Comments Posted By kreiz
Displaying 81 To 90 Of 127 Comments
Easy on the Wichita reference. It's hot enough here already.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 3.10.2006 @ 14:55
WASHINGTON TIMES TO HASTERT: RESIGN NOW
Very interesting analysis, Rick; can't disagree with a thing you've written. About the only cogent argument these guys have left is "Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Conyers". Obviously, that doesn't address the Party's fiscal mismanagement or its lack of leadership. On the plus side, our Constitution has a wonderful way of remedying these situations, despite the shortcomings of the people who serve it.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 3.10.2006 @ 08:32
BILL CLINTON AND THE BIAS OF FOX NEWS
Clinton was an exceedingly timid president. His finger was always in the air, trying to read the fickle winds of political popularity. In contrast to his successor, he spent precious little political capital. Now, he's trying to remake himself as an activist, held back only by his political opponents (who, ironically, helped Clinton in his few accomplishments: NAFTA and welfare.) We're in the middle of a political makeover not seen since Nixon. Bill's got his eye on the prize: history books in place of opinion polls.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 23.09.2006 @ 20:25
You beat me to it, Neo. I saw Harris' article at "American Future", and was just going to provide a link. Two quotes jumped out at me:
"Given the degree to which religious ideas are still sheltered from criticism in every society, it is actually possible for a person to have the economic and intellectual resources to build a nuclear bomb — and to believe that he will get 72 virgins in paradise. And yet, despite abundant evidence to the contrary, liberals continue to imagine that Muslim terrorism springs from economic despair, lack of education and American militarism."
"Unfortunately, liberals hate the current administration with such fury that they regularly fail to acknowledge just how dangerous and depraved our enemies in the Muslim world are."
Comment Posted By kreiz On 20.09.2006 @ 10:19
I reached this conclusion 6 months ago. There's no good solution. Maintaining the status quo is feasible (we can do it for a long time) but pointless- it's not attaining our goals. Leaving will be horrific- handing a victory to radical crazies everywhere. Doubling up is not a meaningful option politically or militarily- let's be honest. Powell, Scowcroft, Baker- the Bush 41 realists- were the grownups. They understood a simple proposition: in the Middle East, just when you think you've hit rock bottom, there's always something worse. Cf. Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The real ME threat vis-a-vis the United States remains economic, not military, at least for the next decade.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 21.08.2006 @ 06:03
AN UNSCHOLARLY, NON-LAWYERLY OPINION ON THE NSA DECISION
What's most puzzling to me is that the Administration has spurned its natural political allies . The ACLU v. NSA Court notes that "in enacting FISA, Congress made numerous concessions to stated executive needs. They include delaying the applications for warrants until after surveillance has begun for several types of exigencies, reducing the probable cause requirement to a less stringent standard, provision of a single court of judicial experts, and extension of the duration of approved wiretaps from 30 days to 90 day term." ACLU surmises that "the wiretapping program ... has undisputedly been implemented withtout regard to FISA..."
Given Congress' willingness to play ball with the Executive branch and given judicial expansionism in issuing warrants, why has the Administration isolated itself from its allies? It appears to be intransigence for intransigence sake- totally mystifying, especially for a bunch that prides itself on being politically astute. Dumb politics and questionable policy. I don't understand.
One minor point- you're spot on in noting that no one knows how the program works. Lots of speculation, of course. But the facts need to be garnered before we delve into questions of unconstitutionality.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 20.08.2006 @ 07:49
THE OLD WISE MAN AND THE NUTCASE
But there's plenty of criticism to go around, as Stanley Kurtz at NRO notes:
"If liberals are lost in wishful thinking about the prospects of negotiated settlements and nuclear containment, conservatives are naive about the possibility of ending terror by a decisive military blow. Gerges is right that Hezbollah is not some finite terror force, but the expression of the will and aspirations of a massive portion of the Lebanese people. As such, it is unlikely to be bombed out of existence."
The same principle applies to Iran.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 10.08.2006 @ 05:40
John Derbyshire recently observed that wishful thinking, not love, hate or greed, is the most persistent human characteristic. My biggest criticism of liberalism is its tendency to indulge in wishful thinking. Here, we are indulging in the worst kind of fantasy, hoping against hope that a fanatically religious Iranian government will respond to rational cues, ignoring rhetoric (and actions) to the contrary. A child denies or ignores facts, hoping they will go away. We're engaged in child-like behavior.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 10.08.2006 @ 04:30
BUSH, BLAIR CALL FOR MUTUAL CEASE FIRE
My own estimate, based on Israel’s timetable for destroying Hizbullah, is 3-4 weeks. This is the first time I've heard such an optimistic assessment, Rick. Frankly, I'm skeptical. Can you steer me to a primary source? Given the nature of radical Islam (an internal belief), how can Hiz be destroyed militarily unless all of its believers are killed? If you're saying that Hez can be severely crippled for a time, I get that. Otherwise, I'm confused.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 29.07.2006 @ 05:24
Dragging the United States into this conflict by taking the opportunity to bomb Iran is, frankly, a ridiculous notion. Spot on, Rick.
Comment Posted By kreiz On 16.07.2006 @ 17:43
