Soros Part 5
Speaking slowly so even the dullest among us can understand, Soros explains the history of terrorism and allows that while it is annoying, it certainly is nothing to get overly excited about. He calmly assures us that "The most powerful country on earth cannot afford to be consumed by fear. Moreover, by allowing terrorism to become our principal preoccupation, we are playing into the terrorists' hands. They are setting our priorities."
Somehow I never would have supposed that the REAL objective behind 9/11 was to undermine the Talaban and Saddam Hussein. Osama Bin Laden must indeed be pleased to see his plans play out so brilliantly on the world stage.
Finally, Soros lays out his support for a "cooperative effort to improve the world by engaging in preventive actions of a constructive character. The United States is uniquely positioned to lead the effort. We cannot just do anything we want, as the Iraqi situation demonstrates, but nothing much can be done in the way of international cooperation without the leadership-or at least the participation-of the United States."
So the United States is "uniquely positioned" to "lead the effort" to rid the world of evil, but we need the permission of everyone else in order to act. In other words, the United Nations.
Of particuler interest is that here Soros endorses "preventive actions", meaning that he agrees with George W. Bush that pre-emptive measures must be taken.
It is fascinating to realize that even a liberal flack like Soros apparently knows that the UN is for all intents and purposes, dead. Otherwise why dress it up in new clothes and pretend it is a "third way" to approach international disagreements?
Lastly I must point out that Soros to the end is detached from reality. "We cannot just do anything we want, as the Iraqi situation demonstrates". While it is true that "we cannot just do anything we want" this is in no way demonstrated by the "Iraqi situation".
This piece was a disappointment to me. I had hoped that Soros would have something new to add to the opposition discourse. Instead I found a well written (I wonder which liberal wordmeister ghosted it for him?) but intellectually bankrupt rehashing of standard Democratic Party bromides.
If this is Soros' best shot, George W. Bush can rest easy. George Soros is no Ross Perot.
Saturday, December 27, 2003
The (Weak) Liberal Mind
I remember back in the late '70's how the Democrats tried to paint Ronald Reagan as some gunslinging cowboy who would engulf us in war on his second day in office.
Happily, the American people saw through the foolishness and twice elected Reagan as President. I thought of RR when I read this piece by Richard Reeves.
Reeves is drenched in his own drool as he hyper-ventilates about George W. Bush. To Reeves, GWB is an awful person and worse President, who has done nothing but chase off our allies and further entrench our enemies.
What is remarkable about Reeves' words are the utter lack of ANY and ALL context. Reeves just makes up this and that and then bashes President Bush for it. For instance Reeves says "The president is a bold, decisive and overconfident crusader, a self-righteous leader, a dangerous man. He changed the rules, ignoring the post-World War II history of alliances, multilateral institutions and containment." What facts does Reeves use here? If you answered "None" you would be close. He got "bold, decisive" right and nothing else.
How has Bush ignored "post-World War II history of alliances, multilateral institutions and containment" ?
We have the help of numerous allies in Iraq. Japan, Britain, Spain, Poland, and Australia to name five off the top of my head. So that is Reeves' Lie #1.
We repeatedly tried to utilize the ultimate "multilateral institution", the United Nations, going through the laborious process for twelve years and umpteen "resolutions". So that is Reeves' Lie #2.
We appealed to Saddam Hussein over and over to do the right thing. We put him under a decade long embargo, chased him back inside his own borders, used no-fly zones etc, to "contain" him. None of it worked. That is Reeves' Lie #3.
One paragraph, three lies.
Liberals like Reeves have no respect for truth. Their only concern is attacking those with whom they have political differences. Reeves dislikes the use of the American Military, therefore he lies and obfuscates, pretending that George W. Bush is some satanic combination of Nero and Napoleon.
I remember back in the late '70's how the Democrats tried to paint Ronald Reagan as some gunslinging cowboy who would engulf us in war on his second day in office.
Happily, the American people saw through the foolishness and twice elected Reagan as President. I thought of RR when I read this piece by Richard Reeves.
Reeves is drenched in his own drool as he hyper-ventilates about George W. Bush. To Reeves, GWB is an awful person and worse President, who has done nothing but chase off our allies and further entrench our enemies.
What is remarkable about Reeves' words are the utter lack of ANY and ALL context. Reeves just makes up this and that and then bashes President Bush for it. For instance Reeves says "The president is a bold, decisive and overconfident crusader, a self-righteous leader, a dangerous man. He changed the rules, ignoring the post-World War II history of alliances, multilateral institutions and containment." What facts does Reeves use here? If you answered "None" you would be close. He got "bold, decisive" right and nothing else.
How has Bush ignored "post-World War II history of alliances, multilateral institutions and containment" ?
We have the help of numerous allies in Iraq. Japan, Britain, Spain, Poland, and Australia to name five off the top of my head. So that is Reeves' Lie #1.
We repeatedly tried to utilize the ultimate "multilateral institution", the United Nations, going through the laborious process for twelve years and umpteen "resolutions". So that is Reeves' Lie #2.
We appealed to Saddam Hussein over and over to do the right thing. We put him under a decade long embargo, chased him back inside his own borders, used no-fly zones etc, to "contain" him. None of it worked. That is Reeves' Lie #3.
One paragraph, three lies.
Liberals like Reeves have no respect for truth. Their only concern is attacking those with whom they have political differences. Reeves dislikes the use of the American Military, therefore he lies and obfuscates, pretending that George W. Bush is some satanic combination of Nero and Napoleon.
Friday, December 26, 2003
Soros Part 4
Next Soros frets about our Iraqi operations because, "there are more places than ever before where we might have legitimate need to project that power. North Korea is openly building nuclear weapons, and Iran is clandestinely doing so" .
So the real problem is that Bush should have invaded North Korea and Iran? But how much support could we expect from the UN on THOSE invasions? Along about here, Soros essentially leaves behind all attempts to be coherent and reveals himself to be (SURPRISE!) a common everyday Liberal Democrat. Therefore, anything Bush does is wrong, and anything he doesn't do is right.
Soros tells the reader that the war on terrorism is going badly and that in fact war is no way to end terrorism. "Police work" is what is needed. 9/11 should have been treated as a criminal act and implores us to "Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would not have invaded Iraq, and we would not have our military struggling to perform police work and getting shot at."
He fails to mention some other likely results of sending Joe Friday chasing after Bin Laden and friends. Things like ever increasing terror attacks on U.S. soil and militant Islam busting a collective gut laughing at the stupid Americans and their "police work".
"Military action requires an identifiable target, preferably a state. As a result the war on terrorism has been directed primarily against states harboring terrorists. Yet terrorists are by definition non-state actors, even if they are often sponsored by states."
This is of course absurd. Terrorists by definition seek to create terror. States can do this just as well, and often better, than "non-state actors"
Trying to follow Soros' reasoning is an exercise in futility that leads to general frustration and frequent outbreaks of the heebeejeebees. Basically the Soros tenet is as follows:
We shouldn't wage war against terrorists, because a war requires an opposing state, and terrorists CAN'T be opposing states, and even though they can be SPONSORED by opposing states who presumably you COULD wage war against, you still shouldn't wage war to fight terrorists because war requires an opposing state and terrorists and so forth.
Tomorrow the conclusion......
Next Soros frets about our Iraqi operations because, "there are more places than ever before where we might have legitimate need to project that power. North Korea is openly building nuclear weapons, and Iran is clandestinely doing so" .
So the real problem is that Bush should have invaded North Korea and Iran? But how much support could we expect from the UN on THOSE invasions? Along about here, Soros essentially leaves behind all attempts to be coherent and reveals himself to be (SURPRISE!) a common everyday Liberal Democrat. Therefore, anything Bush does is wrong, and anything he doesn't do is right.
Soros tells the reader that the war on terrorism is going badly and that in fact war is no way to end terrorism. "Police work" is what is needed. 9/11 should have been treated as a criminal act and implores us to "Imagine for a moment that September 11 had been treated as a crime. We would not have invaded Iraq, and we would not have our military struggling to perform police work and getting shot at."
He fails to mention some other likely results of sending Joe Friday chasing after Bin Laden and friends. Things like ever increasing terror attacks on U.S. soil and militant Islam busting a collective gut laughing at the stupid Americans and their "police work".
"Military action requires an identifiable target, preferably a state. As a result the war on terrorism has been directed primarily against states harboring terrorists. Yet terrorists are by definition non-state actors, even if they are often sponsored by states."
This is of course absurd. Terrorists by definition seek to create terror. States can do this just as well, and often better, than "non-state actors"
Trying to follow Soros' reasoning is an exercise in futility that leads to general frustration and frequent outbreaks of the heebeejeebees. Basically the Soros tenet is as follows:
We shouldn't wage war against terrorists, because a war requires an opposing state, and terrorists CAN'T be opposing states, and even though they can be SPONSORED by opposing states who presumably you COULD wage war against, you still shouldn't wage war to fight terrorists because war requires an opposing state and terrorists and so forth.
Tomorrow the conclusion......
Wednesday, December 24, 2003
Contemptible Judges
In recent days, two more egregious examples of liberal judicial law making. First, the ruling regarding snowmobiles in Yellowstone and now this one dealing with the Clean Air Act.
When liberals lose elections they don’t lick their wounds and try to figure out what went wrong. Instead they go to court where it is beyond easy to find a judge or three willing to stand the Constitution on its ear.
We have elected officials to make these policy decisions. Judges need to be taught to keep their damn opinion out of their opinions.
In recent days, two more egregious examples of liberal judicial law making. First, the ruling regarding snowmobiles in Yellowstone and now this one dealing with the Clean Air Act.
When liberals lose elections they don’t lick their wounds and try to figure out what went wrong. Instead they go to court where it is beyond easy to find a judge or three willing to stand the Constitution on its ear.
We have elected officials to make these policy decisions. Judges need to be taught to keep their damn opinion out of their opinions.
SOROS PART 3
Soros continues: “ The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the Bush doctrine, and it has turned out to be counterproductive. A chasm has opened between America and the rest of the world.”
As proof of this assertion Soros states:
“The United Nations promptly endorsed punitive U.S. action against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. A little more than a year later the United States could not secure a UN resolution to endorse the invasion of Iraq.”
He goes on the mention elections in Germany and South Korea, but boiled down to the nut, his point is that when the U.S. and the UN disagree, the U.S. is wrong.
Next Soros launches into a boring and unsuccessful attempt to relate economic “bubbles” to current events. He confidently says, “The quest for American supremacy qualifies as a bubble. The dominant position the United States occupies in the world is the element of reality that is being distorted. The proposition that the United States will be better off if it uses its position to impose its values and interests everywhere is the misconception. It is exactly by not abusing its power that America attained its current position.”
Here again you will notice important disconnects between sentences. Under Soros’ magical touch, America’s “dominant position” morphs into America “abusing its power”.
Soros asks “Where are we in this boom-bust process? The deteriorating situation in Iraq is either the moment of truth or a test that, if it is successfully overcome, will only reinforce the trend.”
This is neatly put. Under The Rules According to Soros, if Iraq blows up in George Bush’s face, he deserved it. If instead the Iraqi occupation works out fine, then it only leads us further into the quagmire. From atop Mount Soros the oracle has spoken: George Bush can never be right, only temporarily lucky.
Soros never shies away from stating opinion as fact. “Whatever the justification for removing Saddam Hussein, there can be no doubt that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses.” Like Ross Perot, Soros lives in a world where his conclusions equal truth.
But now Soros completely runs off the tracks of reality by asserting that “The gap between the Administration's expectations and the actual state of affairs could not be wider. It is difficult to think of a recent military operation that has gone so wrong.”
Where does this man get his information? James Carville and The New York Times?
To Be Continued....
Soros continues: “ The invasion of Iraq was the first practical application of the Bush doctrine, and it has turned out to be counterproductive. A chasm has opened between America and the rest of the world.”
As proof of this assertion Soros states:
“The United Nations promptly endorsed punitive U.S. action against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. A little more than a year later the United States could not secure a UN resolution to endorse the invasion of Iraq.”
He goes on the mention elections in Germany and South Korea, but boiled down to the nut, his point is that when the U.S. and the UN disagree, the U.S. is wrong.
Next Soros launches into a boring and unsuccessful attempt to relate economic “bubbles” to current events. He confidently says, “The quest for American supremacy qualifies as a bubble. The dominant position the United States occupies in the world is the element of reality that is being distorted. The proposition that the United States will be better off if it uses its position to impose its values and interests everywhere is the misconception. It is exactly by not abusing its power that America attained its current position.”
Here again you will notice important disconnects between sentences. Under Soros’ magical touch, America’s “dominant position” morphs into America “abusing its power”.
Soros asks “Where are we in this boom-bust process? The deteriorating situation in Iraq is either the moment of truth or a test that, if it is successfully overcome, will only reinforce the trend.”
This is neatly put. Under The Rules According to Soros, if Iraq blows up in George Bush’s face, he deserved it. If instead the Iraqi occupation works out fine, then it only leads us further into the quagmire. From atop Mount Soros the oracle has spoken: George Bush can never be right, only temporarily lucky.
Soros never shies away from stating opinion as fact. “Whatever the justification for removing Saddam Hussein, there can be no doubt that we invaded Iraq on false pretenses.” Like Ross Perot, Soros lives in a world where his conclusions equal truth.
But now Soros completely runs off the tracks of reality by asserting that “The gap between the Administration's expectations and the actual state of affairs could not be wider. It is difficult to think of a recent military operation that has gone so wrong.”
Where does this man get his information? James Carville and The New York Times?
To Be Continued....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)