Monthly Archives: August 2005

Hurricane George W Bush

The New York Times editorial page dilates on Hurricane Katrina but not without taking a cheap shot at He Who Must Be Despised.

"Louisiana 1927"

While Democrats can’t resist blaming Bush and global warming for Hurricane Katrina, leftist songwriter Randy Newman reminds us that the flooding of Louisiana goes way back. Still, Newman used the occasion of the 1927 flood to take a pot shot at another Republican president – Calvin Coolidge. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Unequivocal Defeat

Everyone now agrees that support for the Iraq War is quite low. And you can count me among those who no longer support what the Pentagon’s doing there.

I don’t know what to do, but then I (unlike the folks at the Pentagon) am not receiving any of the billions of dollars currently being spent on the war effort. I doubt it makes any of the war’s inititial supporters happy to hear generals in Washington and Iraq talk about how there is “no military answer” to the problem of the so-called insurgency. It’s only natural that most Americans would question whether our soldiers should be over there if (as the generals tell us) there is no military solution.

The Bush/Rumsfeld “strategy” seems to be based on the idea that the insurgency will begin to die once a constitution and elected government are established at the end of the year. For some reason, I think the jihadists, who are blowing themselves up and taking as many Iraqis and Americans they can with them, care as much about constitutions and elections as the Mexican bandits cared about “steenkin’ badges” in the old John Huston/Humphrey Bogart movie The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

Most of the talk among conservative pundits is about how Bush needs to get out a new public relations message enunciating a strategy for winning the war, instead of the vague rhetoric about “spreading freedom.” David Brooks wrote the other day that Bush needs to adopt the counter- insurgency techniques learned in Vietnam where the goal was to capture, hold and increase the amount of territory we controlled, rather than focusing on killing and capturing enemy fighters. I disagree.

First of all, Bush doesn’t need a new PR offensive; rather, he needs a new military offensive, the objective of which should be to completely and utterly destroy the jihadists. If that means military attacks on Syria and Iran, so be it. If that means more troops to Iraq or even the reinstitution of a military draft, or if it means the raising of taxes to finance a larger military, then let’s get on with it. The destruction of the jihadists will produce security. As long as they are alive, well and being replenished and supported from Iran and Syria, there will never be security. And with no security, Iraq will remain a basket case.

Most of the people who are telling pollsters they are against the war are not of the Cindy Sheehan, ilk who, with the help of the media, want to re-constitute the old anti-American 60’s peace movement. Rather, most of those turned off by Iraq, like most of those who turned against the Vietnam War 30 years ago, are becoming fed up with what looks from here like a pathetically passive American military response to the terrorist atrocities.

Bush needs to point out that the enemy in Iraq are like the Nazis and Japanese imperialists of the last century. The Nazis and the Japanese could not be appeased by negotiation and concessions nor by efforts to bring them “into the political process.” What was needed then and what is needed now is their unequivocal defeat.

August in Crawford

This year’s summer re-run in Texas.

The Bereaved and Her Wacko Opinions

Christopher Hitchens on Cindy Sheehan.

Plan for the Worst

Sensible column from Peggy Noonan

Gaza: The Terrorist Squat

Nation-building or Jew-killing?

Cindy's Cabal

“I want him to tell me ‘just what was the noble cause Casey died for?’ “Was it freedom and democracy? Bullshit! He died for oil. He died to make your friends richer. He died to expand American imperialism in the Middle East.

We’re not freer here, thanks to your PATRIOT Act. Iraq is not free. You get America out of Iraq and Israel out of Palestine and you’ll stop the terrorism. There, I used the “I” word, imperialism.” Cindy Sheehan

Saint Cindy, who, according to folks like Frank Rich, is yet another victim of the right wing attack machine, turns out to be another Michael Berg (father of the civilian beheaded by jihadists in Bagdhad awhile ago); that is, another aging 60’s hippy spouting Marxist rhetoric and blaming Israel and the Jews (who, she seems to think, are pulling Bush’s strings) for her son’s death.

More below of Cindy’s musings on the Jewish cabal:

“Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the Army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full-well that my son, my family, this nation, and this world were betrayed by George [W.] Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agenda after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy…not for the real reason, because the Arab-Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy. That hasn’t changed.”

Jew-Free Bananas

Some cultures are more wacky than others.

Sweet Neo Con?

According to Maureen Dowd in the New York Times, “…the Rolling Stones have taken a rare break from sex odes to record an antiwar song called ‘Sweet Neo Con,’ chiding Condi Rice and Mr. Bush. ‘You call yourself a Christian; I call you a hypocrite,’ Mick Jagger sings.”

As a one time fan (of the Stones, not MoDo), I find this a revolting development and symptomatic of what happens when guys in their 60’s continue with an “art form” dedicated to the adolescent pursuit of sex and drugs. Still, if the Stones must go out on yet another of those grotesque stadium and arena tours, I wish they’d stick to playing their oldies.

“Sweet Neo Con”? Ugh!