 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
RogerRabbit
Master Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 748
Location: Oregon
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:08 pm Post subject: Flirting With Disaster - Christopher Hitchens |
 |
|
http://politics.slate.msn.com/id/2107193/
| Quote: |
Flirting With Disaster
The vile spectacle of Democrats rooting for bad news in Iraq and Afghanistan.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Sept. 27, 2004, at 11:35 AM PT
There it was at the tail end of Brian Faler's "Politics" roundup column in last Saturday's Washington Post. It was headed, simply, "Quotable":
"I wouldn't be surprised if he appeared in the next month." Teresa Heinz Kerry to the Phoenix Business Journal, referring to a possible capture of Osama bin Laden before Election Day.
As well as being "quotable" (and I wish it had been more widely reported, and I hope that someone will ask the Kerry campaign or the nominee himself to disown it), this is also many other words ending in "-able." Deplorable, detestable, unforgivable. …
The plain implication is that the Bush administration is stashing Bin Laden somewhere, or somehow keeping his arrest in reserve, for an "October surprise." This innuendo would appear, on the face of it, to go a little further than "impugning the patriotism" of the president. It argues, after all, for something like collusion on his part with a man who has murdered thousands of Americans as well as hundreds of Muslim civilians in other countries.
I am not one of those who likes to tease Mrs. Kerry for her "loose cannon" style. This is only the second time I have ever mentioned her in print. But I happen to know that this is not an instance of loose lips. She has heard that very remark being made by senior Democrats, and—which is worse—she has not heard anyone in her circle respond to it by saying, "Don't be so bloody stupid." I first heard this "October surprise" theory mentioned seriously, by a prominent foreign-policy Democrat, at an open dinner table in Washington about six months ago. Since then, I've heard it said seriously or semiseriously, by responsible and liberal people who ought to know better, all over the place. It got even worse when the Democratic establishment decided on an arm's-length or closer relationship with Michael Moore and his supposedly vote-getting piece of mendacity and paranoia, Fahrenheit 9/11. (The DNC's boss, Terence McAuliffe, asked outside the Uptown cinema on Connecticut Avenue whether he honestly believed that the administration had invaded Afghanistan for the sake of an oil or perhaps gas pipeline, breezily responded, "I do now.")
What will it take to convince these people that this is not a year, or a time, to be dicking around? Americans are patrolling a front line in Afghanistan, where it would be impossible with 10 times the troop strength to protect all potential voters on Oct. 9 from Taliban/al-Qaida murder and sabotage. We are invited to believe that these hard-pressed soldiers of ours take time off to keep Osama Bin Laden in a secret cave, ready to uncork him when they get a call from Karl Rove? For shame.
Ever since The New Yorker published a near-obituary piece for the Kerry campaign, in the form of an autopsy for the Robert Shrum style, there has been a salad of articles prematurely analyzing "what went wrong." This must be nasty for Democratic activists to read, and I say "nasty" because I hear the way they respond to it. A few pin a vague hope on the so-called "debates"—which are actually joint press conferences allowing no direct exchange between the candidates—but most are much more cynical. Some really bad news from Iraq, or perhaps Afghanistan, and/or a sudden collapse or crisis in the stock market, and Kerry might yet "turn things around." You have heard it, all right, and perhaps even said it. But you may not have appreciated how depraved are its implications. If you calculate that only a disaster of some kind can save your candidate, then you are in danger of harboring a subliminal need for bad news. And it will show. What else explains the amazingly crude and philistine remarks of that campaign genius Joe Lockhart, commenting on the visit of the new Iraqi prime minister and calling him a "puppet"? Here is the only regional leader who is even trying to hold an election, and he is greeted with an ungenerous sneer.
The unfortunately necessary corollary of this—that bad news for the American cause in wartime would be good for Kerry—is that good news would be bad for him. Thus, in Mrs. Kerry's brainless and witless offhand yet pregnant remark, we hear the sick thud of the other shoe dropping. How can the Democrats possibly have gotten themselves into a position where they even suspect that a victory for the Zarqawi or Bin Laden forces would in some way be welcome to them? Or that the capture or killing of Bin Laden would not be something to celebrate with a whole heart?
I think that this detail is very important because the Kerry camp often strives to give the impression that its difference with the president is one of degree but not of kind. Of course we all welcome the end of Taliban rule and even the departure of Saddam Hussein, but we can't remain silent about the way policy has been messed up and compromised and even lied about. I know what it's like to feel that way because it is the way I actually do feel. But I also know the difference when I see it, and I have known some of the liberal world quite well and for a long time, and there are quite obviously people close to the leadership of today's Democratic Party who do not at all hope that the battle goes well in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I have written before in this space that I think Bin Laden is probably dead, and I certainly think that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a far more ruthless and dangerous jihadist, who is trying to take a much more important country into the orbit of medieval fanaticism and misery. One might argue about that: I could even maintain that it's important to oppose and defeat both gentlemen and their supporters. But unless he conclusively repudiates the obvious defeatists in his own party (and maybe even his own family), we shall be able to say that John Kerry's campaign is a distraction from the fight against al-Qaida. |
_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kimmymac
Master Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Posts: 816
Location: Texas
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Again, this is yet another example proving what Zell Miller said about the Democratic party: they will say or do anything, ANYTHING! to be elected and unseat this president.
Their lust for power has made them utterly blind and completly amoral, and they have positioned themselves as the party that is anti-freedom, anti-liberty, anti-democracy and anti-peace. Anything that happens that is truly good for America is bad for the Democrats, and their only hope of winning is for disaster and calamity to befall this nation. They are hoping (and I would say praying but the question would be to whom or what?) that the economy collapses, we have a horrific terrorist attack, or that insurgents in Iraq so humiliate our troops that Americans turn against Bush.
It is sickening, disgusting, vile and unbelievable. It is way, way beyond party politics and has crossed over into treason and sedition. Speaking out as a conscientious objector is entirely within a person's right; if that is how one feels it is good and proper to do so, but this breathless glee and evil hopefullness of some sort of calamity befalling the US in order to "win" is obscene. The fact that the Kerry-ites and anti-Bush pathological pathogens would not welcome ridding the world of terrorists at ANY TIME under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES makes them terrorists themselves.
Pray for our nation to be delivered from such people--the Lord God is our only hope. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RogerRabbit
Master Chief Petty Officer
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 748
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 6:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Limbaugh discussing this (Christopher Hitchens) commentary now
_________________
"Si vis pacem, para bellum" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Although a liberal, Hitchens is the only thing worth reading in that deplorable piece of crap Vanity Fair magazine that he writes for. I am not renewing my subscription, and suggest a boycott for those that wish. Have a look for yourself - the editor- Graydon Carter - uses it as a personal platform against the Bush Admin in every issue. Read the piece from the editor. Makes me so angry that he can get away with that. To top it off there are hardly any legitmate non biased but entertaining articles in the mag. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stacman
Lt.Jg.
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
Posts: 104
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| These stories are so comical it's infuriating. Especially when you consider the source of the quote from a witch. I guess if anyone would know where he is, it would be her and the many groups she funds thru "charitable" organizations. I often wonder if she, or any of these reporters ever sit back and realize just how stupid it sounds to float these types of things. To think that any president would sit on the top world fugitive for election purposes is ludicrous. Of course, I may be one to advise Bush to do it if he were to be found now, or in the near future. But I can't believe this president would do so even if begged. There's much more these liberal whiners have to learn about integrity before they can accuse anyone else of things like this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If they 'find' some WMDs next month, though, I wouldn't complain  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The angry editor
As the slick editor of Vanity Fair, America's celebrity bible, Graydon Carter has never shown much interest in politics. But now he has written a passionate diatribe against George Bush.
Tuesday August 31, 2004
The Guardian
Guardian
note: URL converted to hypertext |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
misako
Ensign
Joined: 27 Aug 2004
Posts: 53
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wwIIvetsdaughter
Captain
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 513
Location: McAllen, Texas
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
RDTF, I also currently subscribe to Vanity Fair and have noted the extreme bias it has against W. I have already cancelled my subscription. Can you imagine today's Dems in WWII? They'd be 1) happy about American deaths at Iwo Jima 2) Thrilled by the difficulties at Normandy 2) Pleased by the Baatan Death March 4) Overjoyed by the Battle of the Bulge (before we beat back the Germans) 5) Deny the Existence of the Death Camps in Germany or blame our invasion of Europe for them!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DaveL
Commander
Joined: 25 Aug 2004
Posts: 300
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 3:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wwIIvetsdaughter wrote: | | Can you imagine today's Dems in WWII? They'd be 1) happy about American deaths at Iwo Jima 2) Thrilled by the difficulties at Normandy 2) Pleased by the Baatan Death March 4) Overjoyed by the Battle of the Bulge (before we beat back the Germans) 5) Deny the Existence of the Death Camps in Germany or blame our invasion of Europe for them! |
only if there had been a republican in the whitehouse! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FreeFall
LCDR
Joined: 13 Aug 2004
Posts: 421
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 7:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Dems of WWII were not like the Dems of today. The party has been taken over by socialists and communists and they want to make the USA like Europe, which is becoming more and more socialist.
I think the WMD is either buried in Iraq or it's been scattered all over. Did you see this article?
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtribune/breaking_1.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rdtf
CNO
Joined: 13 May 2004
Posts: 2209
Location: BUSHville
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wwIIvetsdaughter wrote: | | RDTF, I also currently subscribe to Vanity Fair and have noted the extreme bias it has against W. I have already cancelled my subscription. Can you imagine today's Dems in WWII? They'd be 1) happy about American deaths at Iwo Jima 2) Thrilled by the difficulties at Normandy 2) Pleased by the Baatan Death March 4) Overjoyed by the Battle of the Bulge (before we beat back the Germans) 5) Deny the Existence of the Death Camps in Germany or blame our invasion of Europe for them! |
In case you never saw this- it's terrific-
http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=13848
If D-Day Had Been Reported On Today
By William A. Mayer
www.strategypage.com | June 30, 2004
Tragic French Offensive Stalled on Beaches (Normandy, France - June 6, 1944) - Pandemonium, shock and sheer terror predominate today's events in Europe.
In an as yet unfolding apparent fiasco, Supreme Allied Commander, Gen. Dwight David Eisenhower's troops got a rude awakening this morning at Omaha Beach here in Normandy.
Due to insufficient planning and lack of a workable entrance strategy, soldiers of the 1st and 29th Infantry as well as Army Rangers are now bogged down and sustaining heavy casualties inflicted on them by dug-in insurgent positions located 170 feet above them on cliffs overlooking the beaches which now resemble blood soaked killing fields at the time of this mid-morning filing.
Bodies, parts of bodies, and blood are the order of the day here, the screams of the dying and the stillness of the dead mingle in testament to this terrible event.
Morale can only be described as extremely poor--in some companies all the officers have been either killed or incapacitated, leaving only poorly trained privates to fend for themselves.
Things appear to be going so poorly that Lt. General Omar Bradley has been rumored to be considering breaking off the attack entirely. As we go to press embattled U.S. president Franklin Delano Roosevelt's spokesman has not made himself available for comment at all, fueling fires that something has gone disastrously awry.
The government at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is in a distinct lock-down mode and the Vice President's location is presently and officially undisclosed.
Whether the second in command should have gone into hiding during such a crisis will have to be answered at some future time, but many agree it does not send a good signal.
Miles behind the beaches and adding to the chaos, U.S. Naval gunships have inflicted many friendly fire casualties, as huge high explosive projectiles rain death and destruction on unsuspecting Allied positions. The lack of training of Naval gunners has been called into question numerous times before and today's demonstration seems to underlie those concerns.
At Utah Beach the situation is also grim, elements of the 82nd and 101st Airborne seemed to be in disarray as they missed their primary drop zones behind the area believed to comprise the militant's front lines. Errant paratroopers have been hung up in trees, breaking arms and legs, rendering themselves easy targets for those defending this territory.
On the beach front itself the landing area was missed, catapulting U.S. forces nearly 2,000 yards South of the intended coordinates, thus placing them that much farther away from the German insurgents and unable to direct covering fire or materially add to the operation.
Casualties at day's end are nothing short of horrific; at least 8,000 and possibly as many as 9,000 were wounded in the haphazardly coordinated attack, which seems to have no unifying purpose or intent. Of this number at least 3,000 have been estimated as having been killed, making June 6th by far, the worst single day of the war which has dragged on now--with no exit strategy in sight--as the American economy still struggles to recover from Herbert Hoover's depression and its 25% unemployment.
Military spending has skyrocketed the national debt into uncharted regions, lending another cause for concern. When and if the current hostilities finally end it may take generations for the huge debt to be repaid.
On the planning end of things, experts wonder privately if enough troops were committed to the initial offensive and whether at least another 100,000 troops should have been added to the force structure before such an audacious undertaking. Communication problems also have made their presence felt making that an area for further investigation by the appropriate governmental committees.
On the home front, questions and concern have been voiced. A telephone poll has shown dwindling support for the wheel-chair bound Commander In Chief, which might indicate a further erosion of support for his now three year-old global war.
Of course, the President's precarious health has always been a question. He has just recently recovered from pneumonia and speculation persists whether or not he has sufficient stamina to properly sustain the war effort. This remains a topic of furious discussion among those questioning his competency.
Today's costly and chaotic landing compounds the President's already large credibility problem.
More darkly, this phase of the war, commencing less than six months before the next general election, gives some the impression that Roosevelt may be using this offensive simply as a means to secure re-election in the fall.
Underlining the less than effective Allied attack, German casualties--most of them innocent and hapless conscripts--seem not to be as severe as would be imagined. A German minister who requested anonymity stated categorically that "the aggressors were being driven back into the sea amidst heavy casualties, the German people seek no wider war."
"The news couldn't be better," Adolph Hitler said when he was first informed of the D-Day assault earlier this afternoon.
"As long as they were in Britain we couldn't get at them. Now we have them where we can destroy them."
German minister Goebbels had been told of the Allied airborne landings at 0400 hours.
"Thank God, at last," he said. "This is the final round."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
