic governments.
I can't predict what will happen in Iraq if we stay, but I am certain of what will happen if we leave now. There will be no more elections. There will be no model for democracy in the Middle East. We will have abandoned a strategic base every bit as valuable as the strategic bases we held in Europe since WWII.
Posted by: Hugh at March 10, 2007 04:32 PM
hot pisi
babes
anal sex
porno stars
Posted by: Pedrowzl at March 11, 2007 06:33 AM
You're right Hugh; there are no easy answers. One thing's certain, we can't be Iraq's police service. We arn't good at it and the American people won't support a quasi-imperialist effort in Iraq.
Which is what this occupation is becoming.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at March 12, 2007 10:33 AM
Carl
Thanks for your comments.
Here's my point: I don't believe it is this administration's goal to become or be a quasi imperialist presence in Iraq. We are certainly not good at that sort of thing.If the U.S. wanted to pursue the imperialist approach it could be achieved much more easily with private sector pressure. For example, the UN propagated bribery was miniscule in actual dollars compared to what Multi National (and US controlled) corporations would have paid outright for the Iraqi oil reserves.
My question is: Where have we succeeded in our history in similar situations? Japan and Germany are two significant examples where very few (at the time) would have predicted successful democratic governments. But nor does popular opinion consider Iraq a candidate for success.
Posted by: Hugh at March 12, 2007 05:32 PM
The comparison of contemporary Iraq to mid-century Japan and Germany is inapt for several reasons. Chief among them is that those societies were largely homogeneous and did not have, as two of their largest demographic groups, religious sects with a long history of mutual hatred and violence. I would also note that half of Germany was placed under authoritarian rule.
Posted by: Josh at March 13, 2007 07:22 AM
Josh
I'm relieved to learn that my comparison was simply "inapt". I'll start with your last point about Germany...after the "half century of authoritarian rule" what, indeed, did happen? And why did it happen?
As to your "homogenous societies" point: if these "societies" (hint: they were brutal dictatorships) were so homogenous why did their leadership fold under Allied attack? Japan was no more homogenous than Iraq. Germany was nor “homogenous” than either. Why did Saddam fold? Why did they turn on themselves?
Your argument, which hides behind the veil of the “that was different then” polemic, is another example of trying to explain away reality with argument.
Posted by: Hugh at March 13, 2007 04:54 PM
As to your "homogenous societies" point: if these "societies" (hint: they were brutal dictatorships) were so homogenous why did their leadership fold under Allied attack?
Many reasons. But one of them was not because Japan and Germany were riven with internecine religious and ethnic conflict.
Japan was no more homogenous than Iraq.
So please tell me which groups in post-WWII Japan were analogous to Sunni and Shia in present-day Iraq.
Your argument, which hides behind the veil of the “that was different then” polemic
Hugh, your argument is "this is the same as that." I'm arguing that it isn't. If you're going to argue by analogy you can hardly complain when flaws in that analogy are pointed out to you.
another example of trying to explain away reality with argument.
No, actually what's going on is you're pretending reality is other than it is by drawing a false equivalence between mid-century Germany and Japan and contemporary Iraq, and I'm critiquing that superficial analysis.
Posted by: Josh at March 14, 2007 06:25 AM