Comments Posted By michael reynolds
Displaying 231 To 240 Of 839 Comments
WILL WE MAKE HEZBALLAH ANOTHER 'PARTNER FOR PEACE?'
John:
Of course it wasn't all planned during the Bush administration. I was reminding you of the repeated, massive foreign policy failure of the GOP, and of our unwillingness to be lectured by people who brought nothing but damage to this country.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 25.10.2009 @ 21:48
John:
The fact that conservatives studiously avoid admitting that Ronald Reagan was the first president to kowtow to terrorists -- terrorists whose attack on the Marines was the worst terror attack against the US up to that point, and the greatest one day loss of Marines since WW2 -- does not speak to current events.
But it speaks to the unearned arrogance and swagger of a party whose leadership not only rolled over for Hezbollah then, but failed to prevent 911, failed to capture Osama Bin Laden, botched the longer term war in Afghanistan and then failed on an epic scale in Iraq.
The assumption that Republicans have anything useful to say on war or on foreign policy did not survive the failures of 8 years of Republican rule.
This is typical manufactured outrage.
The GOP badly needs to distract from the fact that it has snatched defeat from the jaws of victory on health care. And from the fact that while Obama's numbers climb, the GOP Congress is polling at roughly half what the Democrats score.
So now Rick faithfully trots out the latest weary nonsense intended to prove that Barack Obama is weak, naive, anti-American, and the rest of the usual slanders from the party that failed, despite dragging this nation into the loathsome swamp of torture, to deliver Osama, or to win in Iraq, or to stabilize Afghanistan, or to stop North Korea from going nuclear, or to interrupt Iran's nuclear plans, or to stop genocide in Sudan, or indeed to accomplish a single foreign policy goal unless you wish to count agreeing to guarantee job security for Moamar Qaddafi in exchange for his promise not to develop weapons he had no capacity to make.
Manufactured outrage. No doubt it will set the GOP's intellectual leader, Glen Beck, to weeping.
Barack Obama is not anti-American. I have never said that and have defended him from that charge.
You obviously have no knowledge of Lebanon, the internal politics of that country, or anything I wrote about. I say obviously because you have failed to address any of it intelligently. Reagan made a mistake in sending those Marines to Lebanon. The military was criminally negligent to house them in a single structure, guarded by two men, so that a suicide truck bomb was able to drive right into the hotel lobby.
But why bring it up anyway? Because you don't have the knowledge to defend Obama intelligently. So you fling feces against the wall, demonstrating your towering ignorance.
Why comment at all? I try to logically, coherently lay out our options with regard to Hezballah and all you can talk about is Reagan. That's moronic. And partisan.
Yes, Obama is demonstrably naive to anyone who knows anything about Hezballah. If he intends to take them off the terrorist group list he risks severely undercutting the Sunnis whose hold on power is precarious at best. Everyone who knows anything about Lebanon is aware of this. Why isn't Obama? Why aren't you?
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 25.10.2009 @ 15:36
You know what other name is missing both from your post and Mr. Rubin's? Can anyone guess?
Who was the president who responded to that terrorist attack by cutting and running?
And then made a back door deal with the Iranians who at very least helped to pull the trigger on those 241 Marines?
Who was the president who established that pattern of cravenness that encouraged future terrorism?
Anyone remember?
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 25.10.2009 @ 12:21
OBAMA'S RENEWABLE ENERGY POLICY IS THE RIGHT APPROACH
But the president’s emphasis on developing these technologies is spot on. And, I think to a very large degree, his approach is a sound one
I don't know who has seized control of this blog but I want you to know we won't stop until we get Moran back safe.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.10.2009 @ 16:49
WAR ON FOX OR BUSINESS AS USUAL?
Moose:
It's true that like Batman and Bruce Wayne we are never seen in the same place at the same time. But that's more about concerns that no floor could support our combined weight.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 24.10.2009 @ 10:08
Neo:
If Mr. Obama is a paranoid narcissist then so was Mr. Bush. I thought he was just an idiot and an incompetent. But if you insist on adding paranoia and narcissism to his CV, I guess I can live with that.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.10.2009 @ 22:04
One other point: Rupert Murdoch. (Full disclosure, he pays my bills.) The man doesn't see himself as anyone's tool.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.10.2009 @ 19:46
Thanks, TL, for trying to give me some cover, but Rick is right, I'm serious. I think the Bush attack on CNN worked in this way: it demonstrated the weakness of the media. It showed that CNN could simply be dismissed and there wasn't a damned thing CNN could do about it. It was a loss of face, a loss of a sense of importance and irreplaceability.
The loss of access may not damage either CNN or Fox in direct economic terms, but it damages their prestige and their amour propre.
And in the case of Fox I think it limits their growth potential. Fox is making a nice pile of money, and it's winning in the ratings. But by defining them as a GOP house organ Obama limits them to that role. As you may have noticed, about 20% of the population is favorably disposed to the GOP.
I think it's all at the margins, and not a terribly important thing one way or the other, but linking Fox directly to a political party currently popular only in the South and Mountain states, is probably helpful.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.10.2009 @ 19:00
I actually think the Bush White House did some serious, lasting damage to CNN by isolating them and dismissing them. I don't think CNN has recovered yet.
I think the Obama WH will have the same effect on Fox. They'll isolate them as the house organ of the GOP. They will deprive them of legitimacy.
The battle is not over true believers: the Left watches MSNBC, the Right watches Fox. The issue is the middle, the persuadables. This makes it less likely that Fox -- and therefore the GOP -- can reach moderates. They're putting Fox in a basket with Limbaugh and slapping on a label that says, "Right Wing Wackos."
I think it's a smart move made necessary by the facts: Fox is the house organ of the GOP. If Obama got an endorsement from Jesus Christ Fox would still attack him. So Obama loses absolutely nothing by isolating Fox, and he does some small damage to Fox and their parent company, the GOP.
Don't see how you can "isolate" a network on 180 million TV sets. And CNN "not recovered?" From what? Do you think their ratings slide is due to Bush? Sorry, don't see it.
It's easy to put Rush in the "wacko" league. But much harder when the Fox anchors and most on air personalities (yes there are exceptions) are reasonable, and appear to be sane.
I still think this is weird.
ed.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 23.10.2009 @ 12:43
Bravo!
An absolutely excellent piece, Rick, with some absolutely excellent links.
The problem is with the audience. The audience doesn't want to be made uncomfortable. The audience doesn't want to be challenged. The audience was to be soothed and reassured and comforted.
So they demand that their prejudices be confirmed. They demand that their every belief be ratified. This isn't just a cable news phenomenon, it's pervasive in our society.
We are at a point in history when our intellectual life has already been massively unsettled by technological advancement. The printing press brought the gospel to the common man and undercut the power of the priests. The camera brought pictures of war to the widows and raised questions about political and military leadership. Radio and then television and satellites allowed us to hear and see events far from our own lives and challenged the comforts of tribalism.
The internet combines all of those technologies with an always-there availability, and an individual programming capability that allows us to choose entirely for ourselves what we will or will not see. At this time in history critical thinking, a basic grounding in epistemology, and some moral foundation in the central value of truth, is absolutely vital.
Our schools don't teach it, parents don't demand it (rather the opposite)and our intelligentsia actively participates in subverting critical thinking and a devotion to truth, choosing instead to pander for money.
Comment Posted By michael reynolds On 22.10.2009 @ 11:05
