That President Obama would probably have lost the vote on his Syria plan even in the absence of outside interference says something about him as a planner. That he couldn't get his wife and daughters behind it says something about him as a persuader.
When an American president advocates violence in brief, simplistic, and moralistic terms, you know we've got trouble.
But as soon as those far-sighted statesmen Vlad "The Impaler" Putin and Bashar "The Mad Gasser" Assad proposed putting Assad's poison gas under international control, the many in Congress who wanted to resist administration pressure had their excuse to do so and the plan had to be dropped. Of course, we've been snookered. If Assad isn't in power a year from now, it won't be thanks to us. And if he is, you can figure that, despite Mr. Obama's threats, he'll still be sitting on that gas, while we will have lost our opportunity to strike at him; that's a souffle that wouldn't rise once, let alone twice.
Last time, I listed Elizabeth Warren among the war hawks. That was because of something she said. I see she was officially on the fence. And I mentioned last time that Connecticut's Chris Murphy was the only young Democrat I could think of off-hand who's a reliable progressive. Hawaii's appointed senator, Brian Schatz, also 40 and also against the attack, appears to be in that category, as well. A Murphy-Schatz ticket in '16 would be too much to hope for.
Czar Putin is no friend to us or to democracy, but this time he had to do us a good turn in order to do us a bad one. And our folly is assisting his geopolitical ambitions.
Putin isn't a sort who'd want to be confined by an ideology, but he seems to have decided that having one will keep his faction motivated. So he has signed on to the unfortunate worldview of a 51-year-old "traditionalist" Russian philosopher named Alexander Dugin. Picture at https://www.facebook.com/agdugin
Dugin is popular, especially among lovers of atavism. He's anti-Western, pro-empire, pro-Orthodox Church, pro-collectivism (fond of both communism and fascism), and pro-"Russian soul". He's either a fanatic or an opportunist, I figure most likely the latter.
Dugin is slightly reminiscent of Rasputin, except that he's less liberal and neither willing nor able to stop anyone's bleeding.
Dugin and Putin are bad news, together or apart. Dugin may find that, once the tyrant has made it known that he agrees with you, disagreeing with him is a bad career move.
And we in America, though our next crisis will be upon us soon enough, can rejoice for the moment that we finally have a president too inept to get us into the needless war that he wants.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Friday, September 6, 2013
SEARING SYRIA
Hello again. I have a few things I want to say, and reviving this blog for the moment is probably the most efficient way of getting them out.
First, it seems the president wants to get us into another war. You may have thought he knew better. I did.
But live and learn. What's really going on is of course not something we'll be told presently.
If we do a hit-and-run on an already devastated Syria, I don't know what we accomplish. Probably we strengthen our enemies and invite more terrorist attacks on ourselves. I do know that I never again want to hear an American leader talk about punishing another country or teaching it a lesson or injuring it to send a message to other countries. All of that is bogus, anyway.
Mr. Obama was reportedly alarmed when David Cameron went to his usually compliant Parliament for permission to join the party and got smacked down. I wish him the same from our Congress.
And what's with Secretary of State John Forbes Kerry? He isn't even recognizable as the fellow who ran for president. Who is this stone face with the mean, lifeless little eyes? And how can he be so shameless as to compare not arbitrarily attacking another country to "Munich"? He sounds and acts altogether like George W. Bush.
The one benefit of this episode is that we learn where the Democrats who want to be president really stand.
Hillary, Biden, and Elizabeth Warren are for this adventure. That's all I'd need to know about them.
Other heroes are being very quiet but will have to open up about it sooner or later.
Christopher Scott Murphy doesn't seem like a hero. He's a 40-year-old United States senator from Connecticut, of Irish and Polish ancestry. He looks and sounds like everybody. He's soft-spoken and modest in manner, not a rock star, more likable than charismatic. Picture at: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ3w2IrHgsCWcEYqYCyfc0_Ajwxb3svQFT-wucjZT6mjGI7SjcqdFeLE9H3Sm766EwKiTOFybPscUethlFMifP5NkisJdR89nP27yx0VhytimvctaCOT024feq39rxSJ8aoEdaKMi_kPs/s200/Chris+Murphy.jpg&imgrefurl=http://ctstatepolitics.blogspot.com/2012/01/chris-murphy-has-g-page.html&h=266&w=190&sz=1&tbnid=Zp2u8sOJ--bxAM:&tbnh=186&tbnw=132&zoom=1&usg=__BCMndMZeysXBxVG_bkPYA4ax5Ug=&docid=IzuU6Uh7ZEaa7M&itg=1&sa=X&ei=qc4pUt6vJ_PE4APClYCoCQ&ved=0CJQBEPwdMAo
But he is being heroic. He has said firmly in his undramatic way that he's against this. He's also the only young Democrat I can think of offhand who's a consistent progressive and not a weasel.
And his political history is heroic. He gave up a safe state representative seat for a risky run for the state senate against a strong Republican incumbent. He gave up that senate seat, which he had made safe, for a risky run at a Congressional seat against long-invincible Republican Nancy Johnson. He gave up that House seat, which he had made safe, for a risky run at the U.S. Senate. He has won every time - and won big every time.
If I had to choose a Democratic presidential candidate right now, it would be Chris Murphy. No indication that he's running. But he might look at the field and conclude that he has to.
We've had 43-year-old presidents, and they were popular and are well-regarded by historians: TR and JFK.
Murphy may strike us as a kid, but he has 3 years of tough votes and high pressure to mature into a commander-in-chief, if he's going to.
We're a long way from being sure now who the candidates will be or what '16 will bring. But we can be more sure than before what the issues should be.
First, it seems the president wants to get us into another war. You may have thought he knew better. I did.
But live and learn. What's really going on is of course not something we'll be told presently.
If we do a hit-and-run on an already devastated Syria, I don't know what we accomplish. Probably we strengthen our enemies and invite more terrorist attacks on ourselves. I do know that I never again want to hear an American leader talk about punishing another country or teaching it a lesson or injuring it to send a message to other countries. All of that is bogus, anyway.
Mr. Obama was reportedly alarmed when David Cameron went to his usually compliant Parliament for permission to join the party and got smacked down. I wish him the same from our Congress.
And what's with Secretary of State John Forbes Kerry? He isn't even recognizable as the fellow who ran for president. Who is this stone face with the mean, lifeless little eyes? And how can he be so shameless as to compare not arbitrarily attacking another country to "Munich"? He sounds and acts altogether like George W. Bush.
The one benefit of this episode is that we learn where the Democrats who want to be president really stand.
Hillary, Biden, and Elizabeth Warren are for this adventure. That's all I'd need to know about them.
Other heroes are being very quiet but will have to open up about it sooner or later.
Christopher Scott Murphy doesn't seem like a hero. He's a 40-year-old United States senator from Connecticut, of Irish and Polish ancestry. He looks and sounds like everybody. He's soft-spoken and modest in manner, not a rock star, more likable than charismatic. Picture at: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgZ3w2IrHgsCWcEYqYCyfc0_Ajwxb3svQFT-wucjZT6mjGI7SjcqdFeLE9H3Sm766EwKiTOFybPscUethlFMifP5NkisJdR89nP27yx0VhytimvctaCOT024feq39rxSJ8aoEdaKMi_kPs/s200/Chris+Murphy.jpg&imgrefurl=http://ctstatepolitics.blogspot.com/2012/01/chris-murphy-has-g-page.html&h=266&w=190&sz=1&tbnid=Zp2u8sOJ--bxAM:&tbnh=186&tbnw=132&zoom=1&usg=__BCMndMZeysXBxVG_bkPYA4ax5Ug=&docid=IzuU6Uh7ZEaa7M&itg=1&sa=X&ei=qc4pUt6vJ_PE4APClYCoCQ&ved=0CJQBEPwdMAo
But he is being heroic. He has said firmly in his undramatic way that he's against this. He's also the only young Democrat I can think of offhand who's a consistent progressive and not a weasel.
And his political history is heroic. He gave up a safe state representative seat for a risky run for the state senate against a strong Republican incumbent. He gave up that senate seat, which he had made safe, for a risky run at a Congressional seat against long-invincible Republican Nancy Johnson. He gave up that House seat, which he had made safe, for a risky run at the U.S. Senate. He has won every time - and won big every time.
If I had to choose a Democratic presidential candidate right now, it would be Chris Murphy. No indication that he's running. But he might look at the field and conclude that he has to.
We've had 43-year-old presidents, and they were popular and are well-regarded by historians: TR and JFK.
Murphy may strike us as a kid, but he has 3 years of tough votes and high pressure to mature into a commander-in-chief, if he's going to.
We're a long way from being sure now who the candidates will be or what '16 will bring. But we can be more sure than before what the issues should be.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)