Just How Stupid Are We?
On the way into teaching this morning, I was able to catch Barack Oama's fine speech about patriotism on the radio. Listening to Obama speak, one is reminded of what makes him -- at least to me -- quite an attractive candidates: he's smart, he's reflective and, miracle of miracles, he generally elevates, not lowers, the public discourse.
His speech was nice antidote to a great but depressing book I read over the weekend: "Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter."Â
Author and historian Rick Shenkman does a masterful job of dissecting the opportunistic bi-partisan pandering lavished on The People -- a people who knows more names of Simpson family members than freedoms protected by the First Amendment. At a time when governance is become ever more small-d democratic and the power of citizenry is potentially greater than anytime before in history, why aren't we demanding that these same citizens actually know something about the politicians and policies they are voting on?
Shenkman offers a solid case that American politics and the American voter are driven much more by a series of powerful, shifting and fundamentally misleading myths -- rather than about the so-called "issues" to which everyone and his brother so regularly genuflects. Read it this summer, before the election. Please.
Which brings us back to Obama's speech. He vowed not to employ the most insidious of all these legends and myths. He promised he would not use the questioning of one's patriotism as an issue in the election -- which means he will be standing in a very lonely corner. I don't think the other side is gonna play by those rules.
Obama, out of political realism, nevertheless took some distance from remarks made over the weekend by former General Wesley Clark, now serving as an advisor and surrogate to the Democratic nominee. Now, I'm not running for Prez -- at least not yet-- so I can say what Obama couldn't: way to go Wes! Clark, former NATO Supreme Commander, while guesting on Face The Nation Sunday morning told host Bob Schieffer when speaking of McCain:
"I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces as a prisoner of war. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility," said Clark, a former NATO commander who campaigned for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2004.
"He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not,' " Clark said.
Schieffer noted that Obama did not have any of those experiences either nor has he "ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down."
"Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president," Clark said.
Clark's crime here, precisely, is that he dealt in hard truth rather than in myth. Indeed, Clark went easy on McCain. Ask me about MCCain's military/national security background and I might have added a few more lines like:
** McCain should be seen more as a victim rather than a hero. He was shot down and tortured in the midst of a war that we should have never been fighting in the first place.
** What sort of judgement does it show on McCain's part to have supported such a bumbling clown as George W. Bush as commander-in-chief. Any military guy worth his salt would have publicly mutinied against Bush's disastrous command -- just as General Clark did.
I could go on. But don't want to overload the American people with too many dense facts.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
McCain learned what it means to sacrifice for your country, a leadership experience that Obama lacks. To Obama, sacrifice is something expected of the “rich,” aka taxpayers.
What has Obama done other than talk? Talk’s cheap.
June 30th, 2008 at 12:45 pm
Well so did Wes Clark (2 silver stars and a purple heart in Vietnam). And Clark was at the top of his class while McCain barely managed to graduate. The largest unit McCain commanded was a squadron (he also crashed a lot of planes - in line with GWB he was a mediocre pilot - but at least he saw service). Clark ended his career as a four star and Supreme Commander of Nato Forces. You get a far different perspective on strategy there.
John McCain is still fighting the Vietnam War. He wants ro “Win” in Iraq - whatever that means. Clark is right but the Great and the Good in the media long ago adopted “St. John” and bestowed on him the title of “Foreign Policy” expert.
And that’s the problem. If the public is ignorant maybe its because the powers that be in the media like it that way. Recently CBS News led its signature broadcast with a lengthy piece on Tiger Woods’ leavubg the PGA Tour to recuperate. That was the LEAD STORY. No, I’m not talking SPortsCenter. But the News.
Think Walter Chronkite would have done that?
June 30th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
But let’s not leave Obama off the hook. I understand his waffling on the gun issue (a flip-flop as everyone knows) since Marc is right and running for President entails being discreet. But caving on FISA and Telco Immunity? Sorry. I’ll still vote for him but with eye wide open and none of the idolitry that the Obamiacs show.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Woody’s comment has the virtue of being first at least.
June 30th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Woody, condolences on the death of Uga IV.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Obama didn’t flip-flop on guns. Through the entire campaign he’s been clearly pro-gun ownership and very vague about the DC gun ban. But what liberals forget is that government doesn’t work all that well at protecting them and people don’t want to feel like they can’t help themselves.
Wes Clark was doing just fine till he denigrated McCain’s service with that remark. In which he mirrored Schieffer’s amusingly outraged question back at him.
McCain had already shown his bravery, Marc, by flying repeated missions into heavy anti-aircraft fire before he finally was shot down. He would have been highly decorated as a pilot had he not been shot down; just not nearly so famous.
What would be an interesting topic for you to write about is what it is about McCain’s service that has made him the most famous Vietnam War hero. For example, James Webb is actually more highly decorated than McCain, not that journos know the difference between a Silver Star and a Navy Cross.
There’s a lot of pschology wrapped into it.
June 30th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Whether Obama flip-flops or not, the problem is that the bloom has to come off the rose. Too many of his supporters do indeed move into the idolatry category when he is still just a politician, albeit an enormously talented, incredibly eloquent politician.
Obama will indeed be lonely in refusing to question the patriotism of others, but at least he will be accompanied by fellow Democrats who still fail to understand that Republicans know as much about truth and decency as Bill Clinton does about marital fidelity.
As to McCain, yes, go Wesley Clark! And while we’re at it, Obama should be ready to say, when McCain does keep questioning his patriotism, “I think it’s sad that a man who gave so much for his country is so eager to put others in the position of being killed or maimed. He’s more courageous than George W. Bush because he was willing to serve, but he appears to be just as bloodthirsty and unfeeling.”
June 30th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Barack Hussien Obama is not the right guy for the job. He has no credentials and is a baby senator, not qualified to run America. His ideas and plans sound good and everything, but are unattainable and are just lies, his plan to just get in. He is living in an imaginary world and needs to wake up to the world around him. Don’t believe him. Barack Hussie nObama = 6 6 6 . No matter what he says he is a muslim. His father and stepfather are muslims and in the eyes of all muslims that makes him one. He is unpatriotic, from his stupid excuses to why he doesn’t wear a flag pendent to his crazy, black, racist, damning America preacher and mentor. He is the charming, charismatic, mesmorizing, speaker that the devil is. He wants to talk and negotiate with America’s enemies, to pull troops out, to let them reorganize and stregthen, and then eventually side with them. Obama’s real name is Mabus. Nostradamus talks of Obama, the third antichrist of middle eastern background, ‘The Black One’. He is the devil. He will be the next President of the United States. America is blinded by Obama’s image and is persuded by the media’s portrayal. The media positivly portrays Obama, but is always negative against McCain. Its sick. McCain’s views are the truth and the correct way to handle things in this time of war. Which is a neccassary war. McCain is realistic on the way to deal with America’s enemies. McCain’s experience in the Senate and as an Air Force Officer/Pilot and POW gives him exceptional qualifications to run a country that is being attacked, on a Biblical scale. McCain knows how to get this country under control; the economy, fuel prices, illegal immigration. America is clearly divided into two, McCain Americans and Obama Americans. The Obama Americans want change but don’t want to make the sacrifices to do so. They want low gas prices but down want to drill causing harm to the environment. They want a border security but don’t want a wall that may disrupt natural mirgation of wildlife. They want lower taxes and don’t want to support a war they think they know so much about and don’t see a wider picture of our purpose and responsibility as Americans to respond to their attacks and their inhumanity to their people in their own region. America needs to be strong to be able to defend it’s enemies. We need to stand together as one country and unite on our way of thinking or we aren’t going to stand. The muslims are set in their plans to destroy the west and Israel and for Islam to be the world religion. They burn Bibles and flags, dancing and chanting ‘Death To America’ daily. They get upset and cry when a Quran is treated the same way and want an apology for it. They get upset and cry when someone draws a cartoon of Mohammed when I see cartoons of Jesus helping Santa and boxing Satan on South Park and can laugh about it, but yet they want an apology. We want our apology. They aren’t going to stop. The way they think is backwards. They are ignorant in their views and only see their own way. We have to check them. They are the enemies of Israel and that makes them the enemies of God. This is a holy war that must be fought in the name of God. Obama is just going to cause more problems and just weaken our nation. He is a muslim. The muslims around the world support him and praise his name. Obama’s views are completly unrealistic and are just lies to brainwash the American people to follow and believe in him. ‘Change We Can Believe In’, he is the anti-christ. Just lies to get the vote. He is the devil and will be America’s next President. In 2012, around election time, 3.5 years into his rule we will see his true self and intentions. He will declare himself a world leader to be worshipped and embraced as a god. 2012 is the Chinese year of the Dragon, in which divine and other worldly events occur on year. Dec 21 2012 the earth completes a precession on its axis which will cause shift of poles and magnetic fields. Also the day when the sun rises and aligns with the center of our Milky Way Galaxy and passes into the 13th zodiac which is a man wrestling a snake, symbolizing a time of struggle with evil. The Mayans predicted a beginning of a new cycle of change. The four horsemen are riding now. The natural disasters, climate change, world hunger, oil crisis, and a holy war. These are the end times and Obama is the devil.
June 30th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I guess “Fuck Obama” just resoundingly answered the question, Just How Stupid Are We?
June 30th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Huh?
Me encantan los huevones.
June 30th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
rlc, I’m not a Georgia fan and usually usually pull against them. Anyway, it was Uga’s time to go. Uga VI in his better days
- - -
BB: “Obama didn’t flip-flop on guns.”
Obama not only flip-flopped the gun issue, he also flopped. See: Boton Globe, Jeff Jacoby, Barack Obama’s dizzyingly inconsistent positions on District of Columbia v. Heller
- - -
You guys falsely claimed that the Republicans said that your hero Max “Stumpy” Cleland, who blew off his limbs when his grenades pins came out on a beer run, was not patriotic, based upon absolutely nothing. I can imagine your outrage if someone said something about a Democrat like Obama’s camp talks about McCain.
I give McCain credit for not taking a special offer of freedom from his torturers unless they made the same offer to his fellow prisoners. And, earlier, when a fire broke out on his carrier, the Forrestal, he escaped from his burning jet and was helping another pilot escape when a bomb went off and McCain was struck by fragments. He flew twenty-three bombing missions. He also refused to meet with anti-war groups intent on helping the enemy with propaganda.
But, according to you, that doesn’t contribute anything to his experiences and attitudes to serve as Commander-in-Chief. Righhhhht.
- - -
F.O., at first I thought that you were Randy Paul until you got to the part about climate change–which is at least change, since Obama people like that. At least you have it right that Obama is not qualified or experienced enough for this important job.
June 30th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Woody, you would never say those things to Max Cleland’s face. You are a coward, a sniveling coward. What branch of the service did you serve in, coward?
June 30th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Wow Woody. I sometimes think reg overreacts to you, but I can’t say I think that anymore. “Stumpy?” Really? That’s not funny. Not gallows humor. Not darkly comic. Not ironic. Not edgy. Not transgressive. Just crass, stupid, sick, repugnant, grotesque and unfeeling. You really do deserve all the abuse reg heaps on you. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, and I think you owe everyone who participates here an apology.
June 30th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Hey, I held the door for Max Cleland once and he didn’t even look at me or say thank you. He didn’t say anything to my face. Maybe he should apologize.
I didn’t make up the name “Stumpy.” It’s frequently used on local talk radio to describe him, after he bacame a hack for the Democrats and quit representing the citizens of Georgia–which is really why he was defeated. I just used it here because it upsets Randy Paul so much.
To those who participate here, there’s no apology necessary. It wasn’t any of you who were insulted.
Maybe you should read this: The Offensiveness of Taking Offense
June 30th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Would anyone take offense to this? “Ann Coulter has more patriotic blood in one of her used tampons then you have in your whole body.” What if it’s true?
You need to quit worrying about me and start to worry about your boy.
June 30th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Woody, I’d no idea you were a summer-vacationing college student.
(I’ll leave it to others to figure out what I mean by that statement…)
June 30th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
You really are a piece of work aren’t you? Save your culture wars bullshit for someone else. This is a matter of fundamental decency and respect for people. It’s not about being PC, a threadbare, overused, and settled battle if there ever was one. And, incidentally, I probably happen to be closer to your views on this topic–still, I regard a base level of respect to others as my responsibility. That is until they voluntarily secede from the contract. So yeah, you offended ME by so willfully transgressing the rules of basic decorum. For that you get a giant raspberry followed by a fuck you, which you deserve and then some.
The rest of your reasoning is too callow and idiotic to deserve response. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it you who deservedly berated someone on this blog for their thinly concealed references to cancer? Shall I suggest you took too much offense?
June 30th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
I didn’t make up the name “Stumpy.â€
I’m sure that people use the word nigger don’t claim origination of the word, but that doesn’t stop them.
F.O., at first I thought that you were Randy Paul
What a typically witless peckerwood comment. I’ve got no qualms using my own name, unlike you Gumby.
June 30th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Tsk, tsk.
Come over to my garage and I’ll fit you with boxing gloves and you can duke it out by the Marquess of Queensbury rules.
McCain’s prison experience doesn’t give him national security expertise, so much as a character credential, except for this–he can’t have the moviegoer’s illusion that war’s some kind of game where no one suffers. There’s plenty to criticize in McCain’s policies without even hinting at disparaging his sacrifice. He’s a lot more circumspect about his war history than the execrable Kerry.
As for Gen. Clark, he was universally despised by superiors, equals, and subordinates alike, and carried out the barbarous air war against Serbia. I’d be more comfortable with BHO if he’d assure us that Clark will never pace the corridors of power again.
June 30th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
a people who knows more names of Simpson family members than freedoms protected by the First Amendment.
I call foul on this one.
Religion, speech, press, assembly, petition - and those last two can easily be read as one right (”… or to assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances”) when they aren’t just folded into “freedom of speech”. But we’ll split it as finely as we can here.
That’s five. Now then.
Homer, Marge, Bart, Lisa, Maggie, Grandpa Abe.
Six. And I don’t even watch the show - there could easily be more I’m not aware of.
I can also name more types of chess pieces than I can name freedoms protected by the First Amendment. Does my ignorance know no bounds?
June 30th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Krusty the Clown for VP. Second Jewish candidate for the job.
June 30th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
General Clark’s remarks are spot on. Military service, however meritorious, is not executive political experience. Flying an airplane and getting shot down is not a qualification for the Presidency Neither is being a haberdasher from Kansas City nor a professor of constitutional law from Chicago. Neither is being a draft-dodger from Texas. Nor from Arkansas.
I guess that just leaves issues, John Kerry, (salute) reporting for duty, notwithstanding. (also Leaving aside that hoary Leftist chestnut—-FALSE CONCIOUSNESS. “Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter. What’s Wrong with Kansas? Herbert Marcuse, please phone home!”
Wah Wah!
I guess that just leaves issues. So I will vote for the guy who promises steadfast loyalty to and defense of Israel, a hard line against Iran, and a continuation of our just and noble wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Who agrees that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to own
handguns for personal protection and who declines to prosecute the telecoms for cutting a few corners, here and there. Who wants to keep it safe for Presidential candidates to run on donor money, instead of limited government funds.
Oh wait!
In the event of a tie, I will vote for the guy who puts out the most flags.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:44 am
Woody, I jusr wanted you to be clear that I wasn’t offended by you I just think you’re a coward. Cowards are only offensive in their weakness. Well then, maybe I am offended by you. I know I’ve never met you but I’d be willing to put money on this hunch being right.
Oh, and what branch of the service did you serve in?
July 1st, 2008 at 5:55 am
Dan O, on the cancer issue, you’re confusing me with G.M., who recently announced that his last test shows that he remains cancer free. See “A Cancer Update” and go congratulate him. Do you know who should be offended about Cleland? The people of Georgia whom he promised to represent and then stabbed in the back, as he kept his nose up Ted Kennedy’s rear end. Cleland used up his war experience chits a long time ago. And, it’s not like you guys haven’t been a hundred times more insulting to President Bush.
- - -
Randy, Gumby?? I’ve never used any name but my own in comments. Also, your example is wayyy off. The two aren’t the same.
- - -
kendali, of course I would not say that to Cleland’s face–not because I’m a coward but because it would be rude. For example, you might talk to others about a friend of yours who has a wooden eye, but you wooden talk about it directly to your friend, wood you? My branch of service? You don’t know what I’ve done for the military, and it’s not pertinent to the post. I would ask if you would repeat your insults about Pres. Bush to his face, but you probably would, which says more about your lack of intelligence and rudeness than bravery.
- - -
Hey, did some of you know that some Obama supporters are even accusing McCain of war crimes? Some of you might even be in that group. Here are samples from this article: Is McCain’s War Record Fair Game?
So much for decency from the left. And, so much for “supporting the troops but not the mission.” I knew that line was a lie from Democrats. Maybe they have been cowards to not state the truth about what they really think–that they believe that our soldiers are stupid for joining our military and deserve what they get–just like McCain. Admit it.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:08 am
“General Clark’s remarks are spot on.” Of course, in Clark making Positive remarks about being in the service see his speech on John Kerry. Same war, different party.
Kendali and others, before getting your panties in a twist with faux indignation about the woodster’s remarks about Cleland think of the equally odious remarks in this blog from folks like you concerning conservatives or republicans and based on nothing more than a surface characteristic…..physician, heal thyself.
And before you ask, I served in the US Army (regular army, not reserves or NG and Joined in 1969… My dad was in the Army, my Granddad was in the Army and my great grandad was in the Army.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:39 am
You liberals need to move to Sydney. SYDNEY, Australia — New regulations make it a crime to annoy or inconvenience people. The regulations give police and emergency services workers power to order anyone to stop behavior that “causes annoyance or inconvenience.
That should go well, especially if the city is full of liberals who make a life out of being offended. Everyone could be arrested–especially if you guys did the arresting.!
That reminds me of an old joke…. Did you hear about the gay guy from Australia? Yeah. He went back to Sidney.
- - -
Here’s another Obama fact: Obama’s for Equal Pay, Yet Pays Female Staffers Less Than Males He continues to disappoint.
- - -
Finally, if you were this guy, you would have two places to stick your heads. French man with two asses
Sorry. That’s all. I have to go to work.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:47 am
Congrats Roper! That *is* good news.
Woody, I knew it was Roper, but I seem to recall you getting angry at our Northern friend for some rude remarks he made. I may be wrong, but that’s just a side light anyway.
Calling Cleland stumpy was rude and sophomoric, but instead of feeling chastened for stepping over the line of good taste, you go ahead and defend it. Nothing like bold defiance in the face of your own missteps. Good for you! Stay strong brother! You cut a fine figure!
Then you go on an attack of misdirection by suggesting that Democrats (all Democrats?) say worse things about Bush. That excuses you how? Never mind! Deftly done! Now we have to defend ourselves and forget that you’re being a thoughtless cow!
After heading over to Roper’s yesterday and noticing the link to your offensiveness article, I’m starting to suspect that you made the stumpy comment just to elicit such a reaction so you had a reason to throw that link in.
And on that subject, your article suggests that leftists feign offense when they object to the content of your ideas. OK, maybe. But would you be kind enough to elucidate the idea contained in your use of the name stumpy? Did I miss some subtle philosophical observation, or is it what it appears to be, a dumb remark, best said over a Billy beer with a tomato juice chaser?
I’ll let you know when you express an idea I don’t think you should be allowed to express because it offends me, which will be never. In the meantime keep shelling us with your “ideas” we can scarcely handle hearing.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:51 am
Woody: Find the definition of this character under “coward” and “hypocrite”
You’re afraid to speak up to a triple amputee. that you call “Stumpy” behind his back? Man, you’re even more craven than I imagined. And all because he failed to thank you when you opened the door for him. “Mommy mommy, the bad crippled man didn’t acknowledge me.”
Coward.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:58 am
What Kendali said.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:15 am
Marc:
As soon as this happens, a lot of the faux-voting rights folks on the left and the uneducated on the right will scream bloody murder at “tests.” What an un-democratic idea this is Marc
The comments about Clark having two silver stars is both amusing, and shows a lack of understanding of how medals (of all kinds) were “handed out” during the Vietnam war. Clark was a West Pointer and the WPPA (West Point Protective Association) (and I’m sure there were equivalents in the Naval and Air Force Academys) made sure that Silver Stars were as frequently given as M&Ms.
When I attended Officers Candidate School in 1970, the number of Silver Stars on Captains and Majors was astounding… far more than were seen during Korea and WWII. I knew one Captain who had two but was overheard saying that he was only in a single fire-fight. Did he earn both? Who knows, but the plethora of those little ribbons says that an awful lot of them weren’t earned as much by heroism as they were by who one knew or who wrote up the AAR. I should also note that Clark was FIRED by none other than Bill Clinton for his egregious conduct of the Kosovo campaign. That has gotta say something. Not many Generals were “removed” as ungraciously as was Clark. I’ll also add as a previous commenter did that Clark was universally despised by a very large number of professional soldiers.
I’m just waiting for some of you guys to laud someone with an Infantry Badge in which case I’ll laugh my ass off because they can’t tell the difference between an Infantry Badge and a COMBAT Infantry Badge.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:36 am
I should also note that Clark was FIRED by none other than Bill Clinton for his egregious conduct of the Kosovo campaign.
Not true. According to David Halberstam, who, unlike Hugh Shelton didn’t have an axe to grind against Clark, General Joseph Ralston was not going to be appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff because of an adulterous affair he had had in the 1980’s. if Ralston were not reappointed to a four star position within sixty days, he would be forced to retire.
Halberstam, in his book War in a Time of Peace: Bush, Clinton, and the Generals, that although Clinton signed on to Ralston’s reassignment, both he and Madeline Albright were unhappy with Clark’s treatment.
Your claim also ignores one question: if Clinton fired Clark, why would he have endorsed Hillary for president?
July 1st, 2008 at 8:06 am
OK, Democrats, what do you think of Obama’s statement that he wants to expand government subsidies for religion by increasing “faith based initiatives?” Welcome to Iran. Where’s George Carlin when you need him?
July 1st, 2008 at 8:17 am
Got moderation - will try again:
) I too agree with Clark. It is one thing to be shot down by the Vietnamese while in the midst of a murderous, genocidal campaign. It is another ot safely demand the slaughter of Serb civilians, even radio stations, bridges and Chinese embassies and by his own admission (in his memoir) make the situation worse. Still, Clark is right about McCain, who, as Doug Valentine points out - http://counterpunch.com/valentine06132008.html - was at least heroically contrite when in captivity by the “good guys†in that conflict.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:20 am
Look, let’s face it. If this discussion proves anything, it’s that right-wingers, conservatives, Republicans–call them what you will–will say or do ANYTHING if they think it helps their candidate. Is this a lesson for Democrats? Yes, the same lesson Democrats should have learned from dealing with Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Bob Dole, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney …. And here’s hoping that Barack Obama can figure out that making nice with the other side will get him a long career in the Senate.
May I also suggest checking out The Nation, where Eric Alterman and George Zornick display just how awful the media really are in their relationship with John McCain (for men it’s bisexual and for women it’s heterosexual–they almost literally $%#& him–and The New Yorker, which has a wonderful profile of the Republican party’s favorite benefactor, Sheldon Adelson, the disgusting owner of hotel-casinos in Las Vegas and Macao.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:42 am
>Clark is right about McCain
He’s right that, insofar as being President is not at all like being a prisoner of war, McCain’s war record is not that relevant to the election. Someone else might argue, though, that terrorizing third world populations by dropping bombs on densely populated cities is actually a big part of the job description of the President, so here McCain’s experience may be helpful
In either case, rational arguments play little to no role in the decision making process of most voters. All Clark accomplished was to remind the public yet again of McCain’s personal sacrifice as a POW. This is to McC’s advantage, not Obama’s. If Clark is trying to help the dems, he should shut up on this topic.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:57 am
Obama’s campaign is a reflection of the narcissistic culture surrounding him. What Narcissists do in an argument is to deflect. Obama is using Clark to do his dirty work. Deflect the issue of Patriotism which has become an issue. Attack the other guy’s patriotism and then act as referee (power) that patriotism will be off limits, sounding magnanimous and in control. Obama is a political animal, using images and backing out of controversy by deflecting attacks. The problem with narcissists is that in times of crisis they fold up and become useless. Another problem is that they only pretend to care about others because that makes them look good. They know they need people, they just don’t want to have to be put out. How he dealt with Wright is a case in point. “How do I get rid of the guy without seeming to be callous?” Problem is, in times of crisis, a narcissist becomes hysterical and self involved. The entire campaign is eerily reminiscent of Mussolini and Peron. The media is in the tank for him (except that crazy old Fox News who no one really listens to). Fascism controls the media. Fascism is a one party government. As far as many Democrats feel, there should only be one party and the other dissenting voices should be shut up. Thank god for the internet, this is the true salvation for Democracy!
July 1st, 2008 at 9:18 am
George, what planet do you live on? This year, GE, Viacom, and the rest of them might be supporting the Dems, but this is the first time in many years and it is obviously a reaction to the amazingly poor record of the Republicans in the last few years. We are coming off years of complete GOP dominance, which included some of the worst gerrymandering in American history, the reversion to the spoils system in civil service, the use of the IRS to harass opponents of the war, etc. The Dems finally get a foothold, which they don’t even seem to want to use, and instantly they are trying to set up a single party system?
If the media are fascist, this is manifest in the ISPs’ cooperation with GWB’s spying and in the broadcast and print media’s abject enlistment in the war propaganda effort. The Dems are just about as guilty as the Repugs in these policies, but since they were implemented by a GOP President and, until recently, a GOP-controlled Congress, its pretty bizarre to characterize this as an effort to set up a one party DP state.
As for using surrogates for smear campaigns and then disingenously disclaiming responsibility, this is the norm in politics. Obama is not unsually egregious in this, certainly less so than GWB or McCain. Also, I doubt that Clark’s comments were planted by Obama, given that they were so stupid.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:25 am
>Hey, did some of you know that
>some Obama supporters are
>even accusing McCain of war crimes?
This lame maneuver was already used up against MoveOn. Someone posted intemperate remarks on a pro-Obama website, so Obama’s respnsible for them.
Woody, by this reasoning, Marc is repsonsible for your views posted on this blog. McCain would be repsonsible for every one of his supporters who make racist comments about Obama. Mayor Bloomberg must really be one confused dude-just look at the graffiti on the subways in New York!
July 1st, 2008 at 9:28 am
McCain is a war criminal, unless we totally change how we define the concept. To deny he is a war criminal is to endorse the slaughter of over three million Vietnamese, overwhelmingly civilians.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:28 am
The fact that corporate America is supporting the Dems reflects the ongoing Yankee/Cowboy split in American capital.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:49 am
I fully support Obama’s plan to expand funding for community-based social service operations, including those sponsored by churches (Catholic Charities is excellent, among others.) If you read what he said, rather than the AP spin version, it’s an initiative that I would totally expect from Obama, given his background.
(Also happen to think that he’s correct in not opposing the Supreme Court decisions on guns and the death penalty, because they’re both totally defensibile constitutional law. Randy made a good point “elsewhere” though, that the practical implications of the death penalty decision as it applies to child rape were stupid, whatever one thinks about the death penalty itself, because they actually create an incentive to murder a rape victim - and Obama should have also made that obvious point, which doesn’t have anything to do with technical constitutionality but with common sense.)
July 1st, 2008 at 10:04 am
Sorry, I’m coming in late here. All I can say is that I would be thrilled if Obama’s presidency turned out to be as apocalyptic as “Fuck Obama” predicts. But don’t count on it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/memo-to-obama-moving-to-t_b_110026.html
July 1st, 2008 at 10:43 am
>Catholic Charities is excellent, among others.
How is it possible for the government to fund religious charities without promoting religion? Can you take seriously the idea that people who get, say, meals or clothes from a religious charity don’t get a sermon along with them? If people go to a church to get free food, the claim that the government paid for the food but not the minister is a distinction without a difference.
Besides, they are using government funds to beef up the PR image of religious institutions, which is government promotion of religion in itself.
>(Also happen to think that he’s correct
>in not opposing the Supreme Court
>decisions on guns
I’m OK with this too. Gun control of the strong type in the DC law is just not attainable within American culture. Better to welcome the expansive interpretation of the Bill of Rights than to fight for that kind of law. I do not expect this decision will interfere with more moderate gun control measures like waiting periods and trigger lock laws.
I just wonder why the Supremes care so much about the Second amendment but so little about the First, and why they let the executive branch and its corporate allies at AT&T use the Fourth as toilet paper.
July 1st, 2008 at 11:37 am
“How is it possible for the government to fund religious charities without promoting religion? Can you take seriously the idea that people who get, say, meals or clothes from a religious charity don’t get a sermon along with them?”
You obviously don’t have a clue as to how a group like Catholic Charities functions. Without groups like these, folks who the “left” professes to care about would be far worse off. There’s no “quid pro quo” if the programs are following the rules - as for the “PR”, big deal.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Where Obama has disappointed me, for what that’s worth, is on not showing more leadership on FISA. I think that’s a terrain where he needs to shift the discussion to effective counter-terrorism vs. fear-mongering and false choices. Telecom immunity is a basic issue of rule-of-law and shouldn’t be handed off.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
In response….
Dan O: Then you go on an attack of misdirection by suggesting that Democrats…say worse things about Bush.
Hey, isn’t that what you guys are doing by taking the fight to me about one sorry Senator instead of focusing on what Obama’s camp said about McCain? Dan O, what I added about Cleland is not within my typical character, but I knew that Randy enjoys hearing such things coming from me. I added the post at G.M.’s after I left the comment here about liberals taking offense, without any ulterior motive.
Kendali and Randy, you guys are typical liberals and would never get a joke if it hit you upside the head. How can you take everything that I say so seriously and literally?
Stu, I didn’t say that Obama made those remarks. I said that his supporters did. Regarding Marc and my comments, sometimes it’s hard to tell us apart.
jcummings, since you feel that McCain is a war criminal, what will he have to do to get your vote?
- - -
Obama continues to ….
July 1st, 2008 at 12:48 pm
From Wikipedia: (Wesley) Clark was…given command of A Company, 1st Battalion, 16th Infantry of the 1st Infantry Division in January 1970. In February, only one month into his command, he was shot four times by a Viet Cong soldier with an AK-47. The wounded Clark shouted orders to his men, who counterattacked and defeated the Viet Cong force. Clark had injuries to his right shoulder, right hand, right hip, and right leg, and was sent to Valley Forge Army Hospital in Phoenixville, Pennsylvania to recuperate. He was awarded the Silver Star for his actions during the encounter.[20]
I want to award GMRoper a bag of moldy M&Ms for his excellent commentary on Wesley Clark not deserving his medals. Clark has one silver star that I dare say he earned. Roper is bloviating at his usual high standard.
July 1st, 2008 at 12:57 pm
So Woody, where’s the logic that in stating that deciding an issue should be “left to the states” it follows that one can’t also oppose a state-initiative that goes against one’s own beliefs on the matter. Obama’s expressing his opinion on a state initiative. You don’t make any sense at all in claiming that’s a “flip-flop.” (The desperation of these “flip-flop” gambits is going from extreme to hysterical. Especially given McCain’s vulnerability on shifting positions for supposed political advantage. These guys are really at a kindergarten level of political discourse.) It’s evident the rightwingers on this thread have reached some new low in both lack of logic and vicious, dishonest smears. Obama must be driving these guys completely nuts.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:15 pm
reg, I didn’t use the word “flip-flop.” The article did. But, if Obama isn’t flip-flopping, he wants it both ways.
Now, get this from the party of John Kerry with his sucky salute and the party that attacked Pres. Bush’s military service: Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) waded into the debate over John McCain’s military service Monday to say that the Republican should avoid using military service in politics.
At least McCain didn’t throw away his medals and ribbons.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:25 pm
” I didn’t use the word ‘flip-flop.’ The article did.”
Well I’m not taking the chickenshit approach and posting a link that calls you an idiot. I’m calling you an idiot.
July 1st, 2008 at 1:48 pm
>There’s no “quid pro quo†if the
>programs are following the rules -
>as for the “PRâ€, big deal.
they are using government money to bring people in to a religious institution. I don’t have any personal experience, but it took me about four seconds to find a list of “ways Catholic Charities are Catholic” on CC’s website. The first four are:
1) Rooted in the Scriptures
2) An integral part of the Catholic Church
(keep the kids away!)
3) Promotes the sanctity of human life
(I’ll assume you know what this means in Catholic discourse)
4) Authorized to exercise their ministry by the diocesan bishop
#5 softens this by saying CC “respects the religious beliefs of those we serve,” but #6 is “special relationship to Catholic diocese and parishes.”
I’m going to take CC at their word in the foregoing. They are free to push any kind of superstition they want, and I really don’t know whether the folks they “minister” to are getting a good deal when they trade their independence of mind for food and shelter. It might also be debatable whether some drug addicts are better off when they join a treatment program that turns out to be a front for the Church of Scientology or the Nation of Islam, but gets them off drugs.
What is clear is that using tax dollars to lure the vulnerable into joining your religion is unconstitutional.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“why aren’t we demanding that these same citizens actually know something about the politicians and policies they are voting on?”
I know I’m no smarter or better informed than the average voter and I feel safe saying the same about Marc Cooper, given his writings.
More important, real democracy favors the lowest common denominator. That can be unfortunate and vexing, for reasons Marc brings up, but we shouldn’t expect anything different.
Obama may well be a shining exception and as Marc notes, we should revel in it. It’s not just the candidates own capabilities and temperament, but also the fact that Bush, more rigorously than any president in our lifetime, has based his politics on fooling some of the people all of the time.
The problem isn’t that the average American is too stupid to vote sensibly. The problem is they don’t really care about politics, which, ironically is at least partly a measure of the success of the American economy and civil rights. Again, Bush’s strident stupidity amid failure may be providing some motivation for a wider swath of voters to pay attention.
Then there are wingnuts, on both sides, but on this blog, I would have to site GM and Woody.
If we judged by their comments alone, we’d have to say they are utter morons living in the basement at their parents’ place under professional care. Presumably, however, they are actually of at least average intelligence, but are motivated to think and say moronic things by way of using political ideology to express and rationalize their emotional reactions to society.
Would a better, more universal education system lead to more informed voters? Possibly, at the margins. But we always face the conundrum that the better our government functions, the less motivation people have to vote carefully.
I’m with Churchill on democracy: it’s the least worst system we’ve tried so far.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:20 pm
reg, that is one of your more pathetic comebacks. Get some rest.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
>To deny he is a war criminal is to
>endorse the slaughter of over
>three million Vietnamese,
>overwhelmingly civilians.
JC, if the criterion of “war crime” is killing mostly civilians, most combat soldiers in nearly every war since at least World War I are war criminals. This makes “war criminal” a useless category.
If your implication is that a soldier is a war criminal if he is on the wrong side, I’ll point out that very few soldiers, and not many civilians, are capable of evaluating their own country’s cause by rational criteria, especially during war. As I said last time around, you might hold McCain more responsible than the average soldier, given that he was a career officer, son of an admiral, and recipient of a rigorous education. Still, this standard expects too much from human beings. It’s also a very poor way to approach left politics in the US.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Speaking of chicken$#!+, reg, the Democrats have identified their convention protestors. The DNC is appropriately using chicken wire to keep trouble makers out. I’ll see you on TV behind the wire.
DNC’s “free speech zone’ behind fence
July 1st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
The Vietnam war was particularly criminal. I’d argue that the tactics to which John McCain did not reject - let alone the war itself - had a particular criminality, not unlike the holocaust.
And Woody, he’d have to apologize, and admit that he has a syndrome of hawkish/violent/verbally-abusive-to-his-wife overcompensation for his guilt over doing the right thing (singing like a songbird to the NVA).
July 1st, 2008 at 2:45 pm
>his support for the measure contradicts an earlier statement in which the Democratic candidate said it should be left to the states to decide their marriage policies.
Yeah, Woody’s incoherent on this, but, to use the word of the day, Obama was chickenshit to claim this was a matter for the states in the first place. What is at stake is the US Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law. If it’s hard to get this right in California, then frankly, the state government of, say, Alabama, is just not to be trusted with it. “States’ Rights” started as a euphemism for discrimination, and it still is.
July 1st, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Just three comments:
To Bill Bradley - please don’t get your info from the cable newsies. Wes Clark said clearly in that interview on FTN that he, like all military men, considered McCain a hero for his time as a POW. But he then went on to say that being a POW doth not a strategic genius make. And that is a cold, hard fact.
To GM Roper - I’m sure that medal inflation went on in Vietnam (not in my unit alas - had I been sent to the 9th RR Co. in Phu Bai as half my class in Intelligence School did I would have come home with an ARCOM and Bronze Star - but the 313th Bn was stricter) and that the WPPA was alive and well. Still, you don’t get to 4 stars by spending four years in a tech school outside of Highland Falls. Clark is far more qualified than McCain will ever be. So he had enemies in the service. Probably some of the other cadets resented him too.
Finally, can I say a good word about James Carville? I know he can be easily derided and he’s rubbed people the wrong way but last night on AC360 he was there defending Clark and making mincemeat of Bill (”let it ride”) Bennett’s attempt to get everyone’s knickers in a twist over the Clark comments. Would that more Dems showed such spine. Think the GOP would cave if the shoe were on the other foot?
HINT: McCain’s new “Truth Squad” will be headed by a “Swift Boat” Vet for Truth (ie LIES).
‘Nuff said!
July 1st, 2008 at 3:04 pm
“The DNC is appropriately using chicken wire to keep trouble makers out.”
After reading your wacko wingnut shit on this thread Woody, I can’t say I would blame them one bit.
You’re flailing around like a chicken whose lost their head ’stumpy’, and a classic example of why the Republicans are going to get theirs handed to them in the next election…..and deserve too. Disgusting.
July 1st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
>not unlike the Holocaust
I’m going to say that what made the Holocaust unusual is that it was not directly related to the actual war. Rather, the Nazis used the war as political cover for carrying it out. Events like the Rwandan genocide or, on a small scale, the Deir Yassin massacre, are better Holocaust-analogues than the Vietnam war is. US actions in Vietnam, atrocious as they were, were normally motivated by actual military contingencies.
>(singing like a songbird to the NVA).
dude, that’s in bad taste. Torture is a live issue down here right now.
As for overcompensating by being abusive to his wife, the good Dr is not sure about that. Don’t you think he might instead be compensating for being a gigolo who built his political career on his wife’s fortune? Wouldn’t this better explain the anatomical language?
July 1st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
You may be right - (and we agree Deir Yassin was a war crime). Further the Holocaust was related to the war. There certainly was already genocide by the time the war started, but Hitler officially wanted to use Jews as a bargaining chip and then faced with defeat planned the final solution at the Wansee Conference. AJP Taylor’s account of this is compelling.
I would also argue then that the result of the Vietnam war, proportionally in terms of deaths within the population, was genocidal. Bertrand Russell agreed with me way back in the mid 60s. This isn’t controversial, and in fact was mainstream lieral discourse during the war and its aftermath.
And its not in bad taste. I dont know (in fact I doubt) that McCain was tortured, but I do know that he did the right thing in talking.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
reg is calling someone an idiot… pot, meet kettle.
“I want to award GMRoper a bag of moldy M&Ms for his excellent commentary on Wesley Clark not deserving his medals.” reg, you are such a dweeb. I didn’t say he didn’t deserve them I said that they were handed out by the hundreds often not necessarily for bravery. I wasn’t there and since you often attack the “source” of others, I’d have to say Wikipedia is hardly a solid source. In fact, you have chastened others in the past for using Wikipedia… so reg, go back to your corner and stay away from the invective, it makes you look juvenile. Oh, wait, you are juvenile
July 1st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
” I didn’t say he didn’t deserve them”
Oh, right. You just strongly implied it. I’m not implying you’re full of shit, I’m stating it outright. Youd comments on Clark’s silver star, especially for someone who professes respect for the military (”Dad, Grandad, and all of the old folks at home, etc. etc.”) were putrid at best.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
It happens I’m not a big fan of the Catholic hierarchy or the traditional theology (although I respect many aspects of the church, which is far from monolithic, despite appearances of centralism) but Stu’s implications regarding Catholic Charities are way off base. If anyone actually is interested in how they operate and their ethical/organizational premises regarding those they reach out to, read the text of those “ways Catholic Charities are Catholic” rather than the snark. A totally respectable and broad-minded approach to social service outreach that has nothing to do with prosyletizing or quid pro quos and everything to do with simple Christian compassion and expressing a social ethic that is totally worthy of respect and, dare I say it, increased support from “secular” funders like United Way and the federal government. Among other things that is very good about a group like CC, the ratio of money spent on bureaucracy vs. direct assistance is remarkably low and they are able to bring in the resources of thousands of volunteers. Liberals need to think twice about disparaging groups like this. These people are totally doing the right thing and it’s neither coercive nor self-serving in the manner of some sleazy, Big Hair Preacher passing the plate or preaching hellfire. As I said, there’s a lot of philosophical distance between me and the Pope on many, many issues but dissing an effective, deeply rooted service group like Catholic Charities is totally misguided on the part of “lefties.”
July 1st, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Oops…here’s the link to their foundational principles Stu referred to:
http://community.catholiccharitiesusa.org/NetCommunity/Page.aspx?pid=296&srcid=291
July 1st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Wikipedia isn’t the only source I checked on this - just had the most succinct summary. Also, where have I dissed anyone for using Wikipedia ? It’s useful for basic info and relatively accurate - certainly far more accurate than the crap Woody perennially links to as “fact.” The circumstances of Clark’s Silver Star are well documented - he continued to lead his company after being hit by at least four bullets - and it’s telling that you didn’t bother to check it out before trash talking his medals.
July 1st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
That was re: Roper’s jiveass response on Clark.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:07 pm
reg, you have got to be the biggest turd dropper in the entire leftish blogosphere. I don’t have problems saying whether or not I believe something you jerk. If I wanted to say that he didn’t deserve them I would have flat out said so… I have flat out said Kerry didn’t deserve three purple hearts. I said and I’ll underline AND CAPITALIZE it so that even you can understand… SILVER FRIGGIN STARS WERE HANDED OUT LIKE CANDY IN VIETNAM. WHAT MIGHT HAVE EARNED A BRONZE WITH A V FOR VALOR IN WWII OR KOREA WAS GETTING A SILVER IN VIETNAM. Pull your head out of your ass reg.
One thing more, dipshit, the pres is the CinC. If he didn’t want Clark removed for fucking up and wanting to send in troops on the ground to teach them damn russkies a lesson they wouldn’t soon forget, do you really believe that the sec/def and CJCS could fire him? Get real and quit trying to pull your liberal creds off of my ass because I’ll call you on the idiot and bull shitter that you are.
rlc, you are absolutely correct about not getting 4 stars just because you went to Hudson High… but, and you will no doubt disagree, but maybe not… the military from 1960 through perhaps as late as 98 or even 2005 was entirely too full of ass kissers who went remarkably high. I will also note that Clark sent troops from Hood to Waco when he was Commander of the cav division in the III Corps and his shoot-em-up style
July 1st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
sorry, hit submit too quick
…in Waco was in many respects what he wanted to do in kosovo and what got him fired by Bill Fucking CinC Clinton.
For reg… and no you dipshit, he didn’t pick up the phone and say “Hey Wes, you’re fired.” but, Clinton fired Clark none the less.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Here’s a chance for Obama to support another right of states, but as with gay marriages, he seems to want it both ways and every way.
Barack Obama Supports Marijuana Decriminalization…but not legalization, even though he “inhaled frequently.”
Oh, wait. Maybe this is his position:
When a voter asked Obama if he was for the legalization of medical marijuana, Obama said that he wasn’t in favor of legalization without scientific evidence and tight controls. Citing his mother who died from cancer young, Obama compared marijuana to morphine saying there was little difference between the two.
Nevermind, Barack Obama Wants to Arrest Marijuana Users After All
Well, here’s the proposed California intiative. For it or against it or both?
From Hollywood LAist There is an initiative in the works that could end up on the November ballot that allows for marijuana to be sold to anyone, and anywhere that already sells alcohol. Its being called The Inalienable Rights Enforcement Initiative.
Obama can also like it because it creates new taxes!
Aside from allowing all willing adults to be able to buy weed easily, this initiative will start to generate revenue for California, and stimulate our struggling economy. More weed stores means more jobs for Californians, more taxes to be collected, and more people enjoying better weed.
In California, this could surpass the money generated by Silicon Valley.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Go fuck yourself Roper for denigrating the medals of a man wounded in battle. Calling ME names doesn’t make you look like less of a shit.
July 1st, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Also “dipshit” I made no comments on Kosovo, so shove that piece up your sorry ass. My sole point was that in direct reference to Welsey Clark’s Silver Stars, you come off with some bullshit about how they were handed out like “M&Ms.” Which is, of course, bullshti - but obviously has zero to do with Clark’s having earned his Silver Star by taking four bullets and continuing to lead his company. You’re a dishonest, wildly partisan crap merchant - once again.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Woody, you look like more of an ass with every post. I pegged you guys as totally full of shit years ago - and you’ve outdone yourselves on this thread.
Worthless idiots.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Kendali and Randy, you guys are typical liberals and would never get a joke if it hit you upside the head. How can you take everything that I say so seriously and literally?
Woody, you’re a jackass. Your referring to Cleland as Stumpy is not amusing, nor do you have the guts to say it to his face. All you’re doing is trying to pour gas on a fire. Even though I disagree with GM (and he’s still wrong about Clark’s retirement), he often deals with substance. What is tedious about you is how mind-numbingly predictable your poppycock is.
You strike me asnothing more than an attention junkie; far more reminiscent of the guy who spends his time waving his arms behind a television reporter doing a live standup, saying “Look at me! Look at me!”
GM, go to a Barnes and Noble, find a copy of Halberstam’s book, turn to page 478 and read the last full paragraph. Bill Cohen was General Ralston’s buddy. He and the other chiefs of staff forced Clark out. If Clinton fired him, then Bush fired Michael Wynne and General Moseley - and we know that it was SOD Gates who did that.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Randy, yes, I would say that bush “fired” them. Gates may have come up with the idea, or perhaps his asst sec’s in the other services did or perhaps even bush did and told gates to do it. But, gates would never have done it without checking with Bush first. And no one fired Clark without checking with Clinton first and foremost.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
reg: “You’re a dishonest, wildly partisan crap merchant - once again.”
OMG… reg you are once again describing yourself to a T. Congratulations partner, you’ve gained a little insight.
Oh, and check out how the Boston Globe and Slate have treated your prescious obamessiah. (neither of which can be even loosely called conservative.) http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/27/grim_proving_ground_for_obamas_housing_policy/?page=full
http://www.slate.com/id/2194571/#obamaskatrina
If experience is a criteria… get ready folks, you won’t like the experience Obama brings to the table.
July 1st, 2008 at 7:54 pm
GM,
Sorry you’re wrong. Read Halberstam’s book. Also consider that Clinton was busy fighting to save what was left of his reputation. According to Halberstam, the DOD sold it to the White House staff as a routine reassignment. I believe Halberstam.
I also believe that Gates fired those two largely on his own initiative and this is how it was conveyed to the public . He had been butting heads with both of them from day one. besides hewouldn’t have had to get Bush’s okay. They report directly to him and I’m sure that he has the power to fire them on his own.
July 1st, 2008 at 8:49 pm
That Boston article is grim indeed. There is a lot to be concerned about there potentially.
But rather than defend Obama, may I just ask why all the relentless gusto you and Woody have in finding every little (and big) thing in every publication that’s even mildly negative about Obama? If it is because you care about the integrity of government and about the future of our country, then bravo. That explanation loses some of its power, though, when we note the total absence of this effort on your part with respect to Bush….
I know you think you’re manning the ramparts against the forces of decay and chaos, but really, you guys are exactly what’s wrong with our politics today. That and lobbyists, and campaign cash, and the revolving door in DC, and cronyism, and short sightedness, and the triumph of the Chicago school, and domestic spying, and torture, and…but, still, you’re not helping.
Go on, you conservators of American purity, you civil libertarians, let’s hear you defend torture one more time while denigrating the service awards of veterans. Come on! It’s so much fun to listen to your intellectual self-immolation.
July 1st, 2008 at 9:27 pm
The shorter Roper: “Wesley Clark took four bullets in combat but his silver star has all the value of a bag of M&Ms.”
Dick… Tell us again what how much you love the military and support the troops.
July 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 am
Reg & GM, the level of discourse on this blog is really sophisticated and uplifting. Keep it up - I’ve learned a great deal, and I have to say - I agree with both of you - You’re both shitbags.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:24 am
Dan O… mostly I just enjoy tagging reg, I can’t answer for Woody, but I don’t buy the fawning obsequence that reg has always laid at obama’s feet. IMHO, Hillary would have been a better choice and I can’t stand her. On the other hand, despite reg’s bull shit to the contrary, I can’t stand McCain either, Barr has been all over the map and Nader is, at least, consistent… a dummy IMHO but a consistent one.
Also a little history…. reg has, to the best of my recollection always cussed and vilified anyone with any ideas contrary to what ever “liberal” shiboleth he is pushing at the moment. He has always ranted and raved like a 15 year old JD with oppositional defiant disorder. I just got sick of it and decided to, as it were, fight fire with fire. reg doesn’t have an original idea in his head, it is whatever he has latched on. Just like his tirade regarding what he thinks I said about silver-stars in Vietnam.
besides, reg is a turkey and doesn’t give your side any kudos’ You on the other hand, and mostly to me and not the woodster, randy and michael are also pretty decent when it comes to discussion as opposed to reg’s mad man ravings. So, cheers.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 am
Adam, like I’m really hurt by that… I”m offended deeply and will have to report you to the CHRC. You vile evil creature you.
July 2nd, 2008 at 4:26 am
Unlike Howard Dean, who is a perfectly normal man who tries to act crazy, Clark is a lunatic who tries to act sane..
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:39 am
Roper - quit while you’re behind….
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:43 am
“What he thinks I said about Silver Stars”
Roper: The comments about Clark having two silver stars is both amusing, and shows a lack of understanding of how medals (of all kinds) were “handed out†during the Vietnam war. Clark was a West Pointer and the WPPA (West Point Protective Association) (and I’m sure there were equivalents in the Naval and Air Force Academys) made sure that Silver Stars were as frequently given as M&Ms. (end clip)
Clark, of course, was awarded a Sliver Star after he was shot four times in a firefight and continued leading his men. How amusing…
July 2nd, 2008 at 6:46 am
Also a little history - whenever Roper gets caught with his pants down, he relies on ad hominem to cover his ass.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:13 am
Gotta like the description:
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:32 am
Bill Bradley -
“Wes Clark was doing just fine till he denigrated McCain’s service with that remark.”
Before this remark he went out of his way to pay tribute to McCain’s, service, courage, character etc. and did so in all sincerity. He did intimate throughout the discussion that his own (Clark’s) sort of military experience, which included strategic planning and decision-making at the highest level did, in fact, provide relevant experience for the presidency. This seems correct and unciontroversial. If he wanted to be fully honest he could have added that McCain’s time as a military liaison to congress also provided some relevant experince, perhaps more than his days as a POW.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:36 am
A couple of comments that I wrote didn’t meet Marc’s filter sensitivity test. It might have been one word, so I’ll moderate that and add an article on the same topic that I just noticed.
One thing that really doesn’t get enough attention is the type of Supreme Court justices that will be appointed by Obama or McCain. We have to deal with idiots like ACLU-bred Ginsburg, who likes saving baby r@p!$ts, thanks to Clinton. I can’t imagine the horrible justices that Obama would appoint. When he is finished, we wouldn’t recognize the USA any more.
McCain warns of an ‘Obama Court’
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:39 am
http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=CD0731A3-63E1-4A30-88BC-D03E6807558C
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:49 am
>Jews as bargaining chips…faced with defeat planned the final
>solution at the Wansee Conference.
I haven’t read the Taylor book you mention, but on the face of it, this is pretty tenuous. It’s hard to see how a rational person would have thought the holocaust would help Germany win the war (and note that it would not help your argument to just point out that Hilter and his top advisers were not rational .) In fact, it diverted a lot of resources and effort away from the war. This is not unlike the shudder-inducing observation that Germany would have had a better chance in the war if the Nazis hadn’t driven all the Jewish and left-wing physicists to emigrate to the US.
I’ll anticipate the obvious reply that it all started as an extreme form of labor discipline, since they could have extracted forced labor in much easier ways. It seems more likely that Hitler had a preexisting plan to kill Jews and used the misdirection caused by the war war as political cover. This is certainly consistent with Nazi racial ideology, which was well publicized before the holocaust.
Russell or no, the test of genocide is not just a high body count. It is at least relative body count of the community targeted, no? The Nazis killed maybe 75% of European Jews, US proxy Suharto killed about 30% of the population of East Timor. Compare this to the 10% or so of the population of Vietnam that died in the US phase of the war (and maybe 15% of those were killed by the other side, ARVN soldiers and civilians killed by VC and NVA activities.)
Besides that, genocide requires that a community is were targeted on ethnic grounds. I’m not sure why JFK and LBJ thought it was worth fighting over Vietnam, but it was clearly not a Hitler-like insane desire to kill Vietnamese people.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:51 am
Daily Kos - Obama to Gen. Clark: I got your back!
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 am
Hitler wasn’t rational. Wansee, rather, was the precipice in which a collective total irrationality took hold. Otherwise, we are on the same page. Most of the best historians of hte period - Kershaw, Gilbert, Taylor and the best, the late Raul Hilberg, give the same account.
AJP Taylor is probably the best non-leftist historian (though he was Pro-Soviet) of the last hundred years. This is not the Buchanan line
It is arguable when to label things genocidal, but the person, Raphael Lemkin, who coined the phrase genocidal made no tipulations about statistics or even “races”, simply organized mass murder of an identifiable group (communists, for example)….see Michael Mandel’s work, among others for constitutional law/international law interpretatiosn of the statute against genocide that do not work on demographic numbers, but composition.
July 2nd, 2008 at 10:31 am
From a historica materialist standpoint, capital “M” Motivation, if it has anything at all to do with studying history, is not near as important as result.
July 2nd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
I love the military and support the troops. But that doesn’t mean I can’t call a military asshole an asshole. I attended Calley’s trial on one or two occassions when I was at Fort Benning… He was an asshole… does that statment make me anti-military reg.
From Slate in 2001:
July 3rd, 2008 at 7:51 am
“Get your fucking face off the TV.â€
This should apply to blog wars as well.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:45 am
What the hell Calley’s trial has to do with Clark’s getting a Silver Star for continuiing to lead his men after being shot four times is something you’re going to have to take elsewhere. You’re sounding like a bigger idiot with every sorry comment.
July 3rd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
reg, that’s only because you are as dense as a block of granite. it has to do with your comment about being anti military… I’m not anti military, I’m anti Wes Clark the Asshole… oh, and come to think of it, so are you!
July 6th, 2008 at 9:26 am
reg: “You’re sounding like a bigger idiot with every sorry comment.”
If I want an opinion on who sounds like an idiot, reg would be my last source for that information.
July 12th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
modern war guns…
Do you have a newsletter to sign up to?…