Crazy, But Not Clueless
Mike Wallace's "60 Minutes" with Iran's President Ahmadinejad showed that Ahmadinejad may be crazy, but he isn't clueless. Some have criticized the news show for running the interview, but it did show the kind of clever/crazy approach of a man who's building nuclear weapons.
Unable to be reasoned with, sure -- Ahmadinejad actually thinks that the UN is serving US interests, not to mention that Israel is the aggressor in the war with Hezbollah. But he's not stupid. One of the facts that he cited as support for his own views of President Bush was the President's low approval ratings, and it was noteworthy that the criticisms he launched dovetailed neatly with those that have been thrown around by the Democrats (the President's policies are wrong because they're unpopular in "the world", for example). Obviously, he's paying close attention to what's said and done over here . . . something everyone in both parties should take carefully into account.
The problem isn't that Democrats have exercised a right to dissent -- that's a right that all of us, as Americans, cherish for ourselves and each other. The problem is that they've done it in such a vituperative manner that it's leading the Iranian leader to miscalculate, and emboldening him to ever more impudent and defiant behavior toward the President and the country. That poses obvious dangers for us all.
If the Democrats want to call Bush an idiot, that's their right. But they need to clarify that in the final analysis, we are all Americans. And even if they're convinced with every fiber of their beings that the President is an idiot, they need to make it clear to everyone else in the world that he's our idiot, and we're not going to tolerate arrogant anti-semitic totalitarian demagogues insulting him and attempting to bully the United States of America.
Unable to be reasoned with, sure -- Ahmadinejad actually thinks that the UN is serving US interests, not to mention that Israel is the aggressor in the war with Hezbollah. But he's not stupid. One of the facts that he cited as support for his own views of President Bush was the President's low approval ratings, and it was noteworthy that the criticisms he launched dovetailed neatly with those that have been thrown around by the Democrats (the President's policies are wrong because they're unpopular in "the world", for example). Obviously, he's paying close attention to what's said and done over here . . . something everyone in both parties should take carefully into account.
The problem isn't that Democrats have exercised a right to dissent -- that's a right that all of us, as Americans, cherish for ourselves and each other. The problem is that they've done it in such a vituperative manner that it's leading the Iranian leader to miscalculate, and emboldening him to ever more impudent and defiant behavior toward the President and the country. That poses obvious dangers for us all.
If the Democrats want to call Bush an idiot, that's their right. But they need to clarify that in the final analysis, we are all Americans. And even if they're convinced with every fiber of their beings that the President is an idiot, they need to make it clear to everyone else in the world that he's our idiot, and we're not going to tolerate arrogant anti-semitic totalitarian demagogues insulting him and attempting to bully the United States of America.
posted by LadybugUSA at 9:59 PM
8 Comments:
You're kiddin', right Carol? The left hasn't the class or intelligence for such a thing. Bush Derangement Syndrome inhibits such a thing.
I am often confused by American concepts. Are you saying Carol, that even if America has a bad leader, inept or even rogue, to keep up a united front we should embrace him internationally? Or does this just apply to a struggling current chief executive? Somehow if Hillary Clinton is elected I cannot see you defending her against the Rush Limbaughs of the right wing punditry world when he begins a tirade. William Jefferson Clinton certainly did not get such treatment from the right and this was long before proof of his infidelity within the Oval Office.
Here is a question for you, "If the next president from the GOP, is a womanizer, but his plan for the war on terror wins for America in six years i.e., the caputre of OBL the breakup of Pakistani al Qaeda supported madrassahs, the democratizing of Saudi Arabia and on and on, would you call for his impeachment? Or would that be a private family mattter between the leader of the free world and the First Lady?"
Honestly, one way or the other I believe the American MSM with their 24 hour news services and blanket coverage of Bush offer the world enough footage for them to formulate their own opinions. If every opinion poll in the USA said we were standing four square behind George W Bush global capitals would think America had gone insane.
The most appealing concept of American democracy, the freedom craved by billions globally, and in that Bush is correct, is the one thing neocons loathe, curiously the most and that is dissent.
And Marshall, I know and work with many liberals and many conservative thinkers, and most that work for me are both classy and intelligent. People are not dumb because they disagree with you they are dumb because they refuse to use facts to support their arguments and hold opinions that have been proven wrong in the march of history.
Bush suffers from the same singular problem that Katherine Harris has he keeps showing up and doing thing that the opposition can point at and utilize to their own ends. This explains why he has been so distant from the media, but it also highlights this administration's hatred, and I do intend to use that word, for scrutiny by the liberal media. Only a liberal media, prone to dissent and hard questioning can maintain the free exchange of ideas. A conservative, a right wing media would start out looking like Carol's weblog here full of support for one side and rarely able to point out errors on that one side. At the end it would be a state run paper akin to Pravda where there was no dissent allowed whatsoever. And that's what I disagree with most and once again I guarantee that when I write about democrats their flaws and follies will be pointed out and exposed to the harsh light of day.
Qu'ul cuda praedex nihil!
C.E.
Oh, btw, Ahmadinejad IS a lunatic but you are correct he is NOT stupid.
C.E.
Cav,
You miss the point. It's not that Bush is perfect, it's that he's not evil incarnate as many on the left would assume. Despite his flaws, of which conservatives are well aware, he's still our president and should be given support in his efforts to defeat this enemy, instead of the constant nit-picking, distorting and other nonsensical crap that is spewed by lefties on a regular basis. This is the type of unified support that is required so that the lunatics of the Middle East don't get the idea that they are somehow winning or doing the right thing.
Your example is also off the mark, because what one does in one's personal life may be reprehensible, but less important than achieving the goals you listed. Should that person have been seen as a womanizer before he was elected, you could make some noise about hypocrisy amongst conservatives. If that person indulges in his crotch-worshipping on public time, and then lies about it under oath during a major investigation, that's an entirely different story.
The American MSM is largely responsible for spreading the lefty nonsense about Bush, and thus, it's no surprise that world opinion would follow suit. Along with any objective reporting, if indeed there is such a thing nowadays, and I doubt it, lefty opinion, which has plenty of outlets, is also disseminated world-wide. No unified front being shown there at all.
You, like many today, confuse dissent with out-right Bush-bashing and blame-America-first syndrome. Dissent isn't just saying you suck. Some type of explanation along with a clearly defined alternative, as well as why that alternative would be better (historical examples wouldn't hurt) is what you'd like to believe is being stifled. It isn't, it never was or you wouldn't see the Cindy Sheehans of the country bleating endlessly. This accusation of crushing dissent is just more lefty lies used as a replacement for real ideas.
Truth to tell, I'm friends with many libs. They, like all libs, aren't stupid because they disagree. They're stupid when they parrot the lib talking points and, as indicated above, offer nothing substantive as an alternative.
When a mainstream media outlet asks the hard questions of our enemies and their supporters, when they ask the hard questions of the "dissenters" and their lame leaders, then you'll see a media that resembles the type of objective, hard-hitting seekers of truth that they are only pretending to be.
I feel the "us against them" struggle in American politics starts in Washington and radiates outward in a wave from the Beltway out to the flyover states finally breaking in California.
The subjective nature of the political choices and all the associate baggage of religion and personal finces only serve to muddle basic public policy. I would hope the American founding fathers had not intended the daily discourse to be debates about abortion, an issue that should be put to ballot once and for all, the place of religion in public policy, to me it has no place but image all those long faces reacting to that across America and cutting taxes in lieu of taxing rationally.
I think those should be the measures that the GOP should put forth as solutions to the bad government they have offered of late. Give the abortion debate to the states, go back to the republican revolutionary idea of a flat tax and work within the Constitution on religion in the public sector. No child no person no one should be forced to pray a prayer to a deity in which they do not worship just as everyone should have the right to pray any prayer to any deity they wish.
I think Jefferson would smile at that and take a nice relaxing walk in nature reveling at the mastery of creation.
C.E.
Cav:
I have to run and don't have time to read the rest of this thread. But I wanted to comment before I have to log off.
Your first post in this thread is the first time I've ready one of your posts and agreed with you for the most part.
I disagree with your assertion of Bush's "singular problem". But I'll leave that for another discussion.
I think many of your points are well-reasoned and on target - generally speaking.
Having said that, I'll add that many on the left have, in my opinion, crossed a critical line from reasoned, loyal dissent to actually hoping for the U.S. to fail simply because of an unreasonable hatred for the current president.
That is unacceptable.
Maybe there are those who do not respect the nature of the enemy and, therefore, are not concerned about the aftermath of a victorious Islamo-Fascist movement.
Maybe a few are so opposed to the the American Way that they want to see it destroyed no matter by whom.
Oh heck, I've digressed.
Let me get back to my original point. I appreciate and respect many of the arguments you made in your first post on this thread - in very general terms.
I feel the "us against them" struggle in American politics starts in Washington and radiates outward in a wave from the Beltway out to the flyover states finally breaking in California.
There is an element of truth in that. Certainly that is the template through which politics is reported.
There are other contributing factors, too, such as the haughty "people are stupid, we must protect them from themselves" mentality of today's "liberals".
Cav,
I have to respectfully disagree with your second post. The "us against them" struggle sprang from an unusually harsh opinion of Bush even while he was still in the primaries prior to his 2000 win. Part of it was because he was a former president's son and had a colorful youth...no, that was the only reason. But he campaigned at the time as a governor with a history of bringing both sides of the aisle together, and had hoped to work the same way as prez. He even went so far as to push an education policy with Ted Kennedy, a current drunk the libs keep electing to the Senate (as opposed to the reformed drunk with whom editor has an irrational problem).
In this country, there are many who feel that the religion and personal vices of a candidate reflect the character of the candidate. On the right, character counts, whereas on the left, character is as flexible a concept as the Constitution and Biblical teaching. Truth, to the left, is what one wants it to be, rather than what it is. Despite the difficulty in maintaining all the traditional virtues of good character, the right still aspires to it and hopes for it in their elected reps. The left only talks about it when it fits their agenda, and re-creates it into their own image and likenesses when it doesn't.
To specific points, it is not the right that prevents putting abortion to a vote, or leaving to the states to decide, but a left-wing justice took that out of our hands. Now we must scratch and claw to correct bad law. It is not the right that wants to prevent a flat tax or something like it, but the left that insists that the most successful be forced by law to give inordinate percentages of their hard earned money to the rest of society against their will. It is not the right that wishes to force anyone to kneel to any deity, but the left that wishes to remove all mention of our Christian heritage from public life altogether. The force in this case comes from the left, to kneel to the godlessness of science when their interpretation of data is based on their secular whims. We on the right simply believe that part of our society's ills were compounded from the moment school prayer was outlawed, and would be satisfied with a moment for each student to pray to whomever they choose or not at all. When the left threw out religion, they also threw out shame, guilt for real transgressions, personal responsibility and a host of other valuable notions. We're still suffering for it.
Post a Comment
<< Home