Stray Voltage
Al Sharpton must sniff a payoff somehere. He’s protesting in front of Bernie Madoff’s place.
Bill Press pushes for a redefinition of “public interest” to include making terrestrial radio stations carry a format that fails everywhere it is tried to the detriment, naturally, of one that succeeds.
After years of pandering to them, John McCain makes the staggering discovery that Democrats are no more bi-partisan than the GOP.
The Taliban release a video of them cutting off a Polish engineer’s head. The Obama administration mulls a change in strategy which would have them essentially abandon the Karzai government in Afghanistan and negotiate with the Taliban. And, unsurprisingly, some on the left just want to know why we’re still there.
Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics says there’s a good reason the “stimulus” bill is so big: “It’s just irresistible,” he said. “Congress says, ‘This is a freight train.’ They have to jump on because there might not be another for years.”.
The U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees suspended aid to the Gaza Strip on Friday? Why? Because representatives of the Palestinian’s government were stealing relief supplies from the UN. Well, at least, unlike ours, the Palestinian government makes no bones about what they are.
Smartphone sales were up 68% while iPhone sales topped 101% in 2008. No recession there.
Bush is gone but the left still can’t let him go. Will Ferrell demonstrates his case of BDS in a classless Broadway show. Yeah, I know, everyone’s a critic.
So how’s Obama doing so far? Well let this Brit clue you in.
While the US moves inexorably toward European-style socialism, Peter Hitchens, writes about the one nation fighting against it in Europe. Favorite quote:
In the modern world, the Left, who claim to be the romantic rebels and lovers of liberty, have become the dogmatic spokesmen of remote power. The Right, who are derided as supporters of dictatorship and closet ‘fascists’, are the real revolutionaries and romantics.
Enjoy.
~McQ
Same old .. same old .. at it’s worst.
listen to local station OBAMA 1260 AM.
***
And they wonder why they’re failing….
Hacks.
That was a good trade. Sullivan for Hitchens
So where are Pogue and Cap Sarcastic? I guess this whole thign is a little too embarrassing for anyone not seriously suffering from cognitive dissonance.
So why shouldn’t the US government do what VOA says Karzai has been trying to do for two years?
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-09/2008-09-30-voa10.cfm?CFID=112792435&CFTOKEN=89771622&jsessionid=de305f445f60c3cc0fb74f64306c50e285e4
As for abandoning Karzai, why should we deal with someone who, according to your cite, lies to our face? If the article is accurate, good on Biden for walking out of the dinner. Is there some reason we owe personal allegiance to Karzai?
How about he’s the legitimately elected head of the Afghan government – does that help any? Unless, of course, you feel we should be in the business of deciding that as well.
As for “lying”, that’s never happened before in politics, has it?
So, Obama wants to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan. Pretty soon the French will be calling us “Cheese-Whiz Eating Surrender Monkeys”
Mark my words. They are going to pull out precipitously from Iraq and Afghanistan, to the detriment of stability. Then when the economy gets worse, they will need something to distract the people with, so they will get involved in someplace we have no strategic interest in like Sudan, Kashmir, or Georgia.
Karzai may be the head of the Afghan government, but not the US government. The first duty of the US government is to look out after US interests, not those of Karzai or any other individual. It may or may not be in our interest to unconditionally support Karzai. I seem to recall similar calls for unconditional support for people like Musharraf and others, and predictions of catastrophe if we didn’t give them total loyalty. Basing our foreign policy on one person has proved embarrasing in the past, and I see no reason to do so now.
As for lying, it happens all the time, so what? We do not have to put up with it from someone who asks us to send our soldiers to die for him. In fact, someone who is stupid and arrogant enough to do so in the manner described doesn’t deserve our support. Character counts, you know, and I doubt that it is in our interests to have our foreign policy rely on such a person. He is, after all, attempting to negotiate with the enemy.
A) no one there “ask” us to send our soldiers to die for them. We invaded them, remember?
B) unless you’re willing to do what the Russians did and simply put a US puppet in place, Karzai is the only game in town. That means you work with him until he’s replaced or you leave.
C) no one is saying the support should be “unconditional”. Put all the conditions you want on it – but keep in mind, there’s an end game at stake and alienating the leader of the country puts you between a rock and hard place when trying to get what needs to be done done.
D) it is naive to believe that you can force a country like Afghanistan to eschew corruption (we finally figured that out in Iraq, why would A’stan be any different?). Pretending to be outraged and walking out of a dinner is not only a useless gesture but an antagonistic one and does more to hurt our effort than help. Symbolism over substance. We have a war to win, that’s what we should be concentrating on. Where corruption or incompetence impedes that effort, we should focus our diplomacy on stopping that. But to pretend A’stan will ever be an incorruptible beacon of democracy is simply laughable on its face.
“…someplace we have no strategic interest in…”
Politicians of both parties are creative enough to come up with strategic interests in anything. Did you ever think, for example, that we would have a strategic interest in an atoll in the Indian Ocean 1000 miles from land? I am sure even Andorra is of critical interest to the US, somehow. We are, after all, committed by treaty to the defense of The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (pop. 480,000+).
We cannot cure corruption in Astan, or even the US evidently, but we can insist those whose jobs and lives depend on us do not engage in it, and they should certainly not be so stupid as to tell such a preposterous lie about it. One of my conditions for supporting anyone is that they not lie to my face and treat me like a fool (although in Biden’s case that may be appropriate).
Karzai is to all intents and purposes a US puppet. Without us he would be gone in a week, and he knows it. He is leader of a country in name only.
We have already made it apparent to the Taliban et al. that there are some things we will not tolerate.
If we can neutralize Astan, with or without Kharzai, why shouldn’t we? Personally I don’t care who runs the place, as long as they leave us alone.
We can insist on whatever we want, but even if we’re willing to walk away from a 7 year war over it, we’re not going to change a culture that has always been “corrupt” in Western eyes.
As for the last, yeah, I don’t care either – but if that’s the bottom line, then Karzai is as good as anyone. The Taliban will simply bring their brand of corruption and we’ll be just as upset by it. In their case, however, it will most likely cost many more lives than will Karzai’s brand.
I don’t agree or disagree with that quote:
“In the modern world, the Left, who claim to be the romantic rebels and lovers of liberty, have become the dogmatic spokesmen of remote power. The Right, who are derided as supporters of dictatorship and closet ‘fascists’, are the real revolutionaries and romantics.” I think there are always valid points to each side.
But socialism? I think it is becoming an overused catch-phrase. http://www.newsy.com/videos/socialism_in_america