Comments Posted By John
Displaying 81 To 90 Of 120 Comments
COMING HOME. BUT AT WHAT PRICE?
Where Iran erred, in terms of a long-term strategy, was in taking British hostages instead of Americans. While Blair and Great Britain are seen by the left as George Bush's poodle, you really can't gin up the worldwide hatred of the Brits the way you can Bush and the Americans (the truly lame efforts by some media outlets and bloggers on the left to try and blame Bush for the entire thing showed how weak the Iranians' hand was, as far as trying to stretch this thing out into a long-term strategy, the way they did back in 1979 with Carter).
On the other hand, it wouldn't be a surprise if Iran does try to commandeer some American troops as hostages in the near future, either through some similar sort of Persian Gulf action or (more likely) via some patrol ambush/kidnap effort along the Iran-Iraq border. Given the far left's Rosie O'Donnell-like ability to believe Ahmadinejad over Blair in the just concluded crisis, even when Iran's own release on the location of the Gulf incident put the navy troops in Iraqi waters, they'll lap up any claim Iran makes against American troops if they were to be abducted and taken to Tehran.
Comment Posted By John On 4.04.2007 @ 22:43
DEMS NEW INDUSTRIAL STRATEGY: MANUFACTURING SCANDAL
Well, Clinton had the newly-appointed Reno fire all the U.S. attorneys right in the middle of the ATF standoff with the Branch Davidins, which was to say the least, a bit of a distraction (you'd at least think they would have kept the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas -- which includes Waco -- on the job for prosecutorial continuity, considering the high-profile of the compound standoff at the time).
Comment Posted By John On 14.03.2007 @ 22:36
Just putting aside the civility aspect for a moment; from a strategic standpoint, blindly supporting whatever Coulter says is a disaster in waiting for conservatives, because as much as there may be talk radio, and weblogs, and podcasts, and other new ways of getting the conservative message out there, the fact remains conservatives do not control the media.
You can whine, pout, kick, scream, hold your breath and pound your fists on the floor while yelling that The New York Times, the major networks or the news weeklies don't matter any more because people have alternative access, but they still do, because not everyone is a political junkie and seeks out alternative news sources. And what the big media outlets are going to take out of CPAC, thanks to Ann's bon mot, is nothing about what happened at the conference other than Coulter dropped the alternative f-bomb, and because she was at CPAC, that means that CPAC attendees must support her comment. Not fair, but that's the spin that is going to come out of the meeting (and fortunately, since most people aren't political junkies, this comment will have little or no effect on the 2008 election. But a Coulter comment next year in a prominent setting could be the equivalent of Pat Buchanan's 1992 speech at the RNC convention. Reagan spoke after Pat, but the media downplayed his remarks and zoned in on Pat's comments and made them the so-called voice of the GOP going into the general election).
Michelle Malkin, who stirs up hatred from the left almost as badly as Coulter does, lays into Ann in a post this morning, questioning not only the effect of her statement, but why Coulter thought standing on a podium in front of hundreds of people at CPAC was an appropriate place to use that word. It will be interesting to see if Malkin comes under the same fire for not being a "true conservative" now that she's taken Ann to the woodshed for hijacking the CPAC meeting with her remark. And she also shows Sean Hannity (Coulter's biggest on-air media supporter), pretty much at a loss for words when asked his remarks on her statement.
I assume Fox is stuck with running Coulter's pre-taped bit tonight on their "Half-hour News Hour", but it will be interesting to see how they deal with her over the next couple of nights, either by calling her out on her comment or by giving her a pass and serving as an enabler for future comments that help her book sales, but hurt the chances of those she supposedly wants to see in office.
Comment Posted By John On 4.03.2007 @ 15:25
Rick, if you want to get Ann Coulter off of TV and away from the public spotlight, the best way would be to find some metabolism-altering drug that would make her gain about 300 pounds in a couple of months.
Ann's basically a cross between Anna Nicole Smith and Terrell Owens in that her looks get her invited into the TV party (the left's adam's apple sniping is pretty lame when you compare all the physical insults the right has to work with when commenting on folks like Bill Mahr or Michael Moore), and her outrageousness provides that TV ratings jolt that the execs crave. A Coulter without the outrageousness would be just another blond face with conservative views, ready to be pushed aside when a younger spokesperson comes along. On the other hand, an in-your-face Ann with the body of a bigger Rosie O'Donnell would only get on Fox if she peered through the glass on Sixth Ave. while the cameras were on Steve, Brian and Gretchen during the morning show.
I don't doubt Coulter believes in the conservative viewpoint -- Ann could make far more money if she were to "grow" and make the trip across the ideological spectrum, the way Arianna Huffington did in 2000 -- but if you had to rate what she believes is important, No. 1 would be the financial well-being of the Ann Coulter franchise. No. 2 would actually be getting conservatives elected to office or boosting the influence of groups like CPAC in getting candidates they support into office. And judging by some of the responses this morning to the thread on Lucianne.com about GOP candidates criticising her remarks, she understands that there's a pretty good sized contingent out there that wants the red meat thrown out there for immediate gratification, because they either don't understand or don't care that in the current big media climate, anything controversal a conservative says is far more likely to be taken as a generalization of all conservatives than something a liberal like Mahr says about killing Dick Cheney will be pushed as evidence that all liberal want Cheney assassinated.
Comment Posted By John On 4.03.2007 @ 11:40
SANDY BERGER AND THE NEVERENDING STORY
Personally I am not surprise about the Justice department's response. Many probably do not remember or care that all Justice dept lawyers, etc. were fired by the Clintons and had to reapply (Republicans, etc need not apply). This killed any and all investigations into the Clinton's shenanigans in Arkansas, plus, now investigations into Clinton cronies. Political appointees true to their colors
Comment Posted By John On 21.02.2007 @ 18:44
ANTI-WAR PROTEST: WHERE IS EVERYONE?
Just a Brit passing by..
Judging by the state of affiars here I think there is a need to go over it once again from the top...
1) A crude military intervention by the United States has led to a predictable nationalist insurgency.
I would assume that most people take for granted that the occupation is being undertaken in a crude and incompetent way. However if you require references then see for example US military advisor Ahmed S Hashim 2006 ‘Insurgency and Counter Insurgency in Iraq’ published by Hurst & Company.
Or if you want a quick visual flavour of the US army winning hearts and minds check out this short clip of a humvee driving in traffic in Baghdad.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8f93275ed9
(no strong or unpleasant images just a humvee driving)If you need reminding that violent episodes in Iraq are, at least up to available records, still overwhelming aimed at Occupation forces then see this US military report from June 2006
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06428t.pdfTo quote:
“New data reveal, surprisingly, that the vast majority of the Iraqi insurgents' attacks are still aimed not at Iraqi security forces or at civilians, but rather at U.S. and coalition troops. In other words, as much as was the case a year or two ago, the Iraqi insurgency is primarily an anti-occupation insurgencyâ€.
Check out the graph on page 8. What is difficult to understand about this?
2) If you have no popular base you have to do deals with whomever you can buy or co-opt. This has the cumulative effect of fostering deeper divisions between communities, militias, ethnic groups.
Given that B52 liberals like Nick Cohen and Christopher Hitchens et al are for defence of enlightenment thinking and accuse the left of pandering to Islamo fascism how do they position themselves with regard to the Islamic groups currently in the US camp? For example this clip claims to show Badr brigade leader Hakim working himself into a state of agitation.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=cb395b51b2&p=1here is his brother and successor with Bush a few months back:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=2698740&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312Remind me again how this war against Sadam’s secular dictatorship was actually part of a wider fight against fundamentalist Islam?
3) You can’t bomb people into democracy. The future of the Middle East lies with grass roots political movements. Two thirds of the worlds oil is in the Middle East yet most people in the region live in relative poverty. When democracy comes it will challenge US dominated terms of trade.
4) The Iraq war was the biggest no brainer for the progressive global left since the 2nd World War. That is why the biggest global and UK protests in history took place. Where opposition parties have been available to harness this anger government after government has either fallen or been forced to pull out. If you need of a reminder of how many country’s have pulled out please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multinational_force_in_Iraq
5) In the UK the party that would have traditionally provided an outlet for the anger and dismay was in government and perpetrating the crime. Thus the fragmentation of the Labour vote has begun. Witness the wholly unremarkable constituency of pro war Labour MP Andrew Smith in Oxford East where several council seats in his ward have already been lost to the IWCA the Greens. Even the anti war party Respect took 13% where it stood:
IWCA: http://www.iwca-oxford.org.uk/
GREENS: http://www.greenoxford.com
RESPECT: http://oxfordrespectinformation.blogspot.com/Good to see the US anti war movement back on its feet! Not sure about the capacity of the Democrats to articulate the will of the anti war majority but I guess your stuck with them.
thanks for listening cousins.
By the way you do realise that the cultural distance between middle america and europe is becoming vast don't you? I mean we just can't relate to you! you really should get out more. Believe it or not you are welcome, just leave your guns at home.
Comment Posted By John On 28.01.2007 @ 13:27
That really brought back some memories. Our "Friskie" past away last year at the ripe old age of 21. He now rests in our garden, underneath the catnip bush that he loved to just lay in. My wife always has flowers on the grave, poinsetta's for the Christmas season. 21 years....older than our daughter...longer than we've been married. He was a great listener! Never once did he tell my wife about my gripes ( or me about hers). His purring would make bad day into a good on. I'm glad he stayed as long as he did.
Comment Posted By John On 17.12.2006 @ 10:27
It will be very interesting to see how the media comes down on this, if Obama does decide to run and if the Clinton opposition research team goes into action. Prior to the current boomlet for Barak, conventional wisdom had the big media folks in the Clinton's pocket for the 2008 election, but that may not be the case -- at least until the Democratic nomination is decided.
There's already been one story put out in the weeks after the election questioning the ethics of some of Obama's Illinois associates, though not of the Senator himself. Research on it may or may not have been assisted by the Clinton camp, but if you're Hillary, you really do have to walk a fine line here due to the racial issue. Attack Barak too much and/or too directly, and even if you win the primary, you risk turning off black voters in November of '08, which would doom Mrs. Clinton's presidental hopes (a constant barrage of negative stories on Barak coming from Hillary's camp would also make a Clinton-Obama ticket exteremly problematic for the fall election).
The ideal strategy for Hillary would be to somehow get the Republicans to go on the attack first against Obama with any damaging opposition research, or at the very least, be able to blame Republicans for the attacks. That way, the damage is done, but Hillary's fingerprints are not on the knife and she can play the stateswoman in all this, and then turn the racial issue around to use against the Republicans in the general election. Whether the Republicans are smart enough to simply stand on the sidelines and let the media treat Obama like a movie star, as long as it hurts Mrs. Clinton more than it hurts them, remains to be seen.
Comment Posted By John On 12.12.2006 @ 10:40
OUR GOVERNMENT IS UNSERIOUS ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY
Given the current crop of senior House Democrats, Reyes is probably about as good as people can hope for as head of the committee. He won election in El Paso after retiring as head of the U.S. Border Patrol's sector there, where he was credited with stopping the tide of illegals that had been flooing into the city from Juarez though increased enforcement and, yes, establishment of a border fence in the metro area.
El Paso's also a major military city, with plans to expand the number of troops at Fort Bliss by 10,000 to 12,000. That means the local economy depends heavily on the base operations, which in turn means Reyes has to be a lot more pro-military than your average House Democrat, or risk being tossed by voters in 2008. That doesn't excuse his not knowing key items about the Middle East a long-term Intellegence Committee member should know, but he's still a far better option than Alcee Hastings would have been in the sam position.
Comment Posted By John On 10.12.2006 @ 23:48
THINGS AREN'T SO PEACHY FOR OUR ENEMIES EITHER
To Larry in LA:
The dems have a variety of plans to protect us from terrorist attacks? For five years I've asked my liberal friends to tell me what the dem plan is. I've recieved no answer.
The Pentagon plane flew so low over my head on 9/11 I could read American on the side of the plane, so PLEASE, take this opportunity to tell me what the dem plan is to defeat the terorists. Forgive me while I don't hold my breath until you "reach consensus."
Comment Posted By John On 22.11.2006 @ 09:54
