Don Imus said something that was not very nice, pretty revolting actually, and he was fired. Tom Delay is now seeking to have Rosie O’Donnell fired for intemperate, inflammatory remarks regarding 9/11, terrorism, and other stuff. This trend has possibilities. Why don’t we fire everyone who annoys us? Here is the cranky old guy’s list of those who should go.
Tom Delay: He’s already been fired, or an equivalent thereof.
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson: Yeah, Imus needed to be chastised and taken down a peg, but Al and Jesse certainly didn’t come to the task with clean hands. They have had their own problems with foot-in-mouth disease over the years, as well as some more serious matters. But mainly Al and Jesse should go for seeking to perpetuate the notion that African-Americans are nothing more than victims requiring the protection of Al and Jesse.
Bill O’Reilly: He must have said something not politically correct over the years, but if not he should go simply because he falls into the basic-jerk category.
Sean Hannity, Fred Barnes, Brit Hume, Charles Krauthammer: As knee-jerk right-wing whack-jobs, they should go.
Fox News: Why stop with Bill O’Reilly and the preceding four? Can the hold lot.
Nancy Grace and that Beck guy: They habitually violate reasoned discourse. Outta here.
Dick Cheney: Despite all the evidence to the contrary, he keeps insisting that Saddem Hussein was somehow responsible for 9/11. Because that assertion has almost reached the point of being an outright lie, Dick should go.
George Bush: Incompetence has always been a reason for dismissal.
In short, the cranky old guy says fire ‘em all.
DSH
Sunday, April 15, 2007
Saturday, April 07, 2007
IS BUSH THIS DIABOLICAL?
The President’s threats about vetoing any Iraq War funding legislation that contains even a hint of time lines may not reflect his, and his allies, actual desires. If one were a cynic, which, of course, the cranky old guy is not, one might conclude that what W and his cronies really want is to pin the Democrats with the blame for the Iraqi debacle.
And even if the so-called “surge” strategy has some temporary success, the Iraqi effort will almost certainly be viewed as a debacle. Oh, perhaps historians in the distant future might conclude, “in the short and medium terms, it was a debacle, but in the great scheme of things, at the level where any analysis is far removed from individual human costs, the blundering of the United States under the so-called leadership of George W. Bush set in motion forces that ultimately were beneficial.” But that is certainly speculative and is of no solace to those who have suffered in the here and now.
But back to W’s current predicament. If he truly believes that “victory” is possible in Iraq, there is no predicament. He simply wants unfettered commander-in-chief power to pursue this “victory.” But it is possible that even he has come to realize the extreme unlikelihood of anything approaching “victory.” Thus the possible attractiveness of being able to say, “if the Democrat (opps, Democratic) Congress had only given me what I asked for, we would have achieved victory. But it didn’t, so Democrats are the reason we failed in Iraq.”
And if that is indeed W’s strategy, the nation is in for a great amount of unseemly political jockeying. The Democrats will push for time lines and other goals to get U.S. troops out of the line of fire, and ultimately Iraq. W will dig in his heels, avoiding any compromise or effort to find a middle ground. The Democrats then will be faced with two alternatives: capitulate to W’s apparent desires (which under this argument is a result he really doesn’t want because his ownership of the debacle would be uncontested); or be more and more assertive in efforts to bring the troops home. And the more assertive the Democrats are, the more they can be blamed for the almost inevitable messy—at best—outcome.
In other words, by being stubborn and not giving an inch, W either gets everything he wants (a result he actually might not want) or he gets to blame the Democrats for the failure to achieve victory.
Is W indeed this diabolical? You’ve observed him for the last six years. What do you think?
DSH
And even if the so-called “surge” strategy has some temporary success, the Iraqi effort will almost certainly be viewed as a debacle. Oh, perhaps historians in the distant future might conclude, “in the short and medium terms, it was a debacle, but in the great scheme of things, at the level where any analysis is far removed from individual human costs, the blundering of the United States under the so-called leadership of George W. Bush set in motion forces that ultimately were beneficial.” But that is certainly speculative and is of no solace to those who have suffered in the here and now.
But back to W’s current predicament. If he truly believes that “victory” is possible in Iraq, there is no predicament. He simply wants unfettered commander-in-chief power to pursue this “victory.” But it is possible that even he has come to realize the extreme unlikelihood of anything approaching “victory.” Thus the possible attractiveness of being able to say, “if the Democrat (opps, Democratic) Congress had only given me what I asked for, we would have achieved victory. But it didn’t, so Democrats are the reason we failed in Iraq.”
And if that is indeed W’s strategy, the nation is in for a great amount of unseemly political jockeying. The Democrats will push for time lines and other goals to get U.S. troops out of the line of fire, and ultimately Iraq. W will dig in his heels, avoiding any compromise or effort to find a middle ground. The Democrats then will be faced with two alternatives: capitulate to W’s apparent desires (which under this argument is a result he really doesn’t want because his ownership of the debacle would be uncontested); or be more and more assertive in efforts to bring the troops home. And the more assertive the Democrats are, the more they can be blamed for the almost inevitable messy—at best—outcome.
In other words, by being stubborn and not giving an inch, W either gets everything he wants (a result he actually might not want) or he gets to blame the Democrats for the failure to achieve victory.
Is W indeed this diabolical? You’ve observed him for the last six years. What do you think?
DSH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)