Post #138
Subject: William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTVlMTE4MDk3NTAyNjAwMzM4NWM5NTI2ZDg4ODVlMTM=
February 27, 2008 1:00 PM
William F. Buckley, Jr., R.I.P.
By the Editors
Our revered founder, William F. Buckley Jr., died in his study this morning.
If ever an institution were the lengthened shadow of one man, this publication is his. So we hope it will not be thought immodest for us to say that Buckley has had more of an impact on the political life of this country – and a better one – than some of our presidents. He created modern conservatism as an intellectual and then a political movement. He kept it from drifting into the fever swamps. And he gave it a wit, style, and intelligence that earned the respect and friendship even of his adversaries. (To know Buckley was to be reminded that certain people have a talent for friendship.)
He inspired and incited three generations of conservatives, and counting. He retained his intellectual and literary vitality to the end; even in his final years he was capable of the arresting formulation, the unpredictable insight. He presided over NR even in his “retirement” which was more active than most people’s careers. It has been said that great men are rarely good men. Even more rarely are they sweet and merry, as Buckley was.
When Buckley started National Review – in 1955, at the age of 29 -- it was not at all obvious that anti-Communists, traditionalists, constitutionalists, and enthusiasts for free markets would all be able to take shelter under the same tent. Nor was it obvious that all of these groups, even gathered together, would be able to prevail over what seemed at the time to be an inexorable collectivist tide. When Buckley wrote that the magazine would “stand athwart history yelling, Stop!” his point was to challenge the idea that history, with a capital H, pointed left. Mounting that challenge was the first step toward changing history’s direction. Which would come in due course.
Before he was a conservative, Buckley was devoted to his family and his Church. He is survived by his son Christopher and brothers Reid and James and sisters Priscilla, Carol, and Patricia. Our sadness for them, and for us, at his passing is leavened by the hope that he is now with his beloved wife, Patricia, who died last year.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Post #137
Subject: Why you lie, George Will?
… from “Foreign Policy Under A Microscope,” by George Will, Sunday, February 17, 2008:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/GeorgeWill/
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Regarding Iraq, Democrats have won a retrospective argument: Most Americans regret the invasion and execrate the bungled aftermath. But that will not enable the Democratic nominee to argue prospectively that what America's sacrifices have achieved should be put at risk by the essentially unconditional withdrawal of forces that both Democratic candidates promise.
[Both Democratic candidates have NOT promised “unconditional withdrawal” – essentially or otherwise.]
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/
"And as we replace military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow
and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region."
http://www.barakobama.com/issues/iraq/
"He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
[Both Democratic candidates are calling for a return to what has worked – a Clintonian containment. Shame on ya, George Will, for NOT being honest]
And the presidency might be won by the candidate who embraces a modest conception of that office.
[Um, ya mean the proper Constitutional role?]
Voters are not seething or even restive because U.S. forces have been in Japan and Germany for 63 years and in South Korea for 58.
[Well, obviously, Americans are not dying in those places as a civil war rages. It is a shame that you have to be intellectually dishonest.]
Subject: Why you lie, George Will?
… from “Foreign Policy Under A Microscope,” by George Will, Sunday, February 17, 2008:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/GeorgeWill/
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
Regarding Iraq, Democrats have won a retrospective argument: Most Americans regret the invasion and execrate the bungled aftermath. But that will not enable the Democratic nominee to argue prospectively that what America's sacrifices have achieved should be put at risk by the essentially unconditional withdrawal of forces that both Democratic candidates promise.
[Both Democratic candidates have NOT promised “unconditional withdrawal” – essentially or otherwise.]
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/
"And as we replace military force with diplomacy and global leadership, Hillary will not lose sight of our very real strategic interests in the region. She would devote the resources we need to fight terrorism and will order specialized units to engage in narrow
and targeted operations against al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in the region."
http://www.barakobama.com/issues/iraq/
"He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."
[Both Democratic candidates are calling for a return to what has worked – a Clintonian containment. Shame on ya, George Will, for NOT being honest]
And the presidency might be won by the candidate who embraces a modest conception of that office.
[Um, ya mean the proper Constitutional role?]
Voters are not seething or even restive because U.S. forces have been in Japan and Germany for 63 years and in South Korea for 58.
[Well, obviously, Americans are not dying in those places as a civil war rages. It is a shame that you have to be intellectually dishonest.]
Friday, February 22, 2008
Post #136
Subject: Questions for John McCain… not relating to sex! :p
… from “Foreign Policy Under A Microscope,” by George Will, Sunday, February 17, 2008:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/GeorgeWill/
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
The Presidency might be won by the candidate who embraces a modest conception of that office. John McCain's real vulnerabilities are related to four questions about Iran and one about Iraq. By answering all five he will reveal what constitutional limits -- if any -- he accepts on the powers of the Presidency regarding foreign and military policies.
First, he says war with Iran would be less dreadful than an Iran with nuclear arms. Why does he think, as his statement implies, that a nuclear Iran would be, unlike the Soviet Union, undeterable and not susceptible to long-term containment until internal dynamics alter the regime?
[Indeed, the Soviets had some, uh, Nutty leaders with their talk of burying us. Why is he so scared of Ahmadinejad? He is not the real ruler of Iran; he is a figurehead. Plus, his term is limited. Ahmadinejad will not be there to rant and rave forever – my Post #110.]
Second, many hundreds of bombing sorties -- serious warfare -- would be required to justify confidence that Iran's nuclear program had been incapacitated for the foreseeable future. Does McCain believe that a President is constitutionally empowered to launch such a protracted preventive war without congressional authorization?
[A bombing campaign will not be enough – we’ll need a full-scale invasion, a 1000 tanks with President McCain in the lead tank! :p]
Third, why would any president not repelling a sudden attack want to enter the pitch-black forest of war unaccompanied by the other political branch of government?
[Does the support of the other political branch of government have to be gotten honestly?]
Fourth, President George W.Bush has spoken of the importance of preventing Iran from having "the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." Does McCain think it is feasible and imperative to prevent, or destroy, such "knowledge"?
[Bush: ‘knowledge is a bad thang!’ :p]
The fifth question concerns Iraq and Congress' constitutional role in the conduct of foreign policy. On Nov. 26, 2007, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship." Pursuant to this declaration, a status of forces agreement -- or perhaps something substantially more sweeping than such agreements often are -- is to be completed by July 31. The declaration says that the agreement will include "security assurances and commitments" requiring the United States to defend Iraq "against internal and external threats," and to "support" Iraq's attempts to "defeat and uproot" all "terrorist groups," including "al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups," and to "destroy their logistical networks and their sources of finance."
In a Dec. 19 letter to the President, Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said constitutional law and "over 200 years of practice" establish that such an agreement would require congressional authorization in the form of a treaty, statute or concurrent resolution by both houses. Senator Hillary Clinton has introduced, and Senator Barack Obama is co-sponsoring, legislation to deny funds to implement any such agreement that is not approved by Congress. Hundreds of such agreements, major (e.g., NATO) and minor (the Reagan administration's security commitment to the Marshall Islands and Micronesia), have been submitted to Congress. Does McCain agree with Clinton and Obama?
"War," wrote Randolph Bourne in 1918, "is the health of the state." War especially enhances presidential power, which probably is one reason why Theodore Roosevelt, Bourne's contemporary and one of McCain's heroes, relished war. "No triumph of peace," Roosevelt said, "is quite so great as the supreme triumphs of war." Roosevelt, who also said, "I don't think that any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man's hands," was the archetype of the modern, hyperkinetic president.
McCain, who sometimes seems to regard his enthusiasms and disgusts as self-legitimizing and grounds for government action, probably would be TR's sort of president. The Democratic nominee will probe, and voters have nine months to ponder, the implications of that probability.
[John “Czar” McCain – yes, I’m already having nightmares.]
Subject: Questions for John McCain… not relating to sex! :p
… from “Foreign Policy Under A Microscope,” by George Will, Sunday, February 17, 2008:
http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/GeorgeWill/
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
* * *
The Presidency might be won by the candidate who embraces a modest conception of that office. John McCain's real vulnerabilities are related to four questions about Iran and one about Iraq. By answering all five he will reveal what constitutional limits -- if any -- he accepts on the powers of the Presidency regarding foreign and military policies.
First, he says war with Iran would be less dreadful than an Iran with nuclear arms. Why does he think, as his statement implies, that a nuclear Iran would be, unlike the Soviet Union, undeterable and not susceptible to long-term containment until internal dynamics alter the regime?
[Indeed, the Soviets had some, uh, Nutty leaders with their talk of burying us. Why is he so scared of Ahmadinejad? He is not the real ruler of Iran; he is a figurehead. Plus, his term is limited. Ahmadinejad will not be there to rant and rave forever – my Post #110.]
Second, many hundreds of bombing sorties -- serious warfare -- would be required to justify confidence that Iran's nuclear program had been incapacitated for the foreseeable future. Does McCain believe that a President is constitutionally empowered to launch such a protracted preventive war without congressional authorization?
[A bombing campaign will not be enough – we’ll need a full-scale invasion, a 1000 tanks with President McCain in the lead tank! :p]
Third, why would any president not repelling a sudden attack want to enter the pitch-black forest of war unaccompanied by the other political branch of government?
[Does the support of the other political branch of government have to be gotten honestly?]
Fourth, President George W.Bush has spoken of the importance of preventing Iran from having "the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon." Does McCain think it is feasible and imperative to prevent, or destroy, such "knowledge"?
[Bush: ‘knowledge is a bad thang!’ :p]
The fifth question concerns Iraq and Congress' constitutional role in the conduct of foreign policy. On Nov. 26, 2007, Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued a "Declaration of Principles for a Long-Term Relationship of Cooperation and Friendship." Pursuant to this declaration, a status of forces agreement -- or perhaps something substantially more sweeping than such agreements often are -- is to be completed by July 31. The declaration says that the agreement will include "security assurances and commitments" requiring the United States to defend Iraq "against internal and external threats," and to "support" Iraq's attempts to "defeat and uproot" all "terrorist groups," including "al-Qaeda, Saddamists, and all other outlaw groups," and to "destroy their logistical networks and their sources of finance."
In a Dec. 19 letter to the President, Senator Joe Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said constitutional law and "over 200 years of practice" establish that such an agreement would require congressional authorization in the form of a treaty, statute or concurrent resolution by both houses. Senator Hillary Clinton has introduced, and Senator Barack Obama is co-sponsoring, legislation to deny funds to implement any such agreement that is not approved by Congress. Hundreds of such agreements, major (e.g., NATO) and minor (the Reagan administration's security commitment to the Marshall Islands and Micronesia), have been submitted to Congress. Does McCain agree with Clinton and Obama?
"War," wrote Randolph Bourne in 1918, "is the health of the state." War especially enhances presidential power, which probably is one reason why Theodore Roosevelt, Bourne's contemporary and one of McCain's heroes, relished war. "No triumph of peace," Roosevelt said, "is quite so great as the supreme triumphs of war." Roosevelt, who also said, "I don't think that any harm comes from the concentration of power in one man's hands," was the archetype of the modern, hyperkinetic president.
McCain, who sometimes seems to regard his enthusiasms and disgusts as self-legitimizing and grounds for government action, probably would be TR's sort of president. The Democratic nominee will probe, and voters have nine months to ponder, the implications of that probability.
[John “Czar” McCain – yes, I’m already having nightmares.]
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Post #135
Subject: George H. W. Bush calls for Bush on steriods! :p
‘My son has totally screwed up – he listened to the wrong people and began an unnecessary war and messed up the aftermath by listening to more of the wrong people, leaving us all more vulnerable to terrorism. But kids will be kids. If only we can blame somebody else….’ – probably thought former President George H.W. Bush as he endorsed John McCain yesterday.
"No one is better prepared to lead our nation at these trying times than Senator John McCain," Bush said and probably thought, ‘Yep, trying because of little Georgie.’ “His character was forged in the crucible of war. His commitment to America is beyond any doubt. But most importantly, he has the right values and experience to guide our nation forward at this historic moment.”
‘He’s a warmonger and will kick in a few more Baghdad doors and will make peeps forget that my little Georgie started this mess.’
McCain, in turn, said he was deeply honored by Bush's support. "I think that our effort to continue to unite the party will be enhanced dramatically by President Bush's words," he added without acknowledging that he was being set up for McCain’s War.
President Bush has spoken warmly of McCain, calling him a "true conservative." Bush also called criticism by the right flank that McCain is not conservative enough absurd and grossly unfair. "He's got ... a sound conservative record, and yet he's not above reaching out to the other side," Bush said and probably thought, ‘He pledged “no new taxes.” What more could Nuts want? It worked for me.’
McCain has drawn the ire of some high-profile conservative pundits and others for what they call infractions against the party. McCain twice voted against Bush's tax cuts. He pushed a campaign finance overhaul that critics said restricted their free speech rights. And, he has worked across the aisle with Democrats on issues like an eventual path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants -- heresy in the eyes of many hard-core Republicans.
‘So, he’s a liberal, but he’s a hawkish liberal – perfect for the purpose of deflecting the blame from little Georgie.’
Democrats, in contrast, already have started casting McCain's candidacy as a continuation of George W. Bush's eight years in office. ‘“Bush on steroids,” as Pat Buchanan said. Barbara will be so happy!’
Subject: George H. W. Bush calls for Bush on steriods! :p
‘My son has totally screwed up – he listened to the wrong people and began an unnecessary war and messed up the aftermath by listening to more of the wrong people, leaving us all more vulnerable to terrorism. But kids will be kids. If only we can blame somebody else….’ – probably thought former President George H.W. Bush as he endorsed John McCain yesterday.
"No one is better prepared to lead our nation at these trying times than Senator John McCain," Bush said and probably thought, ‘Yep, trying because of little Georgie.’ “His character was forged in the crucible of war. His commitment to America is beyond any doubt. But most importantly, he has the right values and experience to guide our nation forward at this historic moment.”
‘He’s a warmonger and will kick in a few more Baghdad doors and will make peeps forget that my little Georgie started this mess.’
McCain, in turn, said he was deeply honored by Bush's support. "I think that our effort to continue to unite the party will be enhanced dramatically by President Bush's words," he added without acknowledging that he was being set up for McCain’s War.
President Bush has spoken warmly of McCain, calling him a "true conservative." Bush also called criticism by the right flank that McCain is not conservative enough absurd and grossly unfair. "He's got ... a sound conservative record, and yet he's not above reaching out to the other side," Bush said and probably thought, ‘He pledged “no new taxes.” What more could Nuts want? It worked for me.’
McCain has drawn the ire of some high-profile conservative pundits and others for what they call infractions against the party. McCain twice voted against Bush's tax cuts. He pushed a campaign finance overhaul that critics said restricted their free speech rights. And, he has worked across the aisle with Democrats on issues like an eventual path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants -- heresy in the eyes of many hard-core Republicans.
‘So, he’s a liberal, but he’s a hawkish liberal – perfect for the purpose of deflecting the blame from little Georgie.’
Democrats, in contrast, already have started casting McCain's candidacy as a continuation of George W. Bush's eight years in office. ‘“Bush on steroids,” as Pat Buchanan said. Barbara will be so happy!’
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Post #134
Subject: Who is Brad Dayspring?
And why it should matter.
According to the book Hubris, Brad Dayspring – uh, not his real name – was a campaign worker for George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004. He was fired because he spoke to a reporter – not for attribution, of course – about how the Bush campaign did not want to talk about Iraq.
Terry Holt, the press secretary for Bush’s re-election campaign, fired him. Holt called Dayspring into his office and laid out his phone records that showed he had recently talked to the aforementioned reporter. Dayspring denied talking about Iraq, but he was fired anyway.
So, information collected by Bush to fight terrorism – phone records – was used by Bush for a political purpose.
Does that bother ya? It should – especially when ya hear Bush rail against Senate Democrats for not wanting to extend his phone snooping privilege.
What other records does he want? Who is the next “terrorism” target? Hillary Clinton? Me? You?
Subject: Who is Brad Dayspring?
And why it should matter.
According to the book Hubris, Brad Dayspring – uh, not his real name – was a campaign worker for George W. Bush’s re-election in 2004. He was fired because he spoke to a reporter – not for attribution, of course – about how the Bush campaign did not want to talk about Iraq.
Terry Holt, the press secretary for Bush’s re-election campaign, fired him. Holt called Dayspring into his office and laid out his phone records that showed he had recently talked to the aforementioned reporter. Dayspring denied talking about Iraq, but he was fired anyway.
So, information collected by Bush to fight terrorism – phone records – was used by Bush for a political purpose.
Does that bother ya? It should – especially when ya hear Bush rail against Senate Democrats for not wanting to extend his phone snooping privilege.
What other records does he want? Who is the next “terrorism” target? Hillary Clinton? Me? You?
Friday, February 01, 2008
Post #133
Subject: Again, George W. Bush defies the Constitution… Pt. III
George Weasel Bush signed H.R. 5122, the “John Warner National Defense Authorization Act” which bars funding for permanent basis in Iraq. He also issued a “signing statement” that said he is just going to ignore that part because he already signed his own treaty for those bases that nobody ratified – my Posts #120 and #121.
I wonder how John McCain feels about faithfully executing the laws especially if those laws might interfere with an open-ended commitment of more troops – his strategy for victory in Iraq.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
Did ya notice that McCain did not define “victory?” He only said what “victory” was not – Iraqi elections, for example.
Some things which might satisfy McCain’s definition of “victory:”
- McCain’s election day being declared a national holiday in Iraq.
- Iraqi Security goes to Pakistan and beheads Osama.
- Iraqi Parliament declares the Viet Cong a terrorist organization.
I admire McCain’s personal courage – and often wonder how I’d fare under similar circumstances. But we do not need a President who is wrestling with ghosts of Vietnam
Ya know, I thought the Historical Lesson of Vietnam was that we shouldn’t have been there in the first place – no amount of “surging” will help in someone else’s civil war.
Subject: Again, George W. Bush defies the Constitution… Pt. III
George Weasel Bush signed H.R. 5122, the “John Warner National Defense Authorization Act” which bars funding for permanent basis in Iraq. He also issued a “signing statement” that said he is just going to ignore that part because he already signed his own treaty for those bases that nobody ratified – my Posts #120 and #121.
I wonder how John McCain feels about faithfully executing the laws especially if those laws might interfere with an open-ended commitment of more troops – his strategy for victory in Iraq.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm
Did ya notice that McCain did not define “victory?” He only said what “victory” was not – Iraqi elections, for example.
Some things which might satisfy McCain’s definition of “victory:”
- McCain’s election day being declared a national holiday in Iraq.
- Iraqi Security goes to Pakistan and beheads Osama.
- Iraqi Parliament declares the Viet Cong a terrorist organization.
I admire McCain’s personal courage – and often wonder how I’d fare under similar circumstances. But we do not need a President who is wrestling with ghosts of Vietnam
Ya know, I thought the Historical Lesson of Vietnam was that we shouldn’t have been there in the first place – no amount of “surging” will help in someone else’s civil war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)