Support for war grows:
Robert Kagan has an interesting article in today's WaPo. Interesting mainly because it is titled "Divided on the War? Not Really" !
The major media does not usually tell tales on itself, and the company line has been to talk up the negative. Kagan acknowledges as much when he points out that "According to CNN's polls this year, only once has support for the Iraq war fallen as low as 50 percent, despite the steady stream of relatively bad news." Kagan even takes a sly but gentle jab at a certain liberal author and his lying book.
In any case, he lays out a strong case that support for the Iraqi "War" has been steady and widespread. With that support hovering in the range of sixty percent it becomes increasingly likely that "Howard Dean for President" will be a total disaster for the Democratic Party in '04.
Friday, December 19, 2003
No Mas:
Libyan strongman Moammar Kaddaffi (I prefer this spelling) has announced he will allow international inspectors, and will turn over all WMD.
While this is a good sign, it apparently comes about after what AP calls "secret negotiations with the United States and Britain". One hopes that Kaddaffi got no concessions in return that would militate against common sense.
It is likely that seeing Saddam Hussein's recent oral check up raised the scales from Kaddaffi's eyes and made his decision much easier.
Libyan strongman Moammar Kaddaffi (I prefer this spelling) has announced he will allow international inspectors, and will turn over all WMD.
While this is a good sign, it apparently comes about after what AP calls "secret negotiations with the United States and Britain". One hopes that Kaddaffi got no concessions in return that would militate against common sense.
It is likely that seeing Saddam Hussein's recent oral check up raised the scales from Kaddaffi's eyes and made his decision much easier.
Soros Part 2:
Continuing his efforts, Soros again misstates the position of the Bush Administration:
“The Bush doctrine….is built on two pillars: the United States will do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy; and the United States arrogates the right to pre-emptive action.
In effect, the doctrine establishes two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the will of the United States.”
You will notice that the principles stated in the first paragraph bear no resemblance to the principles stated in the second paragraph. This happens because Soros states the “Bush doctrine” accurately, then immediately restates it by twisting it beyond recognition, and then pretends they are one and the same.
George W. Bush has NEVER so much as hinted that the actions the United States has taken in response to 9/11, are not available to any other country so attacked. If, for instance, Paris was bombed tomorrow, my bet is that President Bush would be more of a Franco Hawk than Jacque Chirac.
Mr. Bush has made it plain: We were attacked and we will do all in out power to keep it from happening again. Period.
But facts have no meaning for Mr. Soros as he builds the following strawman:
“President Bush says, as he does frequently, that freedom will prevail, he means that America will prevail. In a free and open society, people are supposed to decide for themselves what they mean by freedom and democracy, and not simply follow America's lead. The contradiction is especially apparent in the case of Iraq, and the occupation of Iraq has brought the issue home. We came as liberators, bringing freedom and democracy, but that is not how we are perceived by a large part of the population.”
Setting aside the issue of how the United States is perceived by the Iraqi people, the truth is that we invaded Iraq out of a desire to avoid another 9/11, not as “liberators, bringing freedom and democracy “ to the Iraqis. Certainly many of us are hopeful that we will leave Iraq a more free and better place, but no one should ever doubt that our primary reason was to make the United States a safer place.
To Be Continued....
Continuing his efforts, Soros again misstates the position of the Bush Administration:
“The Bush doctrine….is built on two pillars: the United States will do everything in its power to maintain its unquestioned military supremacy; and the United States arrogates the right to pre-emptive action.
In effect, the doctrine establishes two classes of sovereignty: the sovereignty of the United States, which takes precedence over international treaties and obligations; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the will of the United States.”
You will notice that the principles stated in the first paragraph bear no resemblance to the principles stated in the second paragraph. This happens because Soros states the “Bush doctrine” accurately, then immediately restates it by twisting it beyond recognition, and then pretends they are one and the same.
George W. Bush has NEVER so much as hinted that the actions the United States has taken in response to 9/11, are not available to any other country so attacked. If, for instance, Paris was bombed tomorrow, my bet is that President Bush would be more of a Franco Hawk than Jacque Chirac.
Mr. Bush has made it plain: We were attacked and we will do all in out power to keep it from happening again. Period.
But facts have no meaning for Mr. Soros as he builds the following strawman:
“President Bush says, as he does frequently, that freedom will prevail, he means that America will prevail. In a free and open society, people are supposed to decide for themselves what they mean by freedom and democracy, and not simply follow America's lead. The contradiction is especially apparent in the case of Iraq, and the occupation of Iraq has brought the issue home. We came as liberators, bringing freedom and democracy, but that is not how we are perceived by a large part of the population.”
Setting aside the issue of how the United States is perceived by the Iraqi people, the truth is that we invaded Iraq out of a desire to avoid another 9/11, not as “liberators, bringing freedom and democracy “ to the Iraqis. Certainly many of us are hopeful that we will leave Iraq a more free and better place, but no one should ever doubt that our primary reason was to make the United States a safer place.
To Be Continued....
Deconstructing Soros
Soros begins his polemic in the December Atlantic Monthly entitled “The Bubble of American Supremacy”, by stating that while September 11, 2001 “changed the course of history” it only did so because President Bush “responded to it the way he did”. He asks plaintively “How could a single event, even one involving 3,000 civilian casualties, have such a far-reaching effect?”.
Soros is apparently blind to the fact that the same argument could be used regarding December 7, 1941. By the same token, if your neighbor poisons your dog, you could choose to ignore the act, and thus avoid further unpleasantness such as filling out police reports.
Soros posits that underlying the president’s response to 9/11 are principles that “can be summed up as follows: International relations are relations of power, not law; power prevails and law legitimizes what prevails.”
If anyone can point me to the speech or interview where Bush enunciated these “principles” I would be in their debt.
Attacking what he calls “The supremacist ideology of the Bush Administration” Soros cites “the very first sentence of the September 2002 National Security Strategy” : "The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise."
Soros responds: “The assumptions behind this statement are false on two counts. First, there is no single sustainable model for national success.”
Really? One wonders which other models have worked or are working in Mr. Soros’ estimation. Remember that the “single sustainable model” is not specifically referring to American Style, or even Western Style, government models, but to “freedom, democracy, and free enterprise."
Doros rambles father into the thicket of confusion: “Second, the American model, which has indeed been successful, is not available to others, because our success depends greatly on our dominant position at the center of the global capitalist system, and we are not willing to yield it.”
Got that? America is the most successful not because of our system but because we are the best. Or, in other words, the economic egg laid the systemic chicken.
To Be Continued...
Soros begins his polemic in the December Atlantic Monthly entitled “The Bubble of American Supremacy”, by stating that while September 11, 2001 “changed the course of history” it only did so because President Bush “responded to it the way he did”. He asks plaintively “How could a single event, even one involving 3,000 civilian casualties, have such a far-reaching effect?”.
Soros is apparently blind to the fact that the same argument could be used regarding December 7, 1941. By the same token, if your neighbor poisons your dog, you could choose to ignore the act, and thus avoid further unpleasantness such as filling out police reports.
Soros posits that underlying the president’s response to 9/11 are principles that “can be summed up as follows: International relations are relations of power, not law; power prevails and law legitimizes what prevails.”
If anyone can point me to the speech or interview where Bush enunciated these “principles” I would be in their debt.
Attacking what he calls “The supremacist ideology of the Bush Administration” Soros cites “the very first sentence of the September 2002 National Security Strategy” : "The great struggles of the twentieth century between liberty and totalitarianism ended with a decisive victory for the forces of freedom—and a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise."
Soros responds: “The assumptions behind this statement are false on two counts. First, there is no single sustainable model for national success.”
Really? One wonders which other models have worked or are working in Mr. Soros’ estimation. Remember that the “single sustainable model” is not specifically referring to American Style, or even Western Style, government models, but to “freedom, democracy, and free enterprise."
Doros rambles father into the thicket of confusion: “Second, the American model, which has indeed been successful, is not available to others, because our success depends greatly on our dominant position at the center of the global capitalist system, and we are not willing to yield it.”
Got that? America is the most successful not because of our system but because we are the best. Or, in other words, the economic egg laid the systemic chicken.
To Be Continued...
Rich Guys and Presidential Politics
George Soros recently announced that he would be spending at least several millions of his fortune to rid the country and the world of George W. Bush. Soros has a long piece in the December Atlantic Monthly that deserves a long look. Before I begin my deconstruction however, a look back at another billionaire who crossed the American political stage.
Rich men who decide to spend huge amounts of money on politics are interesting animals, and sometimes they kick up enough dust to change history. For instance I have always held that Ross Perot was primarily responsible for electing Bill Clinton. Politics is a much-misunderstood game in which years of plodding sameness can be replaced by radical change in the blink of an eye.
In 1992 George H. W. Bush (it’s a heck of a note when you have to go to a FOURTH initial to distinguish between two people) was on cruise control toward a second term. Bill Clinton was in danger of becoming a joke. In the polls Bush had a large lead and the election seemed secure.
Enter Ross Perot. Overnight the dynamic changed, but most people failed to realize WHO was now in trouble. In the early weeks of the three-way campaign, pundits focused on Clinton’s poor poll numbers. There was talk that Clinton might fail to get 25% of the vote required for “major party” status.
What the pundits almost totally ignored was the fact that now President Bush was polling BELOW 50%. There was a monumental shift in public attitudes. Where over 50% of the voters had been prepared to vote for Bush, now over 50% were psychologically open to voting for someone other than the President.
A break of this type is much like a marriage where one or both spouses have begun to wonder if maybe divorce is the answer. Like Humpty Dumpty, Bush’s electoral prospects would not be put together again. When Perot went weird and then dropped out just prior to Clinton’s nomination, the “swing voters” could either go back to their stodgy ex (Bush) or run off with the handsome ner-do-well from down the street (Clinton).
The result was an explosion of support for Bill Clinton that Bush never recovered from, and when Perot re-entered the race it effectively cemented the president’s fate. It was well known that Perot disliked George H. W. Bush, and he could take great satisfaction in knowing that he was responsible for the president’s defeat.
The Perot and Soros stories have little in common beyond the fact that both were rich men who were willing to spend millions to beat a Bush. Perot was someone who represented a “third way” in American politics. Loony as some of his ideas were, he was joined by millions of Americans who had grown frustrated with the choice between Republicans and the Democrats.
Now comes Soros.
I had heard of him but had no notion of his politics until he announced a five million-dollar donation to a group dedicated to defeating George W. Bush in 2004. Now, as an advance peek at a book scheduled for release next month, the Atlantic Monthly has published a Soros “essay” that gives us a clear view into the man’s mind.
Next: Deconstructing Soros
George Soros recently announced that he would be spending at least several millions of his fortune to rid the country and the world of George W. Bush. Soros has a long piece in the December Atlantic Monthly that deserves a long look. Before I begin my deconstruction however, a look back at another billionaire who crossed the American political stage.
Rich men who decide to spend huge amounts of money on politics are interesting animals, and sometimes they kick up enough dust to change history. For instance I have always held that Ross Perot was primarily responsible for electing Bill Clinton. Politics is a much-misunderstood game in which years of plodding sameness can be replaced by radical change in the blink of an eye.
In 1992 George H. W. Bush (it’s a heck of a note when you have to go to a FOURTH initial to distinguish between two people) was on cruise control toward a second term. Bill Clinton was in danger of becoming a joke. In the polls Bush had a large lead and the election seemed secure.
Enter Ross Perot. Overnight the dynamic changed, but most people failed to realize WHO was now in trouble. In the early weeks of the three-way campaign, pundits focused on Clinton’s poor poll numbers. There was talk that Clinton might fail to get 25% of the vote required for “major party” status.
What the pundits almost totally ignored was the fact that now President Bush was polling BELOW 50%. There was a monumental shift in public attitudes. Where over 50% of the voters had been prepared to vote for Bush, now over 50% were psychologically open to voting for someone other than the President.
A break of this type is much like a marriage where one or both spouses have begun to wonder if maybe divorce is the answer. Like Humpty Dumpty, Bush’s electoral prospects would not be put together again. When Perot went weird and then dropped out just prior to Clinton’s nomination, the “swing voters” could either go back to their stodgy ex (Bush) or run off with the handsome ner-do-well from down the street (Clinton).
The result was an explosion of support for Bill Clinton that Bush never recovered from, and when Perot re-entered the race it effectively cemented the president’s fate. It was well known that Perot disliked George H. W. Bush, and he could take great satisfaction in knowing that he was responsible for the president’s defeat.
The Perot and Soros stories have little in common beyond the fact that both were rich men who were willing to spend millions to beat a Bush. Perot was someone who represented a “third way” in American politics. Loony as some of his ideas were, he was joined by millions of Americans who had grown frustrated with the choice between Republicans and the Democrats.
Now comes Soros.
I had heard of him but had no notion of his politics until he announced a five million-dollar donation to a group dedicated to defeating George W. Bush in 2004. Now, as an advance peek at a book scheduled for release next month, the Atlantic Monthly has published a Soros “essay” that gives us a clear view into the man’s mind.
Next: Deconstructing Soros
Thursday, December 18, 2003
The disintegration of the Democratic Party continues. With the exception of Gephardt and Lieberman, none of the Dems running for president seem to have any mooring to reality.
Howard Dean lurches from one angry snip to another and seems to mainly be preoccupied with "Being Howard".
Poor John Kerry. He has served all those years in the Senate, being a good little liberal, yet has been treated like a red-headed step-child in the run up to Iowa and New Hampshire. His stump speeches are taking on a bitter tone, as he sees himself eclipsed by even the joke candidates.
With the good economic news continuing, it is difficult to see Bush losing in 2004.
Howard Dean lurches from one angry snip to another and seems to mainly be preoccupied with "Being Howard".
Poor John Kerry. He has served all those years in the Senate, being a good little liberal, yet has been treated like a red-headed step-child in the run up to Iowa and New Hampshire. His stump speeches are taking on a bitter tone, as he sees himself eclipsed by even the joke candidates.
With the good economic news continuing, it is difficult to see Bush losing in 2004.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)