What is Barack Obamas foreign policy? As it becomes clear that Obama is likely to win the Democratic nomination, both Hillary Clinton and John McCain are attacking him for a lack of foreign policy experience and for proposals he has made that appear to make him appear rather naïve. Is he going to retreat from confronting our nations enemies, or is he going to be tough when he has to be? What advice will he heed? Now, he has been offered advice for his campaign by none other than Tom Hayden, once the young lion of the New Left and the anti-Vietnam War movement.
Tom Hayden is, of course, no longer a major public figure with great influence. His words, however, resonate with scores of activists as well as liberal intellectuals, who will take them to heart and seek to up the ante on the Obama campaign. Hayden, who clearly views Iraq as another Vietnam, is seeking to move Obama to adopt the prescriptions of the most left-wing sectors of the Democratic Party constituency.
Pointing to Obamas victory speech in Houston last week, Hayden has noted that Obama has shifted his position, to one of calling for withdrawal of all American troops in the first year of his administration, not over a lengthier time span. Does Obama mean it? Hayden has one suggestion: the Left and antiwar forces must hold Obama to his word. More importantly, he argues that sentiment among Obamas base is running strongly enough to push the candidate forward to a stronger commitment, strong enough to move him away from the words in his 2006 book The Audacity of Hope, in which Obama wrote that a complete withdrawal was a matter of imperfect judgment and best guesses.
It is clear from Mr. Hayden that his supposition - and that of the Left he represents - (his comments appear in The Nation magazine website) believe that the United States should not be involved on a so-called war on terrorism, a phony concept developed by evil and strong neoconservatives who falsely believe there is something called Islamofascism. Obviously believing that there is not such force in the world, he argues that its advocates, including Senator John McCain, favor a permanent war against Muslim radicals that is really about one thing: American access to oil.
What worries Mr. Hayden is that in a contest between McCain and Obama, John McCains war record, combined with his Senate experience, makes him a formidable advocate of tough steps to protect American national security, something Mr. Hayden sees as a danger to the antiwar movement. His own prescription for withdrawal of troops are thus threatened by General Petraeus forthcoming April testimony before Congress, in which it is expected he will report on the favorable outcome of the surge, and urge the nation to stay the course.
Mr. Hayden thus sees Petraeus not as a honest soldier reporting the truth of what he has accomplished, but as a de facto surrogate for McCain that will force Barack Obama to have to respond without retreating from his promise of early withdrawal. He says, rightfully, that those he dubs the neoconservative opposition will oppose Obama by challenging him for wanting to pull the plug on Iraq just when the tide is turning. And why shouldnt McCain do just that? Does Mr. Hayden think that the United States, should in fact, pull the plug precisely when the situation in Iraq is improving?
Ironically, Mr. Hayden condemns William Kristol for arguing in the pages of the New York Times and The Weekly Standard that the Democratic Party has become the puppet of the antiwar groups. Clearly, Mr. Kristol may have been premature. Mr. Hayden seems to want now to prove Kristol both prescient and right. Mr. Hayden fears that all of this will lead to McCain successfully forging a new center-Right coalition, leaving the Democrats only with the moderate and antiwar left-wing. The Republicans will have, he notes, the aid of Senator Joe Lieberman working as an ally who would also make inroads among the Jewish community.
Nevertheless, Tom Hayden is optimistic. He believes Americans will also see Afghanistan as a quagmire not susceptible to a military solution; Pakistanis showing they do not want to be pawns in an American war, and that a fight with the Taliban or al-Qaeda is nothing but a bottomless battle. His fear: that Obama will ignore all this, and seek to prove his credentials as a militarist or face being painted as another Democrat too weak to be Commander-in-Chief. His solution: the forces of the Left and the peace movement wage open political and intellectual battle against the neoconservative agenda.
Should Barack Obama listen to the Lefts advice, he will only push the Democratic Party back to the age of McGovernite isolationism, and contrary to the assertion of Tom Hayden, make the campaign much easier for John McCain. If the Democrats hope to actually win the presidency, the worst thing they could do is to take advice from Tom Hayden.
Ronald Radosh, Prof. Emeritus of History at the City University of New York, is an Adjunct Fellow at the Hudson Institute.
#1
Who's Tom sponging off of these days to support his "power to the people" lifestyle? Or did the ex wife with the talking snatch set him up for life?
#3
OMAR BIN LADEN > "BUSH IS A TERRORIST" > IIRC, by Omar's scope, the US Govt.-Congress and it LAWFUL/LEGAL ENTITIES and AGENCIES are alleged indirect PROXIES-ENTITIES AND PROMOTERS OF A TERRORIST- ANDOR MAFIA-GOVT AND NATION. IOW, any and all US GOVT Agencies are actually "LEGAL TERRORISTS/MAFIAS"? SERVING OTHER BIGGER HIGHER "LEGAL CRIMINALS"? The USDOD and FBI, etc, are LEGAL ORGANZ TERR-MAFIA PROXIES of a higher/superior LEGAL ORGANZ TERR-MAFIA GOVT BASED IN WASHINGTON DC. IMO, by OMAR's logic > when US Feds pursue so-called illegal criminals, they are actually engaging in "LEGAL TERR/MAFIA" HIT(S) ON BEHALF OF SPEC INTERESTS, NOT ON TRUTH OR ETHICS, REGULATIONS, etc.
IMO only, this explains why OMAR tried to argue that his father OSAMA BIN LADEN + father's ISLAM/ISLAMISM is actually against TERRORISM, etc., i.e. for PEACE???
"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. . . . If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state." -- Anthony Cordesman, "The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing From the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008
This from a man who was a severe critic of the postwar occupation of Iraq and who, as author Peter Wehner points out, is no wide-eyed optimist. In fact, in May 2006 Cordesman had written that "no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good." Now, however, there is simply no denying the remarkable improvements in Iraq since the surge began a year ago.
Unless you're a Democrat. As Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) put it, "Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq." Their Senate leader, Harry Reid, declares the war already lost. Their presidential candidates (eight of them at the time) unanimously oppose the surge. Then the evidence begins trickling in.
We get news of the Anbar Awakening, which has now spread to other Sunni areas and Baghdad. The sectarian civil strife that the Democrats insisted was the reason for us to leave dwindles to the point of near disappearance. Much of Baghdad is returning to normal. There are 90,000 neighborhood volunteers -- ordinary citizens who act as auxiliary police and vital informants on terrorist activity -- starkly symbolizing the insurgency's loss of popular support. Captured letters of al-Qaeda leaders reveal despair as they are driven -- mostly by Iraqi Sunnis, their own Arab co-religionists -- to flight and into hiding.
After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama, the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it's all pointless unless you get national reconciliation.
"National" is a way to ignore what is taking place at the local and provincial level, such as Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim, scion of the family that dominates the largest Shiite party in Iraq, traveling last October to Anbar in an unprecedented gesture of reconciliation with the Sunni sheiks.
Doesn't count, you see. Democrats demand nothing less than federal-level reconciliation, and it has to be expressed in actual legislation.
The objection was not only highly legalistic but also politically convenient: Very few (including me) thought this would be possible under the Maliki government. Then last week, indeed on the day Cordesman published his report, it happened. Mirabile dictu, the Iraqi parliament approved three very significant pieces of legislation.
First, a provincial powers law that turns Iraq into arguably the most federal state in the entire Arab world. The provinces get not only power but also elections by Oct. 1. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has long been calling this the most crucial step to political stability. It will allow, for example, the pro-American Anbar sheiks to become the legitimate rulers of their province, exercise regional autonomy and forge official relations with the Shiite-dominated central government.
Second, parliament passed a partial amnesty for prisoners, 80 percent of whom are Sunni. Finally, it approved a $48 billion national budget that allocates government revenue -- about 85 percent of which is from oil -- to the provinces. Kurdistan, for example, gets one-sixth.
What will the Democrats say now? They will complain that there is still no oil distribution law. True. But oil revenue is being distributed to the provinces in the national budget. The fact that parliament could not agree on a permanent formula for the future simply means that it will be allocating oil revenue year by year as part of the budget process. Is that a reason to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda and Iran?
Despite all the progress, military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our "very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."
Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region, and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now-achievable victory?
Posted by: Bobby ||
02/25/2008 06:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Who ever said the donks were smart ? They embraced a Vietnam type strategy years ago, and they are now awaiting their Tet. The donks have been so wrong on so many fronts, but I see no change in their positions, so their chances in November decline with time and the trend of events. Pelosi and Reid add up to zero, and Hitlery and Obama are a side show taxing themselves into the poor house of influence.
#3
The problem is not the Democrats. The problem is the 50% of America that yearns for defeat that the Democrats represent.
Shut down all arts and social science departments. Restart them with faculty who will teach arts and social science instead of nihilism studies.
End all federal funding for cities that advocate defeat whether it be through opposition to marine recruiting or by providing "sanctuary" to illegal aliens.
Charge and prosecute anyone - including and especially anyone in the press - who violates laws on national security. Enforce sedition and treason law with the maximum penalties allowed by law.
Teach American children in English. Teach them to be skeptical, rational and responsible. Teach them to be proud of the traditions that make their freedom and good fortune possible.
#4
the problem is that Cordesmann is too technical a guy, and doesnt come through the noise. Krauthammer is that grouchy Jew in a wheelchair. He gets through only to those who are already listening.
Its McCain who will have to make the case, and who can make the case. WHo in debate, will pin his opponent down on the details.
If he isnt distracted explaining to troglodytes why limiting hard money donations doesnt undermine the first amendment, or how hes not the ghost of Rockefeller taking over the GOP.
#6
Spot on Excalibur. Unfortunately these things most likely won't happen. We need someone with balls in politics that will say enough is enough. The lefties took over the universities sometime beginning around the time of the Viet Nam war and that system will be difficult to change. Look at the Ward Churchill fiasco in Colorado and how long it took to resolve. Anyone in their right mind could see the wrongness of Churchill's teachings but the university didn't see fit to do anything about the situation until public pressure mounted. Look at the debacle at Duke with the LaCrosse team. These players almost got railroaded by an ambitious criminal prosecutor who only wanted to get re-elected at someone else's expense. The liberal faculty was a willing party to this lynching.
#7
The Democrats have wedded themselves to our Defeat in the War on Terror - and will do everything in their power to insure that defeat.
That is why you have slimy Ried declaring 'The War is Lost!' and the Democratic congress pushing, practically with all their might, for a repeat of the Vietnam-style withdrawl 'timetable' - first of troops then of funding and any support whatsoever.
The Democrats will never embrace victory under a repubican administration. And the victory [in name only] which they will allow under a democratic administration would be just short of a surrender.
#8
Iraq is already squared away. The US military saw to that. From day 1 it expected congress to betray Iraq, and the US military, still sore from the murderous treachery by congress against the brave men of the ARVN, is not going to let that happen again.
Afghanistan, however, is a problem. Properly, they should be given a different kind of surge. More military, mind you, and Americans instead of the feckless NATO forces; but on top of that, some serious economic development.
America made a mistake in both countries by not writing a new constitution for them and rebuilding from the ground up. Every new idea we brought in has worked, and every traditional idea they kept has not.
In both Iraq and Afghanistan, we should have put them under the same rules we expected Hawaii to follow before we gave it statehood. Then if, after we leave, they want to change it, fine. However, like Japan under the MacArthur constitution, there would be a good chance that after living under such principles for a while, they wouldn't want to change it.
Here is my first e-book. It is a compilation of posts with comments about women in the War on Terror. PDF format. If you like it, pass it on. Also, feel free to donate to support this and future publications.
Andrew McCarthy (the NRO commentator, not the actor) suggests that Obama has a point about Pakistan. However, given Obama's liberal votes on national security, he's likely to be merely putting up a pretense of toughness, and will revert to his nutty left-wing pacifist ideologies once in office.
David, with due respect, I am a hundred percent with your correspondent. On Pakistan, Senator Obama is entirely right. The only problem I have is that I don't think he really means a word of it. He is going to get tough with Pakistan about the same way Bill Clinton was going to get tough with China in '92 ... i.e., right up til the moment he gets elected, at which point all the saber rattling will prove to be empty talk, and appeasement will be the order of the day.
This business about Pakistan being our ally is abject nonsense. Most of the country despises us. Musharraf and some of the military have been a fickle ally but they did at least occasionally take the fight to al Qaeda and the Taliban. They didn't do it with abandon, though, precisely because (a) the people of Pakistan oppose it (they are fine with having anti-Western jihadists operating from safe-havens within their country), and (b) Pakistan has always been a strong supporter of the Taliban (which Benazir Bhutto was key to establishing in Afghanistan) for both cultural and geopolitical reasons.
The Pakistan operation "clearly flies in the face of every argument against invading Iraq"? So what? The invasion of Iraq was patently supportable. You can Monday-morning quarterback that it wasn't a good idea and that the aftermath was mishandled, but the removal of the regime and the routing of terrorist cells (I refuse to refer to non-Iraqi terrorists as "insurgents") was abundantly justified.
More to the point, the Pakistan operation is clearly consistent with the Bush Doctrine as announced after 9/11, which holds that we will treat countries that harbor terrorists as terror regimes. It is clearly consistent with the rationale for invading Afghanistan and overthrowing the Taliban which not only harbored al Qaeda but made common cause with it. Indeed, the Bush doctrine and the Afghanistan precedent would support a much more intensive operation than the one you are talking about.
Pakistan is harboring al Qaeda and the Taliban and the "our ally Pakistan" crowd which swooned over Benazir Bhutto and continues to tut-tut Musharraf out of town can now welcome the new regime: an amalgam of pro-jihadists and Leftists, united by their mutual legacy of corrupt governance, which has already announced that it thinks dialogue with the jihadists is the way to go. (Hooray democracy!) That, of course, is the very approach indulged at the end by Musharraf under heavy political pressure from our great "ally," the Pakistani people which created the safe-havens that have allowed al Qaeda to regenerate. (The nearly three-dozen paramiltary camps in the border region are estimated to have trained about a quarter-million jihadists in the past several years.)
What you, Senator McCain, and others who spout this "our ally Pakistan" drivel have to explain is this: If the rationale for continuing American combat operations in Iraq is, principally, that we cannot allow anti-Western radicals to establish a platform from which they can launch 9/11-style operations, how can we conceivably turn a blind eye to the platform they have in fact established in Pakistan's border region? Try as it might, international law has not (yet) repealed the sovereign right of self-defense. We are not required by anything so vapid as "our standing in the world" to tolerate an al Qaedastan in Pakistan, Iraq, Somalia, or anyplace else.
If I thought Obama was actually serious, that would be a reason to consider voting for him. Naturally, he's not serious and he can't square his Pakistan position with Iraq. But I got news for you: McCain can't square his Iraq position with Pakistan I cringe every time he mocks Obama's stance. What's more, regardless of our "standing in the world," I think the safety of the American people and their actual allies would be greatly enhanced by a very public understanding such as the one that took hold for about ten minutes after 9/11 that the United States will not tolerate safe havens from which radical Islam can orchestrate attacks against the West, and that either the host regime does something about it or we will.
#1
execpt this is A. A mischarecterization of where the PPP is these days, including the anachronistic reference to Bhuttos earlier support for the Taliban (which made sense from Pakistans geopolitical interests, and was before they were out of control) B. It implies that Perv only made nicey with the taliban cause of the Paki people, which AFAICT is utter bullshit. While they arent deeply concerned about the Taliban, Perv was much more responsive to the Pakistani military and ISI. C. Has the NRO even noticed how poorly the MMA has done? And did Imran Khan do well? D. So theyre gonna talk to the Paki talibs. again, thats what Perv did, and its what the Brits did in Afghan, and more or less what we are doing in Iraq. The urge to break the enemy alliance apart is huge. In some places it will work, and in some it wont.
"The jihad is not about Kashmir only About 15 years ago, people might have found it ridiculous if someone had told them about the disintegration of the USSR. Today, I announce the break-up of India, Insha-Allah. We will not rest until the whole (of) India is dissolved into Pakistan."
Posted by: john frum ||
02/25/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
#2
That has always been the plan. Indians have not been ethnically cleansing Muslims since Partition; it was Pakistan that reduced its Hindu population from 20 to 1%. Muslims in India have doubled as a percentile.
#3
The jihadi strategy has repeatedly been articulated by terrorist leaders located in Pakistan. Thus, Nasr Javed, a trainer of LeT suicide attackers, delivering a speech after the evening prayer at the Quba Mosque in Islamabad on February 5, 2008, stated: "India is also afraid of jihad. India fears that if the Mujahideen liberated Kashmir through jihad, then, it will be very difficult to keep rest of the India under control. Jihad will spread from Kashmir to other parts of India. The Muslims will be ruling India again." He added, further, "We want to tell the Kashmiri brothers that the government of Pakistan might have abandoned jihad but we have not. Our agenda is clear. We will continue to wage jihad and propagate it till eternity. No government can intimidate us. Nobody can stop it --be it the US or Musharraf."
A year earlier, addressing a huge gathering at the Al Qudsia Mosque at Lahore on February 5, 2007, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, Amir (Chief) of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (also known as Jama'at-ud-Da'awa), had declared that the "jihad in Kashmir will end when all the Hindus will be destroyed in India jihad has been ordained by Allah. It is not an order of a general that can be started one day and stopped the other day." Much earlier, during a three-day annual congregation of the members of the Markaz-ud-Da'awa-wal-Irshad at Muridke near Lahore on February 6, 2000, Saeed had declared that Kashmir was a "gateway to capture India" and that it was the aim of the Markaz and its military wing, the LeT, to engineer India's disintegration.
Posted by: john frum ||
02/25/2008 5:32 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Pakistan, like France, a parasite on the Anglosphere.
#5
Compare wid TOPIX > NEW KOSOVO GOVT CONTROLLED BY KLA TERROR, CRIME GROUP.
WAFF.com > RENSE - BREZINZINKSI TAKING CONTROL OF US FOREIGN POLICY [GWOT] IN SLOW-MOTION COUP [Worldwide]. US-ANGLO IMPERIALISM on the march and ZIGGY's = ZIGGMAN's IDEAS are large and in charge = ideo lead, vv Dubya-USA GLOBAL AGENDA.
Notably absent from the presidential primary campaign in the United States is serious discussion on how to implement an effective long-term strategy for protecting the US from future terrorist acts. Many political leaders in the past have embraced winning "the battle of ideas" against Muslim extremists as the most important component of any strategy, yet this ubiquitous catchphrase stems from an erroneous, counterproductive framework for understanding extremists like Osama bin Laden.
The framework assumes that groups like Al-Qaeda possess a coherent and compelling interpretation of Islam that the US must counter to prevent Muslims from adopting it. This flawed understanding should be replaced by a more nuanced approach based on the true nature of the terrorist threat.
The "battle of ideas" approach is counterproductive for two important reasons: first, it encourages the concept of a Manichean struggle raging between two equally powerful and opposing world views, in effect legitimizing the extremists' understanding of the struggle; and second, it overstates the extent to which Bin Laden's worldview constitutes a viable theological alternative for the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. His zealous religious views are not only alien to most Muslims living today, but have also earned a place on the fringes of Islamic intellectual thought.
For an effective strategy, the United States needs to take three important steps. The first is de-coupling Islam and terrorism. The 9/11 Commission report states that "the enemy is not just 'terrorism' ... it is the threat posed by Islamist terrorism." While it is true that America faces a significant threat from people who identify themselves as Muslims and dress their grievances in religious terms, this does not mean that such people are perpetrators of "Islamist terrorism." The phrase implies that Islam sanctions terrorism and that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts. "Terrorism in the name of Islam" is more accurate.
The second step requires recognition that most grievances expressed by extremists like Bin Laden are secular and political in nature. They are angry about what they perceive as the exploitation of Muslims at the hands of the US. They enjoy sympathy from Muslims who perceive the US - and the West in general - as perpetuators of an unjust global political-economic system. As many have already noted, the attacks of 9/11 targeted American financial and military complexes and not Western religious symbols. Though Washington should not accept at face value the legitimacy of Al-Qaeda grievances, we cannot effectively prevent terrorist acts from taking place without a better understanding of their ultimately profane roots.
The third step involves ensuring the US actively works for the promotion of human dignity. American policy makers should make a concerted effort to understand the circumstances of the countries of the Muslim world that cause a sense of deprivation and humiliation among their populations, as these factors contribute to sympathy for Al-Qaeda's political aims. US conventional wisdom states that Muslims need to believe in an alternative vision for their economic and political future, though the vast majority of Muslims need no convincing that economic prosperity and political freedom are good things.
Muslims share the same vision held by humanity everywhere - a secure future for their children and a life defined by dignity and liberty. Thus, policymakers should approach Muslims as partners on the path toward bettering livelihoods in Muslim societies. If the US continues to be implicated in the social, political and economic underdevelopment of much of the Muslim world, Al-Qaeda will continue to gain followers who are blind to everything but the perceived destructive effects of American hegemony.
In the end, focusing on winning the "battle of ideas" obscures our view of what must be done to prevent future terrorist attacks. The US should recognize the true nature of the terrorist threat, identify its root causes, and partner with Muslims to eliminate them.
Aysha Chowdhry and Andrew Masloski work for the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Chowdhry is a research assistant with the Project on US Relations with the Islamic World, and Masloski is a senior research assistant with the Middle East Democracy and Development Project. THE DAILY STAR publishes this commentary in collaboration with Common Ground News Service.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/25/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda
#1
...."Islamist terrorism." The phrase implies that Islam sanctions terrorism and that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts. "Terrorism in the name of Islam" is more accurate.
The brown Chihuahua is barking. No, no, no, the dog that is barking is a brown Chihuahua.
#2
Jihadis are warriors; we are at war. However, our leaders somewhat legitimated jihadism by supporting political-islam. Islamists need to be treated as we treated Nazis and Communists where they were at war. Your Muslim neighbors generally don't separate themselves from Iraqi or Paleo terrorists; Islamic doctrine allows for financial jihad and that is where a lot of the $10 billion that is transferred by private US citizens and residents, to Central Asia and the Subcontinent, is going.
Soon Muslims will assume demographic majority status in their first Western city (Malmo, Sweden). When that happens the benign-malignant ambiguity will be cleared up.
#3
...."Islamist terrorism." The phrase implies that Islam sanctions terrorism and that Muslims are more likely to commit terrorist acts. "Terrorism in the name of Islam" is more accurate.
#4
Or we could smash Islam at its roots. Nuke Mecca, Medina and Qom at the height of their swarming seasons. Muslims in Western countries could be offered the choice of obeying secular norms - particularly those norms governing the freedoms of women - or being deported to internment areas somewhere convenient. Yemen sounds good.
#5
The mention of radical Islam is not totally missing from the campaign. I've heard McCain mention it several times. There are many things I don't like about McCain, but I give him credit on this point. He has not wavered on his determination to fight and eradicate the Islamos. Good news, because it looks like he's our guy now.
#6
Yah, it is unscrupulous to spew rhetorical promises, based only on what the gullible might believe. That is exactly what Obama is offering by mouthing Black-Church based slogans like the "audacity of hope." I would guess that when McCain is about to deliver the last kick to his butt, Obama will formally convert to islam so he can promise the 72 virgins to voters.
Jay Nordlinger recently went to India, and National Review Online is in the middle of publishing a series of his travel writings. In today's installment is this little gem:
In a hotel in Jodhpur, I take the backstairs, being somewhat confused. It is a place for employees. And I see an admonition a declaration painted on the wall: You are responsible for your behaviour. I think: How un-American. Completely unlike modern America, where you are never responsible for your behavior: Someone else is. You know, the government, George Bush, Enron, society, your doctor, your mother, your father, asbestos The Man.
You are responsible for your behaviour. What a shocking concept, alien to my own country, at least as I have known it.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/25/2008 12:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Slick Willy hates America too. Must be something in the donk's water. I wanna be you so badly that I will kill you if I can't, so nobody can be you. Some kind of group lunacy.
#5
Also, interesting about his mother's field, anthropology. Spengler does well to mention how Mead's work has been totally discredited, and how the field of anthropology is rife with people trying to impose their narrative through falsehood when the facts won't oblige (google "Tasaday" or "Tasaday hoax" and see this behavior taken to its inevitable conclusion). Apparently Obama's mother was of this school.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/25/2008 8:50 Comments ||
Top||
#6
This is a tremendous article. I hope Rove reads it and feeds it to McCain, if he is to be the flag bearer. Clinton can't really attack Bama man because they are walking the same plank. McCain can bring heavy fire on the snake oil salesman. And, he'd better come with broadsides to wake the "stupids" up before the real election. His mother went lefty in Seattle during high school. Moved out of parents house to what we would now call a commy commune. She was a dedicated communist. Now today, we have Farrakhan extoling Husseins' powers and virtues. What does it take for the lizards to roll up their eyelids? We must have a Pub in the WH to veto the insane policies which will be rolling out of a Demo Congress.
#8
Have to disagree with you, Nimble. Not a great column at all. It isn't really about Obama - he's just a stick for Spengler to beat America with. The piece is basically cut-rate psychologizing of an entire people (Americans) and broad-brush painting of history too recent to be understood. The idea that America is at a low ebb, somehow weak and confused, is perennially popular with America-haters. But it's not true.
#9
I've read some of the works of Obama's mother when I was younger - for me, this article should properly be refocused on MICHELLE, not Ann. Michelle is certainly a DRIVER/PUSHER vv BARACK.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama, the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it's all pointless unless you get national reconciliation. 
