Admittedly, I'm not much of a Chris Mathews fan. However, the exchange from the below link is hilarious, as right-wing nutjob and radio talk show dufus, Kevin James is truly something that tickled my funny bone. When confronted with a question he couldn't answer, he did what all right-wing nut jobs do, they increase the volume in order to try to hide their basic ignorance. Enjoy.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24655385#24655385
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
"When you're in a hole, stop digging!"
Excellent!
While this isn't the topic, but my big question would be... What is the desired end game, if you use military force and violence against your enemies? Either you wipe them out, so there is no recourse or you end up in an eternal battle with them.
Talking to them to reach an agreement has the potential to bring about a peaceful solution - It may not always result in that, but the odds are infinitely higher that it will.
My uncle sent me this forwarded right wing e-mail trying to make Obama sound like an idiot for wanting to meet with our enemies. Here was my response.
"Not to fan the flames of partisan dispute, but I'll respond to that.
Reagan met with Russian leaders (sought out Gorbachev at Reykjavik). Nixon met with Mao and Breshnev. After the German victories in France and Norway, Churchill sought out Hitler's ally, Stalin to try to work towards turning him against Hitler. Remember, it was both Soviet Russia and Germany that invaded Poland to begin World War II. As for the North Korea reference, when hostilities began, generally talks are off the table. But before hostilities, it is reasonable and prudent to meet with your enemies, to explain your concerns and express your resolve. Iran for example is not at war with us. It is true that the elections in Iraq that took place under our supervision elected a pro-Iranian, pro-Hamas Shiite President. It is also true that after Al Qaeda terrorists blew up the Golden Dome Mosque in Iraq, that some funding seems to have taken place for Shiite militias in Iraq (some went to Moqtada al Sadr). However, these arms weren't necessarily aimed at U.S. forces as much as they were Al Qaeda and other Sunni miliitias that were killing Shiites on a massive scale as the insurgency was raging. The fact of the matter is, more U.S. munitions have found their way into the arms caches of the insurgents than have ever been supplied from Iran.
Obama is smart enough to see the world through the complicated lense that it actually exists, not in a manichaean dream world of good vrs. evil (and of course, we are "the good") that inhabits the teenage intellect of our current President and his would be successor. Trying to make Obama sound naive by actually wanting to engage in dialogue with countries we have issues with may play to a gullible electorate, but more than anything shows just how simple-minded our current leaders and members of the press really are. Saber-rattling and calling people our enemies creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. We need to act strong and prudent in our relations with foreign governments. We need to build allies (a Bush specialty), pick our battles intelligently (where to start with that one), and not make enemies when unnecessary. We need to have clear objectives and communicate frankly with other countries when their actions work counter to those objectives.
We've had nearly eight years now of an administration that has preyed on the fears of the populace to grant ever more power to the executive branch. Whereas FDR said, "there is nothing to fear, but fear itself", Bush has said in so many words, "be afraid, be very afraid." So who was the weak one? Traumatized by the events of 9/11, we showed our weakness by allowing Bush to act recklessly with our armed forces, to seize additional powers to the executive, and to succumb to behaviors that our founders would have found deplorable.
Obama is the candidate that took his reading of history seriously, certainly not Bush nor McCain. Obama knows the difference between Al Qaeda and Shiites. Obama understands the long-term and short-terms costs and risks of American exceptionalism. He understands that when we torture detainees, we have no basis for complaining when others treat our soldiers and other citizens the same way. He understands that when we attack Iraq for invading Kuwait without provocation, and then we invade Iraq without provocation, we look like hypocrites to the rest of the world.
Anyway, that is a little more than my $.02."
Your comment above was fantastic. That should be a post of its own. Putting a little historical perspective out there might be helpful.
Of course, history, as well as many other forms of book learning, are of no use to Incurious George.
Thanks for your kind words Andrew. I have always wondered whether North Korea would have invaded South Korea if they had known American intentions. If Truman would have conversed with Kim il song and told him that invading South Korea would embroil his country with the United States?
Communication is not the same as appeasement. When I confront the mechanic who botched the repairs of my car, I am not appeasing them, I'm negotiating a resolution that is hopefully going to benefit me.
George W. Bush and his chronies, lackeys and mouthpeices think that a failure to talk exudes strength. In my view it exudes stupidity and recklessness.
I also feel that there is much to be gained by communication and clear talk. Perhaps Bush is just bright enought to recognize that he is incapable of understandable spoken communication, and fears that in trying to speak to someone, he might mess it up so badly that he thinks that it might be better to say nothing at all.
Ya know J.C., that is a really interesting observation. Bush seems to harbor some really deep down insecurities. Perhaps his willingness to engage is a result of his fear of being bettered in negotiations.
Your insights never cease to amaze me.
Doh, I meant "unwillingness" rather than "willingness."
Post a Comment