Guest Post by Doctor Snedley, Personal Assistant to Doctor Biobrain
Greetings libtards, and welcome to the call for submissions for yet another episode of the Carnival of the Liberals, the only blog carnival devoted to the unintentional mockery of all things liberal by the inflammatory fascists themselves. I’m Doctor Snedley, the personal assistant and true brain for the infamous liberal drunkard Doctor Biobrain. And what better time is there for me to host than the one year anniversary of the highest of all high holy liberal holidays. That’s right, I’m hosting the 06/06/07 Carnival of the Liberals, and there ain’t a damn thing you Satan worshipers can do about it. So suck it.
As for submission suggestions, I hold little hope you’ll be able to stay on task for this one, what with all your habitual pot smoking and rampant pedophilia, but I’ll give it a go. In honor of your high holy holiday, I’d like religious posts. But not just any religious posts. I’d like something that finally gets around to explaining why you people insist on screwing up your afterlifes in the same manner you’re screwing up your earthly ones.
And if that’s too much for you, here are a few suggested topics you can discuss:
Why do I hate myself so much that I reject my only lord and savior?
Why I won’t punch Darwin in the face when I see him in Hell.
What part of all-powerful do I not understand?
In Hell, is sunscreen enough?
Jesus hates me because…
You get the idea. Of course, I will accept other entries, though preference will naturally go to the very few who are willing to delve a little more deeply into liberal dogma and eventually reject every lie they’ve been spewing since 9/11. And don’t forget proper punctuation. I’m a big stickler for that kind of thing, but that just goes without saying. Good luck and god’s speed. You’ll need it.
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Friday, May 25, 2007
MSM Obstructionism
WTF?? My brain has yet again exploded, having read this in an opening paragraph from the AP:
For years, the idea of increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour has been stalled by partisan bickering between Republicans and Democrats.
Um, no. The minimum wage increase was not stalled by partisan bickering. It was stalled by the Republicans and only the Republicans. The Democrats wanted to raise it and the Republicans stopped that from happening. It’s that simple. I know that the Republicans’ stalling tactics often took the guise of partisan bickering, but this is just stupid.
But this isn’t even the typical case of reporters trying to seem even-handed. Sure, there’s probably some of that at play here, but I think there’s more to this than that. I think this is the MSM’s love of blaming “partisan bickering” for all the problems. If only the two sides could just get along and solve all our problems together.
But no. In this case, the legislation was stalled solely because the Republicans wanted it stalled. Sure, they came up with their excuses. But it wasn’t that the bill wasn’t perfect enough for them. It was that it did anything at all. They just wanted a obstructionist poison-pill and that’s what they got for years.
And hell, if the MSM really wanted this issue to be solved, they’d stop with this incessant attack on “partisan bickering” and actually tell people who was to blame for the problem. But that’s just the point: They don’t actually want anything solved. They just want to blame "partisans" for our problems, in order to convince themselves of their own unbiased holiness. To make their laissez-faire cynicism appear to be solution-oriented and objective. So for as much as they attack "partisans" of all stripes for obstructing our legislative needs, much of the blame lies with no one but themselves.
For years, the idea of increasing the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour has been stalled by partisan bickering between Republicans and Democrats.
Um, no. The minimum wage increase was not stalled by partisan bickering. It was stalled by the Republicans and only the Republicans. The Democrats wanted to raise it and the Republicans stopped that from happening. It’s that simple. I know that the Republicans’ stalling tactics often took the guise of partisan bickering, but this is just stupid.
But this isn’t even the typical case of reporters trying to seem even-handed. Sure, there’s probably some of that at play here, but I think there’s more to this than that. I think this is the MSM’s love of blaming “partisan bickering” for all the problems. If only the two sides could just get along and solve all our problems together.
But no. In this case, the legislation was stalled solely because the Republicans wanted it stalled. Sure, they came up with their excuses. But it wasn’t that the bill wasn’t perfect enough for them. It was that it did anything at all. They just wanted a obstructionist poison-pill and that’s what they got for years.
And hell, if the MSM really wanted this issue to be solved, they’d stop with this incessant attack on “partisan bickering” and actually tell people who was to blame for the problem. But that’s just the point: They don’t actually want anything solved. They just want to blame "partisans" for our problems, in order to convince themselves of their own unbiased holiness. To make their laissez-faire cynicism appear to be solution-oriented and objective. So for as much as they attack "partisans" of all stripes for obstructing our legislative needs, much of the blame lies with no one but themselves.
Timeline Questions
If I told you that the Dem's “compromise” on the non-timeline Iraq spending bill made me want to cry, would you think I was a pussy? Or would you just be offended that I had used that word in that context? What if I told you that it made me want to shoot someone in the face? Would that help?
Wednesday, May 23, 2007
Declassified Intel: The Bushies Still Suck
Sometimes I just don’t know what to think anymore. Like take the latest story of the Bush Admin declassifying select intel to help themselves politically. I’m not sure why that alone isn’t a bigger story than the lame intel they actually declassified, but if the Bushies are still good at one thing, it’s bluffing the newspeople into not knowing right from wrong. After all, why would they want something written in a news story if it was a bad thing for them to admit to?
But even the intel itself doesn’t make sense. In case you hadn’t read it yet, apparently, in 2005 Bin Laden sent a dude to Iraq to tell Zarqawi to form terrorist sleeper cells to attack inside the US, and this is proof that Iraq is an important staging ground for Al Qaeda to wage attacks on the US, which is why we can never leave Iraq.
Huh?? What the hell sense does that even make? All I can imagine is that Osama’s been watching Cheney on Meet the Press and somehow has bought into the idea that Iraq is a really great place to stage attacks from. Perhaps he’s even using Cheney’s same maps, which place Iraq where Canada is or something, I don’t know. But I fail to see how Iraq is a particularly good place to stage attacks on the US from.
I mean, first off, it’s fucking far away; which is has traditionally been considered a big negative when staging attacks; with military strategists tending to prefer closeness instead. Though I suppose it’s possible the Bushies have yet to declassify the intel that now tells us that Al Qaeda has teleporters or perhaps magic dragons that allow them to overcome that complication.
And then secondly, Iraq is chock full of American soldiers, which serve both as obvious targets and dreaded obstacles. In fact, of all the places where you might want to recruit terrorist sleeper cells able to attack inside the US, I’d have to say that Iraq might be one of the worst places; second only to Gitmo.
And one of the best places? Inside the US. I hate to give away that big secret, in case Bin Laden hasn’t already figured that one out, but I kind of think he already has. That he just puts out his message of anti-American hatred, easily justified in anti-American minds by our imbecilic invasion of Iraq; and there you go. After that, these sleeper cells form on their own and stage their own small scale attacks to scare the bejesus out of us.
And again, maybe I just gave away some secret, but I sort of suspect that I haven’t. That these are no-brainers that even the cunningly dangerous, yet simple-minded terrorists have realized. And that one thing they wouldn’t do is to send a dude to Iraq to tell Zarqawi to do something that would be fairly difficult for him to do. In fact, if I had to make a guess, I’d say that this intel may have been gained using our famed “non-torture” techniques which are more likely to get false confessions than real ones, and that the victims just said what they thought their interrogators wanted to hear.
That sounds far more likely than what we’re being told. But if the intel is right and this really is Bin Laden’s idea of strategy, then perhaps that might explain why we haven’t been attacked yet. It’s not that they haven’t been trying. It’s that they’re as fully dumb as Cheney needs them to be to continue to hoist his own lame-brained ideas upon us.
But I sort of doubt that this is the case, and that the real reason we haven’t been attacked is because our enemy isn’t nearly as all-powerful as we’ve been led to believe. They don’t have teleporters or magic dragons, but rather are stuck using the same set of realities that afflict all of us. And that means that Iraq isn’t a particularly crucial staging ground for Al Qaeda attacks on America and that, once again, the Bush Administration has shown itself to be entirely full of shit. Or says the now declassified documents that my personal intelligence agency has given me.
But even the intel itself doesn’t make sense. In case you hadn’t read it yet, apparently, in 2005 Bin Laden sent a dude to Iraq to tell Zarqawi to form terrorist sleeper cells to attack inside the US, and this is proof that Iraq is an important staging ground for Al Qaeda to wage attacks on the US, which is why we can never leave Iraq.
Huh?? What the hell sense does that even make? All I can imagine is that Osama’s been watching Cheney on Meet the Press and somehow has bought into the idea that Iraq is a really great place to stage attacks from. Perhaps he’s even using Cheney’s same maps, which place Iraq where Canada is or something, I don’t know. But I fail to see how Iraq is a particularly good place to stage attacks on the US from.
I mean, first off, it’s fucking far away; which is has traditionally been considered a big negative when staging attacks; with military strategists tending to prefer closeness instead. Though I suppose it’s possible the Bushies have yet to declassify the intel that now tells us that Al Qaeda has teleporters or perhaps magic dragons that allow them to overcome that complication.
And then secondly, Iraq is chock full of American soldiers, which serve both as obvious targets and dreaded obstacles. In fact, of all the places where you might want to recruit terrorist sleeper cells able to attack inside the US, I’d have to say that Iraq might be one of the worst places; second only to Gitmo.
And one of the best places? Inside the US. I hate to give away that big secret, in case Bin Laden hasn’t already figured that one out, but I kind of think he already has. That he just puts out his message of anti-American hatred, easily justified in anti-American minds by our imbecilic invasion of Iraq; and there you go. After that, these sleeper cells form on their own and stage their own small scale attacks to scare the bejesus out of us.
And again, maybe I just gave away some secret, but I sort of suspect that I haven’t. That these are no-brainers that even the cunningly dangerous, yet simple-minded terrorists have realized. And that one thing they wouldn’t do is to send a dude to Iraq to tell Zarqawi to do something that would be fairly difficult for him to do. In fact, if I had to make a guess, I’d say that this intel may have been gained using our famed “non-torture” techniques which are more likely to get false confessions than real ones, and that the victims just said what they thought their interrogators wanted to hear.
That sounds far more likely than what we’re being told. But if the intel is right and this really is Bin Laden’s idea of strategy, then perhaps that might explain why we haven’t been attacked yet. It’s not that they haven’t been trying. It’s that they’re as fully dumb as Cheney needs them to be to continue to hoist his own lame-brained ideas upon us.
But I sort of doubt that this is the case, and that the real reason we haven’t been attacked is because our enemy isn’t nearly as all-powerful as we’ve been led to believe. They don’t have teleporters or magic dragons, but rather are stuck using the same set of realities that afflict all of us. And that means that Iraq isn’t a particularly crucial staging ground for Al Qaeda attacks on America and that, once again, the Bush Administration has shown itself to be entirely full of shit. Or says the now declassified documents that my personal intelligence agency has given me.
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Too Busy
I'm much too busy to even bother with you. So sorry. What are you going to do about it? Read my Republian opponent blogger? Whatever.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Being Real
Digby highlights a mindnumblingly silly pseudo-religious wankfest from Tim Russert, the most embarrassing thing about which is that he allowed it to be read by people who weren’t himself. Having read it, I personally feel the immense shame that he’s too oblivious to notice. That’s real sacrifice, folks. And all for you, my loyal readers.
One of the parts that got me was when he was refers to:
The heroic selfless souls on United flight #93.
Now I respect what they did, but let’s not get stupid. They didn’t know they were going to die. They were trying to save their own lives. They had gotten word that the terrorists were going to kill them all and decided to do something about it. And there’s nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend this was something it wasn’t. Sure, if there’s an afterlife, I’m sure these people are happy that they were able to prevent more deaths. But they didn’t know they were going to die. They were looking out for themselves and would surely have landed the plane safely if they could have. That’s why the terrorists crashed it.
And I think the reason why people like Russert won’t say that is because that makes the passengers look like failures, or cheapens their actions. But that’s entirely backwards. It cheapens their actions to turn them into something they weren’t. To turn their deeds into some sort of heroic caricature which makes their real actions look somewhat petty. As well as making the passengers of the other 9/11 planes out to be selfish bastards of some sort, for not having risked their lives to save others.
And really, this has nothing to do with the people on that plane. This has to do with dipshit Russert and his inability to find purpose in his life. He’s paid millions for a job that could be better performed by a tape recorder and a kindly Labrador. And so he’s got to find some bigger purpose for it all. No longer is he a rich tool being used by Cheney & Co. No sir. He’s doing God’s work. He’s honoring the selfless memory of heroes he can only dream he could be. Sure, he does his part by not honking at people and by asking softball questions to the people responsible for destroying our country. But if only he could do more…
But he can. He can notice other people. Real people. People who sacrifice. People who do heroic things. And by doing so, it’s like he’s doing heroic things. It’s like he’s a real person. And by doing so, it’s like he’s actually earning all those millions that these real people could only dream they could earn. And by honoring them as he does, it’s like they too are earning it all.
So it all makes sense. He collects the stories and the money and makes sense of it all for them. Because they’re all such real people that they can’t even appreciate the realness of everything they do. They need a dork like Russert to allow them to comprehend how special they really are. Hell, if anything, they owe him bigtime. And I’m sure he’ll never let them forget it; hence the wankfest Russert displayed for us today. He’s writing it for them; the people too real to be allowed to ask Dick Cheney questions. And in return, they’ll allow him to hear their stories and not honk his horn, and most of all, to feel like he really deserves all the stuff that he never possibly could. And for a soulless hack like Russert, that’s the greatest thing of all.
One of the parts that got me was when he was refers to:
The heroic selfless souls on United flight #93.
Now I respect what they did, but let’s not get stupid. They didn’t know they were going to die. They were trying to save their own lives. They had gotten word that the terrorists were going to kill them all and decided to do something about it. And there’s nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend this was something it wasn’t. Sure, if there’s an afterlife, I’m sure these people are happy that they were able to prevent more deaths. But they didn’t know they were going to die. They were looking out for themselves and would surely have landed the plane safely if they could have. That’s why the terrorists crashed it.
And I think the reason why people like Russert won’t say that is because that makes the passengers look like failures, or cheapens their actions. But that’s entirely backwards. It cheapens their actions to turn them into something they weren’t. To turn their deeds into some sort of heroic caricature which makes their real actions look somewhat petty. As well as making the passengers of the other 9/11 planes out to be selfish bastards of some sort, for not having risked their lives to save others.
And really, this has nothing to do with the people on that plane. This has to do with dipshit Russert and his inability to find purpose in his life. He’s paid millions for a job that could be better performed by a tape recorder and a kindly Labrador. And so he’s got to find some bigger purpose for it all. No longer is he a rich tool being used by Cheney & Co. No sir. He’s doing God’s work. He’s honoring the selfless memory of heroes he can only dream he could be. Sure, he does his part by not honking at people and by asking softball questions to the people responsible for destroying our country. But if only he could do more…
But he can. He can notice other people. Real people. People who sacrifice. People who do heroic things. And by doing so, it’s like he’s doing heroic things. It’s like he’s a real person. And by doing so, it’s like he’s actually earning all those millions that these real people could only dream they could earn. And by honoring them as he does, it’s like they too are earning it all.
So it all makes sense. He collects the stories and the money and makes sense of it all for them. Because they’re all such real people that they can’t even appreciate the realness of everything they do. They need a dork like Russert to allow them to comprehend how special they really are. Hell, if anything, they owe him bigtime. And I’m sure he’ll never let them forget it; hence the wankfest Russert displayed for us today. He’s writing it for them; the people too real to be allowed to ask Dick Cheney questions. And in return, they’ll allow him to hear their stories and not honk his horn, and most of all, to feel like he really deserves all the stuff that he never possibly could. And for a soulless hack like Russert, that’s the greatest thing of all.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Blaming the Base
In my last post, I mentioned conservative blogger Bill T, who had left a fairly indecipherable comment on an earlier post which suggested that all Republicans were to blame for the Republican corruption scandal. Bill responded by suggesting that if this is the case, then all Dems are responsible for Bill Clinton’s scandals. Specifically, he referred to Clinton allegedly selling missile technology to our dreaded enemy China (who as we all know is such a dire threat that they’re one of our biggest trading partners); as well as blaming corporate corruption and AQ Kahn on Clinton. Because as we all know, everything that happened during Clinton’s years were Clinton’s fault.
Of course, even if we were to grant Bill these three items, this hardly stacks up to the various scandals perpetrated by various Republicans. I mean, even Bush’s illegal actions alone can’t compare with Clinton’s meager offenses, and that’s not to include all of Congressmen who were forced to resign due to various scandals. Really, it’s not even close.
But I think the problem for Bill and many other conservatives is that they refuse to acknowledge these scandals. They insist that these scandals are invented or, at a minimum, are no worse than what Dems did. And that’s exactly the problem. They’ve already excused all of the activities. They don’t think it counts. And that’s exactly my point. That, in theory, conservatives denounce Republican corruption. But in practice, they just can’t see any. It doesn’t really exist. Or at a minimum, is no worse than what the Dems were doing.
And that’s exactly their problem and why they are culpable for the misdeeds that their politicians have done. To guys like Bill, any accusation that Bush has done anything illegal will automatically end the debate. It's not that they'd ever defend Republican wrongdoing. It's that they never allow themselves to see it. Somehow, it's always someone else's fault.
I wrote a response to Bill to post after that comment, but it got too long and it’s so late right now that I’ll just post it in its entirety. None of this is new to my regular readers, and had Bill read my other material on this, he might have saved himself the trouble. But I wrote it, so I’ll just post it here instead. Bill wrote that Republicans say negative things about other Republicans “all the time.” So I wrote:
The Republicans do not say negative things about other Republicans. Congressmen like Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, and Tom Delay are defended until the day that they are forced to step down; and even then their scandals are somehow to be blamed on Democrats. This defense comes from throughout the entire Republican Party, from the politicians at the top, the radio-tv talkers in the middle, and the base at the bottom. Each one of them will be the first to tell you that they don't support corruption or wrongdoing, but then will go on to insist that the Republican in question has done no wrongdoing. Or that the wrongdoing doesn't warrant the punishment. In essence, they strongly disapprove of wrongdoing in general, but never seem to see any specific wrongdoing until after the conviction. And even then, there's always a Democrat who was clearly more deserving of punishment.
And it's this See No Evil approach that has green-lighted the entire way for Republican corruption. You list three disputable charges against Clinton, only one of which could be directly attached to him; while the list against corrupt Republican Congressmen is quite long. As is the list of Bush Admin wrongdoing. How do you consider these to be comparable? I mean, blaming Clinton for a bad corporate culture, compared with illegal wiretaps and the suspension of basic human freedoms? Compared with Congressmen being bribed with houses and yachts and hookers? Is there really some comparison here?
The GOP is corrupt to its very core, and it's because of people like you. Because every time a Republican is accused of something, they know that you'll be right there to deny the significance of the charges and will find a Democrat to blame for it. Sure, you rally against corruption in theory. But the Republicans have totally screwed you over, yet you continue to defend them. And that's why you're part of the problem.
So this isn't about blaming Democrats because they didn't attack Clinton for things after the fact. This is because the Republicans knew beforehand that people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and you would defend them against almost anything. And it's still the case. Sorry to go "nihilist" on you, but Bush has got to be the worst president in modern history. Yet he can continue to count on the support of 30% of the population. Not because they like him. But because they know that their fate is tied to his, and to attack him is to attack their own actions. So they continue to defend a man who has betrayed almost everything they thought they stood for.
And that's why they're to blame for it. Not because of what they did after wrongdoing was uncovered, but because the wrong-doers knew beforehand that they'd never be blamed by you people. Bush does wrong because he knows that he’ll always have your support. And he still does. You may disapprove of what he does, but he’ll never completely lose you. And that’s why he doesn’t worry about it. He’ll always have you.
As a final note, while I haven’t read all of Bill’s blogposts (he started in early May), of the many I read, I read none that covered any Republican scandals or wrongdoing. While he rails against the “faith-based science” of Global Warming and some issue involving John Edwards and a hedgefund, he mentions Alberto Gonzales exactly zero times; while his only post mentioning corruption was a local story. For as much noise as he made regarding the not ignoring Republican corruption, he sure does do a good job of ignoring it.
Of course, even if we were to grant Bill these three items, this hardly stacks up to the various scandals perpetrated by various Republicans. I mean, even Bush’s illegal actions alone can’t compare with Clinton’s meager offenses, and that’s not to include all of Congressmen who were forced to resign due to various scandals. Really, it’s not even close.
But I think the problem for Bill and many other conservatives is that they refuse to acknowledge these scandals. They insist that these scandals are invented or, at a minimum, are no worse than what Dems did. And that’s exactly the problem. They’ve already excused all of the activities. They don’t think it counts. And that’s exactly my point. That, in theory, conservatives denounce Republican corruption. But in practice, they just can’t see any. It doesn’t really exist. Or at a minimum, is no worse than what the Dems were doing.
And that’s exactly their problem and why they are culpable for the misdeeds that their politicians have done. To guys like Bill, any accusation that Bush has done anything illegal will automatically end the debate. It's not that they'd ever defend Republican wrongdoing. It's that they never allow themselves to see it. Somehow, it's always someone else's fault.
I wrote a response to Bill to post after that comment, but it got too long and it’s so late right now that I’ll just post it in its entirety. None of this is new to my regular readers, and had Bill read my other material on this, he might have saved himself the trouble. But I wrote it, so I’ll just post it here instead. Bill wrote that Republicans say negative things about other Republicans “all the time.” So I wrote:
The Republicans do not say negative things about other Republicans. Congressmen like Duke Cunningham, Mark Foley, and Tom Delay are defended until the day that they are forced to step down; and even then their scandals are somehow to be blamed on Democrats. This defense comes from throughout the entire Republican Party, from the politicians at the top, the radio-tv talkers in the middle, and the base at the bottom. Each one of them will be the first to tell you that they don't support corruption or wrongdoing, but then will go on to insist that the Republican in question has done no wrongdoing. Or that the wrongdoing doesn't warrant the punishment. In essence, they strongly disapprove of wrongdoing in general, but never seem to see any specific wrongdoing until after the conviction. And even then, there's always a Democrat who was clearly more deserving of punishment.
And it's this See No Evil approach that has green-lighted the entire way for Republican corruption. You list three disputable charges against Clinton, only one of which could be directly attached to him; while the list against corrupt Republican Congressmen is quite long. As is the list of Bush Admin wrongdoing. How do you consider these to be comparable? I mean, blaming Clinton for a bad corporate culture, compared with illegal wiretaps and the suspension of basic human freedoms? Compared with Congressmen being bribed with houses and yachts and hookers? Is there really some comparison here?
The GOP is corrupt to its very core, and it's because of people like you. Because every time a Republican is accused of something, they know that you'll be right there to deny the significance of the charges and will find a Democrat to blame for it. Sure, you rally against corruption in theory. But the Republicans have totally screwed you over, yet you continue to defend them. And that's why you're part of the problem.
So this isn't about blaming Democrats because they didn't attack Clinton for things after the fact. This is because the Republicans knew beforehand that people like Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and you would defend them against almost anything. And it's still the case. Sorry to go "nihilist" on you, but Bush has got to be the worst president in modern history. Yet he can continue to count on the support of 30% of the population. Not because they like him. But because they know that their fate is tied to his, and to attack him is to attack their own actions. So they continue to defend a man who has betrayed almost everything they thought they stood for.
And that's why they're to blame for it. Not because of what they did after wrongdoing was uncovered, but because the wrong-doers knew beforehand that they'd never be blamed by you people. Bush does wrong because he knows that he’ll always have your support. And he still does. You may disapprove of what he does, but he’ll never completely lose you. And that’s why he doesn’t worry about it. He’ll always have you.
As a final note, while I haven’t read all of Bill’s blogposts (he started in early May), of the many I read, I read none that covered any Republican scandals or wrongdoing. While he rails against the “faith-based science” of Global Warming and some issue involving John Edwards and a hedgefund, he mentions Alberto Gonzales exactly zero times; while his only post mentioning corruption was a local story. For as much noise as he made regarding the not ignoring Republican corruption, he sure does do a good job of ignoring it.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Revising the Reagan Legacy
I’d like to welcome new conservative blogger Bill T from The Bill T Blog to the blogosphere. Not because I like his writing or anything, but merely because he was kind enough to post a comment on my last post; and I’m always a total whore for that kind of thing. And sure, it was somewhat incomprehensible as he seemed to have failed to make an actual point of any kind, but I’ll take what I can get.
I decided to go to Mr. T’s blog to find out more about him, hoping that this might allow me to decipher his comment, and found that his latest post had been related to what I had just posted about, which is probably why he found me. It was titled Is Frank Rich Right About Reagan, and seemed to be saying that Rich was insulting Reagan by suggesting that none of the current GOP nominee aspirants are Reagan-material. Because apparently, it’s an insult to suggest that Reagan’s legacy is over…or something like that. But for as much as he spoke of Reagan's greatness and the great gnashing of liberal teeth it caused, he never actually got around to telling us exactly what that legacy was.
At this point, I’ll just repost the comment I left, as I’ve been too lazy to actually write new blog material:
Wow, for someone who wrote so much about Reagan, you really didn't seem to say a damn thing about the guy. Like how he raised taxes more times than he lowered them. Or how he did little to address the huge deficits he helped create. And how he eventually became quite pragmatic when it came to the Soviets, and how he admitted that he was wrong about them being evil; all to the horror of many of the hardline conservatives running the Whitehouse right now. And let's not forget how he allowed illegal weapons to be sold to Iran or how he repeatedly failed to retaliate against terrorist attacks. I could go on.
In the end, it seems as if you're basking in the glory of a false Reagan. The idea of Reagan seems far more important to you than the actual guy. And should it be remembered that Clinton is often considered more popular than Reagan, both during their presidencies and afterwards? Don't get me wrong, I always liked Reagan and think he was a swell guy (I was a Republican back then). But he's hardly the hardline conservative you guys are now pretending he was.
And to answer your question: No, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain will not be the next Reagan. Those guys are a bunch of deceitful punks and the GOP's future is dark indeed. You can pretend all you want that it's still morning in America, but you're obviously living in a fictional past. But I guess that's really the strongest connection to the Reagan Legacy.
After this, me and Mr. T had quite a bit of back and forth on several of his posts, with me entirely stomping upon his arguments, while he continued to deflect mine with cheap labels and dismissive insinuations. You can click through to read it if you want, though there’s nothing there that I haven’t said before. Here was another of our rousing debates, this time on Bob Geldof, Al Gore, and why liberals shouldn't try to save the world and should just drop out of politics...or something like that.
But the main point remains: The right really doesn’t give a damn about Reagan, beyond their ability to exploit him for their current woes. Bill T said as much, which I found entirely weird; but it was nice to get a bit of honesty out of these people. I had more to write, but I’ve really got to go to bed and it wouldn’t be anything I haven’t written before. Maybe I’ll write more tomorrow.
Oddly enough, I really kind of liked reading T’s blog. Sure, I disagreed with just about everything he said and really didn’t like how he couldn’t address any of my points, but besides that, I really did get sort of obsessed with it; to the point that I almost forgot to post this post. I’m telling you, one of these days I’m going to convert me a conservative, and then all you naysaying fuckers will be sorry. It can be done, I’m sure of it.
I decided to go to Mr. T’s blog to find out more about him, hoping that this might allow me to decipher his comment, and found that his latest post had been related to what I had just posted about, which is probably why he found me. It was titled Is Frank Rich Right About Reagan, and seemed to be saying that Rich was insulting Reagan by suggesting that none of the current GOP nominee aspirants are Reagan-material. Because apparently, it’s an insult to suggest that Reagan’s legacy is over…or something like that. But for as much as he spoke of Reagan's greatness and the great gnashing of liberal teeth it caused, he never actually got around to telling us exactly what that legacy was.
At this point, I’ll just repost the comment I left, as I’ve been too lazy to actually write new blog material:
Wow, for someone who wrote so much about Reagan, you really didn't seem to say a damn thing about the guy. Like how he raised taxes more times than he lowered them. Or how he did little to address the huge deficits he helped create. And how he eventually became quite pragmatic when it came to the Soviets, and how he admitted that he was wrong about them being evil; all to the horror of many of the hardline conservatives running the Whitehouse right now. And let's not forget how he allowed illegal weapons to be sold to Iran or how he repeatedly failed to retaliate against terrorist attacks. I could go on.
In the end, it seems as if you're basking in the glory of a false Reagan. The idea of Reagan seems far more important to you than the actual guy. And should it be remembered that Clinton is often considered more popular than Reagan, both during their presidencies and afterwards? Don't get me wrong, I always liked Reagan and think he was a swell guy (I was a Republican back then). But he's hardly the hardline conservative you guys are now pretending he was.
And to answer your question: No, Romney, Giuliani, and McCain will not be the next Reagan. Those guys are a bunch of deceitful punks and the GOP's future is dark indeed. You can pretend all you want that it's still morning in America, but you're obviously living in a fictional past. But I guess that's really the strongest connection to the Reagan Legacy.
After this, me and Mr. T had quite a bit of back and forth on several of his posts, with me entirely stomping upon his arguments, while he continued to deflect mine with cheap labels and dismissive insinuations. You can click through to read it if you want, though there’s nothing there that I haven’t said before. Here was another of our rousing debates, this time on Bob Geldof, Al Gore, and why liberals shouldn't try to save the world and should just drop out of politics...or something like that.
But the main point remains: The right really doesn’t give a damn about Reagan, beyond their ability to exploit him for their current woes. Bill T said as much, which I found entirely weird; but it was nice to get a bit of honesty out of these people. I had more to write, but I’ve really got to go to bed and it wouldn’t be anything I haven’t written before. Maybe I’ll write more tomorrow.
Oddly enough, I really kind of liked reading T’s blog. Sure, I disagreed with just about everything he said and really didn’t like how he couldn’t address any of my points, but besides that, I really did get sort of obsessed with it; to the point that I almost forgot to post this post. I’m telling you, one of these days I’m going to convert me a conservative, and then all you naysaying fuckers will be sorry. It can be done, I’m sure of it.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Corrupt to the Core
Carpetbagger quotes NY Times' Frank Rich: And finally, Frank Rich seems to believe corruption has ruined the Republican brand: “Wrongdoing of this magnitude does not happen by accident, but it is not necessarily instigated by a Watergate-style criminal conspiracy. When corruption is this pervasive, it can also be a byproduct of a governing philosophy. That’s the case here. That Bush-Rove style of governance, the common denominator of all the administration scandals, is the Frankenstein creature that stalks the G.O.P. as it faces 2008. It has become the Republican brand and will remain so, even after this president goes, until courageous Republicans disown it and eradicate it.”
But this really isn't right. Because Bush, Rove, and the rest of them couldn't have done this on their own. They did it because all of the Republicans allowed them to do it. And even now, a majority of Republicans are continuing to allow it. Basically, it comes down to the deal with the devil they made to never badmouth their fellow Republicans. I think that's their blessed Reagan Commandment, that forbids them from ever catching Republican wrongdoing.
And it's something that will never be eradicated. After all, it's all they've got. Being Republican means shutting up and working for the team. And as long as someone is loyal to the team, the team has to stay loyal to them. It's a promise. And so it should be no surprise that they do so much bad stuff. Unconditional love will do that. This didn't come from Bush or Rove. This is something they've all agreed upon. And if they didn't do it, they couldn't succeed. Because it's all about working for the team and following orders. And when the chief order givers are corrupt, then all of them will be corrupt. This wasn't a fluke. This is how they survive. And it's something that will continue to happen again and again.
But this really isn't right. Because Bush, Rove, and the rest of them couldn't have done this on their own. They did it because all of the Republicans allowed them to do it. And even now, a majority of Republicans are continuing to allow it. Basically, it comes down to the deal with the devil they made to never badmouth their fellow Republicans. I think that's their blessed Reagan Commandment, that forbids them from ever catching Republican wrongdoing.
And it's something that will never be eradicated. After all, it's all they've got. Being Republican means shutting up and working for the team. And as long as someone is loyal to the team, the team has to stay loyal to them. It's a promise. And so it should be no surprise that they do so much bad stuff. Unconditional love will do that. This didn't come from Bush or Rove. This is something they've all agreed upon. And if they didn't do it, they couldn't succeed. Because it's all about working for the team and following orders. And when the chief order givers are corrupt, then all of them will be corrupt. This wasn't a fluke. This is how they survive. And it's something that will continue to happen again and again.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Religious Differences
It’s never said enough, but the Republican takeover of religion really has had a weird effect on religious people. Because the Republicans don’t really give a damn about religion and just use it entirely to gain easy votes. And so they pump-out empty feelgood rhetoric designed to apply to all Christians regardless of what they actually believe. Sure, history has shown us that there are some fairly large divisions between the various Christian sects, but to Republicans, it’s all just one big happy voter block.
And that’s become such a common concept of Christians that it has now become noteworthy when heavily religious people say bigoted things about the other Christian religions. But why should that be? These religious divisions have caused severe strife for hundreds of years. Hell, our country wouldn’t be what it is today, were it not for Christian-on-Christian persecution. But because the GOP has worked so hard to depict the battle as Christians vs. Atheist Liberals, these divisions suddenly seem weird.
And I was thinking about this while reading Carpetbagger’s latest update from The God Machine. Here’s a summary of the three stories:
1. Christian Preacher thinks a vote for Mormon Romney is a vote for Satan.
2. Jewish Navy veteran in VA hospital constantly harassed by Christian Chaplains.
3. The Vatican altered Pope Ratzinger’s comments regarding the excommunication of pro-choice politicians to make him look less irrelevant.
But there should be nothing surprising about this, especially not the first two. Republican rhetoric aside, Christian extremists often don’t like other Christians. And many of the more fundamentalist Christians don’t consider Mormons to be Christian at all. They consider it to be a weird corruption of Christianity, and as such, they don’t like it one bit.
As for the second guy, if Christian evangelicals are correct, then the worst thing someone could do to a Jew is to allow him to remain a Jew. By harassing him all the time and denying him a kosher meal, they were just doing him a favor and to say otherwise is anti-Christian bigotry. Who knows, they may have saved him a trip to Hell. But then again, I suppose having to listen to Christian evangelicals while trapped in a hospital might easily be considered a form of Hell, so perhaps he got screwed-over in any case.
As for the third item, I really don’t understand the logic of this issue. Sure, I can understand a Catholic politician getting in trouble for having an abortion. But how could it possibly be immoral for a politician to allow non-Catholics to disobey Catholic beliefs? I was raised Catholic and went to Sunday School for much too long, but I don’t remember anyone saying that Catholics had to force non-Catholics to obey the Pope. That’s just a no-brainer.
Perhaps Ratzinger really wants non-Catholics to think that Catholic politicians take their orders from Rome, but I somehow don’t think that will do him a whole lot of good in the voting booth. And frankly, if a Catholic politician really does think they need to obey the Pope over their own constituents, then we really can’t have them in office. That’s downright undemocratic. That’s not to say I have a problem with voting for religious people, as I absolutely don’t. But at the end of the day, I need to know that I’m voting for someone who represents my interests. That’s just how this is supposed to work.
And so it’s really no surprise that the Vatican backed down from Ratzinger’s remarks. Because they’re pretty dumb and outdated. Who really gives a rat’s ass about excommunication? That kind of thing made sense back when the Pope was the only action in town. But these days, there are more religions than you can shake a stick at. And perhaps the Pope would like it if all the Catholic politicians switched to a less intrusive religion, but I doubt it. As for myself, I’d welcome excommunication. That way, I’d have a better excuse for ducking church whenever I visit my folks.
That’s not to say that they should start permitting Catholic politicians to start breaking all the important rules, but as I said, this is a pretty dumb one. Sure, you can oppose abortion. But when you start forcing Catholic politicians to use a country’s government to enforce Church doctrine, you’ve gone too far. But that’s not just for the Catholics, but for all religious people. It’s supposed to be about obeying God’s Will and that’s as far as it should go. As soon as you start using the government to enforce religion, you’ve completely tossed-out the Freewill aspect of belief and ruined God’s whole game. And that’s got to be the surest way to piss him off.
And that’s become such a common concept of Christians that it has now become noteworthy when heavily religious people say bigoted things about the other Christian religions. But why should that be? These religious divisions have caused severe strife for hundreds of years. Hell, our country wouldn’t be what it is today, were it not for Christian-on-Christian persecution. But because the GOP has worked so hard to depict the battle as Christians vs. Atheist Liberals, these divisions suddenly seem weird.
And I was thinking about this while reading Carpetbagger’s latest update from The God Machine. Here’s a summary of the three stories:
1. Christian Preacher thinks a vote for Mormon Romney is a vote for Satan.
2. Jewish Navy veteran in VA hospital constantly harassed by Christian Chaplains.
3. The Vatican altered Pope Ratzinger’s comments regarding the excommunication of pro-choice politicians to make him look less irrelevant.
But there should be nothing surprising about this, especially not the first two. Republican rhetoric aside, Christian extremists often don’t like other Christians. And many of the more fundamentalist Christians don’t consider Mormons to be Christian at all. They consider it to be a weird corruption of Christianity, and as such, they don’t like it one bit.
As for the second guy, if Christian evangelicals are correct, then the worst thing someone could do to a Jew is to allow him to remain a Jew. By harassing him all the time and denying him a kosher meal, they were just doing him a favor and to say otherwise is anti-Christian bigotry. Who knows, they may have saved him a trip to Hell. But then again, I suppose having to listen to Christian evangelicals while trapped in a hospital might easily be considered a form of Hell, so perhaps he got screwed-over in any case.
As for the third item, I really don’t understand the logic of this issue. Sure, I can understand a Catholic politician getting in trouble for having an abortion. But how could it possibly be immoral for a politician to allow non-Catholics to disobey Catholic beliefs? I was raised Catholic and went to Sunday School for much too long, but I don’t remember anyone saying that Catholics had to force non-Catholics to obey the Pope. That’s just a no-brainer.
Perhaps Ratzinger really wants non-Catholics to think that Catholic politicians take their orders from Rome, but I somehow don’t think that will do him a whole lot of good in the voting booth. And frankly, if a Catholic politician really does think they need to obey the Pope over their own constituents, then we really can’t have them in office. That’s downright undemocratic. That’s not to say I have a problem with voting for religious people, as I absolutely don’t. But at the end of the day, I need to know that I’m voting for someone who represents my interests. That’s just how this is supposed to work.
And so it’s really no surprise that the Vatican backed down from Ratzinger’s remarks. Because they’re pretty dumb and outdated. Who really gives a rat’s ass about excommunication? That kind of thing made sense back when the Pope was the only action in town. But these days, there are more religions than you can shake a stick at. And perhaps the Pope would like it if all the Catholic politicians switched to a less intrusive religion, but I doubt it. As for myself, I’d welcome excommunication. That way, I’d have a better excuse for ducking church whenever I visit my folks.
That’s not to say that they should start permitting Catholic politicians to start breaking all the important rules, but as I said, this is a pretty dumb one. Sure, you can oppose abortion. But when you start forcing Catholic politicians to use a country’s government to enforce Church doctrine, you’ve gone too far. But that’s not just for the Catholics, but for all religious people. It’s supposed to be about obeying God’s Will and that’s as far as it should go. As soon as you start using the government to enforce religion, you’ve completely tossed-out the Freewill aspect of belief and ruined God’s whole game. And that’s got to be the surest way to piss him off.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Punkass Republicans
It’s got to suck to be a Republican. I mean, besides all the obvious reasons, they’ve got this fantastic worldview, but just can’t seem to find any facts to back it up. How frustrating.
In this case, I’m speaking of the newly-formed Tech Republican website, which is apparently based upon the idea that the GOP’s top-notch marketing campaign just isn’t doing enough to sell their pitch online. I mean sure, slick marketing is really the only thing that’s been keeping Republicans afloat for the past decade, and that their recent doom can be entirely attributed to the fact that marketing just isn’t good enough when you really suck. But apparently, I’m wrong. It seems there were 82,000 Republicans who actively read politics online who would have swung the election in their favor last November, if only there was some online source to tell them about it…or something like that.
And what is another way that Tech Republican plans to reach-out to the younger crowds? Punk Rock music. Sure, you might be thinking that punk rock music has been dead for quite awhile, and really wasn’t that great to begin with. But you’d be wrong. And if you thought that Punk Rock music was anathema to Republicans, you’d also be wrong. Because Tech Republican says so.
As evidence of that, they cite two websites GOPunk.com and Conservative Punk. That's right. Two. And sure, GOPunk.com consists only of one idiotic page and Conservative Punk has only posted forty-eight columns since it started in 2003, with only one this year, an abysmal record that makes me look like a real workhorse. But that’s not the point. The point is that someone put up two websites that indicate that punk people might be Republican, and that’s a trend if I’ve ever seen one. One website could be a freak occurrence. But two? That’s the real deal, my friend.
And here’s the big one that got me started:
And, as a Republican, I'm proud to have John Cummings in our Party. You may know John as Johnny Ramone, of one of the best bands of all time, the Ramones. The Ramones are largely regarded as being the first punk rock band and they happen to be Republicans.
And what's more pathetic? That Mr. Tech didn't seem to know that Johnny Ramone died? That he seemed unaware that one of his favorite bands wasn't really Republican? Or that he's likely to stop listening to them now that he knows? While the decision is tough, I'll go with that last one. Because it's the worst. He likes the Ramones because he thinks they're Republican and has been misintrepreting their lyrics this whole time. What a dope.
But the most pathetic part: Here he is trying to prove a point about punk rockers digging Republicans, and can only cite two pathetic websites, a dead rocker, and a false fact. Typical.
I had more to say about this, but fuck it. I'm just going to rock out instead. 1-2-3-4!
In this case, I’m speaking of the newly-formed Tech Republican website, which is apparently based upon the idea that the GOP’s top-notch marketing campaign just isn’t doing enough to sell their pitch online. I mean sure, slick marketing is really the only thing that’s been keeping Republicans afloat for the past decade, and that their recent doom can be entirely attributed to the fact that marketing just isn’t good enough when you really suck. But apparently, I’m wrong. It seems there were 82,000 Republicans who actively read politics online who would have swung the election in their favor last November, if only there was some online source to tell them about it…or something like that.
And what is another way that Tech Republican plans to reach-out to the younger crowds? Punk Rock music. Sure, you might be thinking that punk rock music has been dead for quite awhile, and really wasn’t that great to begin with. But you’d be wrong. And if you thought that Punk Rock music was anathema to Republicans, you’d also be wrong. Because Tech Republican says so.
As evidence of that, they cite two websites GOPunk.com and Conservative Punk. That's right. Two. And sure, GOPunk.com consists only of one idiotic page and Conservative Punk has only posted forty-eight columns since it started in 2003, with only one this year, an abysmal record that makes me look like a real workhorse. But that’s not the point. The point is that someone put up two websites that indicate that punk people might be Republican, and that’s a trend if I’ve ever seen one. One website could be a freak occurrence. But two? That’s the real deal, my friend.
And here’s the big one that got me started:
And, as a Republican, I'm proud to have John Cummings in our Party. You may know John as Johnny Ramone, of one of the best bands of all time, the Ramones. The Ramones are largely regarded as being the first punk rock band and they happen to be Republicans.
And what's more pathetic? That Mr. Tech didn't seem to know that Johnny Ramone died? That he seemed unaware that one of his favorite bands wasn't really Republican? Or that he's likely to stop listening to them now that he knows? While the decision is tough, I'll go with that last one. Because it's the worst. He likes the Ramones because he thinks they're Republican and has been misintrepreting their lyrics this whole time. What a dope.
But the most pathetic part: Here he is trying to prove a point about punk rockers digging Republicans, and can only cite two pathetic websites, a dead rocker, and a false fact. Typical.
I had more to say about this, but fuck it. I'm just going to rock out instead. 1-2-3-4!
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
OMG!
My head explodes:
The petition, which had more than 900 signatures by Tuesday morning, urges the California actor-turned-governor to pardon [Paris] Hilton because she provides "beauty and excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives."
I suppose anyone willing to sign their name to such an insulting petition probably does need the beauty and excitement that Paris provides. It went on to suggest that Paris deserves a pardon because Nixon got one. Celebrity news makes me want to smoke crack.
The petition, which had more than 900 signatures by Tuesday morning, urges the California actor-turned-governor to pardon [Paris] Hilton because she provides "beauty and excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives."
I suppose anyone willing to sign their name to such an insulting petition probably does need the beauty and excitement that Paris provides. It went on to suggest that Paris deserves a pardon because Nixon got one. Celebrity news makes me want to smoke crack.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
Running on Empty
Holy shit, have I nothing to write about. My plans seem to be working perfectly and I should be coroneted within the week. Besides that and the Bush-Cheney double suicide, I don’t have much going on and can’t think of anything I need to write. Count this as an open thread.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Commufascists Unite: Part I
Awhile back, I wrote a really long post contrasting Vietnam to Iraq and whatnot, but never finished it and it just sat there. Well, I don’t feel like writing anything new, so I’ll do some huge edits to that one and divide it into shorter ones and post them individually. And you’ll accept it because that’s all I’m giving you. Here goes:
My internet connection was disrupted this past weekend, and I couldn’t access any of my much needed news. So I decided to go “old school” and actually use a book as my source material. You know, the kind with paper. Very quaint, having to gently hold the old paperback while transcribing long passages. No cut-and-paste for me. I felt so Amish.
So I turned to my favorite book on Vietnam (and the only one I’ve ever read) titled: Vietnam – History, Documents, and Opinions on a Major World Crisis. It’s a collection of essays, speeches, papers, and other works on the Vietnam War which was published in 1965 and gives more than enough info to have predicted where the war would end up (ie, in the crapper).
Satellite Japan
We’ll start off with a selection from Tricky Dick and his fear for Japan, in a section titled: Fear of Impending French Defeat: “Remarks Attributed to” Vice-President Richard Nixon, from the April 17, 1954 New York Times:
Negotiations with the Communists to divide the territory would result in Communist domination of a vital new area. Communist intransigence in Korea perhaps will teach the French and the British the futility of negotiation and bring them over to the plan of “united action” proposed by Secretary of State Dulles …
It should be emphasized that if Indochina went Communist, Red pressures would increase on Malaya, Thailand, and Indonesia and other Asian nations. The main target of the Communists in Indochina, as it was in Korea, is Japan. Conquest of areas so vital to Japan’s economy would reduce Japan to an economic satellite of the Soviet Union.
Gee, and how did that turn-out, Dick?
And just to give context, when he says “negotiations with the communists to divide the territory,” he’s referring to the idea that we shouldn’t divide Vietnam into a North and South; which is exactly what happened in July of that year (though it was only supposed to be a temporary provision, until national elections could someday be held).
Because he didn’t even think they should have any of Vietnam, despite the fact that the Communists were considered the popular choice by much of the country. No, he just thought we should impose our “democratic” will onto the whole place. How kind of him. Conservatives always were in love with the benevolent dictator (a phrase used repeatedly by a pro-war supporter in an essay in that book). Just as long as they control the dictator. But as they keep finding, even that guy will keep screwing things up for them.
And in the end, not only did the Communists get to keep the north half of Vietnam, they got the whole damn thing. And just as Nixon predicted, the Communists quickly bowled-over Malaya, Thailand, and Indonesia; before turning Japan into an economic satellite of the Soviet Union. How prescient.
But wait. That didn’t happen. Even after we lost Vietnam twenty years later, having twice shown the world exactly how ineffective we were at waging land wars in Asia, none of this came true. Those were just scary fantasies dreamed up to justify an unjustifiable war. They didn’t care if it was true. They just needed some excuse to keep blowing shit up. Some things never change.
And ironically enough, it’s likely that Dick’s dislike of a partitioned Vietnam came from his fear that Vietnam might become another Korea, which had ended unsatisfactorily less than a year before he made these comments. And let me just say that the rightwing insistence on going double-or-nothing after each defeat will continue to drive me bonkers. Again, some things never change. I guess that’s why they call them conservatives.
My internet connection was disrupted this past weekend, and I couldn’t access any of my much needed news. So I decided to go “old school” and actually use a book as my source material. You know, the kind with paper. Very quaint, having to gently hold the old paperback while transcribing long passages. No cut-and-paste for me. I felt so Amish.
So I turned to my favorite book on Vietnam (and the only one I’ve ever read) titled: Vietnam – History, Documents, and Opinions on a Major World Crisis. It’s a collection of essays, speeches, papers, and other works on the Vietnam War which was published in 1965 and gives more than enough info to have predicted where the war would end up (ie, in the crapper).
Satellite Japan
We’ll start off with a selection from Tricky Dick and his fear for Japan, in a section titled: Fear of Impending French Defeat: “Remarks Attributed to” Vice-President Richard Nixon, from the April 17, 1954 New York Times:
Negotiations with the Communists to divide the territory would result in Communist domination of a vital new area. Communist intransigence in Korea perhaps will teach the French and the British the futility of negotiation and bring them over to the plan of “united action” proposed by Secretary of State Dulles …
It should be emphasized that if Indochina went Communist, Red pressures would increase on Malaya, Thailand, and Indonesia and other Asian nations. The main target of the Communists in Indochina, as it was in Korea, is Japan. Conquest of areas so vital to Japan’s economy would reduce Japan to an economic satellite of the Soviet Union.
Gee, and how did that turn-out, Dick?
And just to give context, when he says “negotiations with the communists to divide the territory,” he’s referring to the idea that we shouldn’t divide Vietnam into a North and South; which is exactly what happened in July of that year (though it was only supposed to be a temporary provision, until national elections could someday be held).
Because he didn’t even think they should have any of Vietnam, despite the fact that the Communists were considered the popular choice by much of the country. No, he just thought we should impose our “democratic” will onto the whole place. How kind of him. Conservatives always were in love with the benevolent dictator (a phrase used repeatedly by a pro-war supporter in an essay in that book). Just as long as they control the dictator. But as they keep finding, even that guy will keep screwing things up for them.
And in the end, not only did the Communists get to keep the north half of Vietnam, they got the whole damn thing. And just as Nixon predicted, the Communists quickly bowled-over Malaya, Thailand, and Indonesia; before turning Japan into an economic satellite of the Soviet Union. How prescient.
But wait. That didn’t happen. Even after we lost Vietnam twenty years later, having twice shown the world exactly how ineffective we were at waging land wars in Asia, none of this came true. Those were just scary fantasies dreamed up to justify an unjustifiable war. They didn’t care if it was true. They just needed some excuse to keep blowing shit up. Some things never change.
And ironically enough, it’s likely that Dick’s dislike of a partitioned Vietnam came from his fear that Vietnam might become another Korea, which had ended unsatisfactorily less than a year before he made these comments. And let me just say that the rightwing insistence on going double-or-nothing after each defeat will continue to drive me bonkers. Again, some things never change. I guess that’s why they call them conservatives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
