| |||||
---
| |||||
It is 3:15AM and I cannot sleep because my new knee is in a brace that keeps it straight but impedes sleeping, thus, proving the case made below that it is an old man's war.(See 1 below.)
---
Does Conservatism have a future? (See 2 and 2a below members only.)
---
Obama's appointment of Kerry and Hagel , in my opinion has a two fold purpose:
a) I believe it is an attempt to diminish America's exposure in the world and reduce its ability to be 'confrontational' and to lead.
b) I believe it is a purposeful strategy tp divide Republicans, get them to internalize against each other and, at the same time, to tweak supporters of Israel.
If being wounded is a requisite for being Sec of Defense there are a lot of movie goers that would qualify. (See 3 below.)
---
Dick
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)I am over 60 and the Armed Forces think I'm too old to
track down terrorists. You can't be older than 42 to
join the military. They've got the whole thing assbackwards.
join the military. They've got the whole thing assbackwards.
Instead of sending 18-year olds off to fight, they ought to take us old guys. You shouldn't be able to join a military unit until you're at least 35.
For starters:
Researchers say 18-year-olds think about sex every 10
seconds. Old guys only think about sex a couple of times a
day, leaving us more than 28,000 additional seconds per day to concentrate on the enemy.
Young guys haven't lived long enough to be cranky, and
a cranky soldier is a dangerous soldier. My back hurts! I
can't sleep, I'm tired and hungry. We are impatient
and maybe letting us kill some asshole that desperately
deserves it will make us feel better and shut us up for a
while.
An 18 -year-old doesn 't even like to get up before 10
a.m. Old guys always get up early to pee so what the hell.
Besides, like I said, I'm tired and can't sleep and since I'm already up, I may as well be up killing some fanatical son-of-a-bitch.
If captured we couldn't spill the beans because we'd forget where we put them. In fact, name, rank, and serial number would be a real brainteaser.
Boot camp would be easier for old guys. We're used to
getting screamed and yelled at, and we're used to soft
food. We've also developed an appreciation for guns.
We've been using them for years as an excuse to get out
of the house, away from the screaming and yelling.
They could lighten up on the obstacle course, however.
I've been in combat and didn't see a single 20-foot wall with rope hanging over the side, nor did I ever do any pushups after completing basic training. I can hear the Drill Sgt. in the
For starters:
Researchers say 18-year-olds think about sex every 10
seconds. Old guys only think about sex a couple of times a
day, leaving us more than 28,000 additional seconds per day to concentrate on the enemy.
Young guys haven't lived long enough to be cranky, and
a cranky soldier is a dangerous soldier. My back hurts! I
can't sleep, I'm tired and hungry. We are impatient
and maybe letting us kill some asshole that desperately
deserves it will make us feel better and shut us up for a
while.
An 18 -year-old doesn 't even like to get up before 10
a.m. Old guys always get up early to pee so what the hell.
Besides, like I said, I'm tired and can't sleep and since I'm already up, I may as well be up killing some fanatical son-of-a-bitch.
If captured we couldn't spill the beans because we'd forget where we put them. In fact, name, rank, and serial number would be a real brainteaser.
Boot camp would be easier for old guys. We're used to
getting screamed and yelled at, and we're used to soft
food. We've also developed an appreciation for guns.
We've been using them for years as an excuse to get out
of the house, away from the screaming and yelling.
They could lighten up on the obstacle course, however.
I've been in combat and didn't see a single 20-foot wall with rope hanging over the side, nor did I ever do any pushups after completing basic training. I can hear the Drill Sgt. in the
New army now, Get down and give me ... ER ... on e.
Actually, the running part is kind of a waste of energy,
too. I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.
An 18-year-old has the whole world ahead of him. He's
still learning to shave, to start up a conversation with a pretty girl. He still hasn't figured out that a baseball cap has
Actually, the running part is kind of a waste of energy,
too. I've never seen anyone outrun a bullet.
An 18-year-old has the whole world ahead of him. He's
still learning to shave, to start up a conversation with a pretty girl. He still hasn't figured out that a baseball cap has
a brim to shade his eyes, not the back of his head.
These are all great reasons to keep our kids at home to
learn a little more about life before sending them off into
harm's way.
Let us old guys track down those dirty rotten coward
terrorists. The last thing an enemy would want to see right
now is a couple of million pissed-off old farts with attitude and automatic weapons who know that their best years are already behind them.
If nothing else, put us on border patrol...we will have it
secured the first night!
These are all great reasons to keep our kids at home to
learn a little more about life before sending them off into
harm's way.
Let us old guys track down those dirty rotten coward
terrorists. The last thing an enemy would want to see right
now is a couple of million pissed-off old farts with attitude and automatic weapons who know that their best years are already behind them.
If nothing else, put us on border patrol...we will have it
secured the first night!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)What Is the Future of Conservatism?
By JONAH GOLDBERG
2a)
2)What Is the Future of Conservatism?
By JONAH GOLDBERG
Like the ancient parable of the blind men describing the same elephant from different perspectives, conservatism can mean many different things to many different people. Indeed, given the relatively straightforward and down-to-earth meaning of the word,conservatism actually lends itself to considerable linguistic legerdemain. One can use the word to refer to a temperament, an ideology (or ideologies), an objective tendency, or simply an unwillingness to heed the forces of progress as fashion dictates.
It seems to me that the future of each of these varieties of conservatism is assured. The conservative temper stems from the crooked timber of humanity and the accumulated scar tissue of experience. The objective tendency, whether imposed by external forces, threadbare budgets, impertinent facts-on-the-ground, or a general lack of popular enthusiasm, also seems baked into the human experience for as far as the eye can see. For related reasons, there will always be realists who counsel the hotheads to slow down, earning at minimum the label “conservative” if not “reactionary.” In this sense, while there may not always be an England, there will always be something called conservatism.
The one with the cloudiest future is ideological conservatism. Will enough Americans remain committed, or at least open, to the bundle of principles that define modern American conservatism to sustain the movement and the Republican Party, which imperfectly carries its banner?
My short answer is an equivocal yes. My hedge stems from the fact that it will be hard, for all the reasons we’ve all heard already: demographics, the changing nature of the economy, etc. But there’s one factor that hasn’t been adequately discussed: the fading of conservatism’s libertarian brand.
I say “brand” because I think the issue has less to do with substance than with marketing. For good and bad reasons, liberalism has managed to cover itself with a patina of libertarianism. Some of this stems from changing attitudes about sexuality. Conservative opposition to gay marriage sends a powerful cultural signal that makes the GOP seem Comstockish and scary, at least to the elites who shape the culture and to younger voters.
That argument is familiar enough. But what allows the Democrats to seem more libertarian isn’t just cultural marketing, but a widespread acceptance of the idea that positive liberty is more important than negative liberty. The former, an idea near to Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s heart, is that you can’t be free unless the state gives you the material aid necessary to enjoy life to its fullest. This was the point of his “economic bill of rights.” Negative liberty, an idea dear to the Founders, defines freedom as independence from government intrusion and meddling.
Conservatives have been very successful at arguing separately against positive liberty and against cultural libertinism, but the merger of the two presents new challenges, particularly given the attitudes of young people who seem to believe that you should be free to use birth control (true), but that you’re not free unless someone else pays for it.
The vernacular of conservatism derives from a time when the country was churched and defined liberty as personal sovereignty. It needs to change to engage a country that is increasingly unchurched and incorrectly thinks liberty can and should be subsidized.
_____________
Jonah Goldberg is a contributing editor to National Review and a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
2a)
| WHAT'S NEW ON PJTV | |
|
Is the Republican brand irreparably damaged? Is it time for a third party? Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle discuss the future of the GOP. Tune in, and let us know what you think in the comments section.
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Hagel litmus test.
By Jennifer Rubin
If Republicans had nervy firebrands like the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, someone would rise up to declare, “Chuck Hagel’s America is a land in which gays would be forced back in the closet and Jews would be accused of dual loyalty. Chuck Hagel’s world is one in which devastating defense cuts become a goal, not a problem; we enter direct talks with the terrorist organization Hamas; and sanctions on Iran wither.”
The Hagel nomination expected to come on Monday is so outrageous and the rationale for his nomination so weak that it becomes an easy no vote for all Republicans. Phillip Terzian aptly sums up the problems with Hagel that go beyond his extreme views: “Simply stated, there is no evidence that Chuck Hagel has the experience or temperament to master the gigantic defense establishment, or deal effectively with Congress on delicate issues. On the contrary, there is every indication that he would quickly suffocate in the details of running the Pentagon, and run afoul of his political masters in the White House.”
Unlike the Democratic Party, support for the U.S.-Israel relationship has become a positive litmus test for national office in the GOP, in large part due to the intensely pro-Israel Christian conservatives. The opposition to Hagel will be fierce. At the very least the battle will potentially suck up much of the oxygen in the Senate, put other issues like gun control on hold and threaten to become the blockbuster hearing of the Obama presidency as the Judge Robert Bork hearing was in the Reagan administration.
But this is not merely about Israel or Iran policy or defense spending. It is about the acceptability of the worst expression of anti-Semitism, the accusation of disloyalty. There is no other meaning to Hagel’s phrase “Jewish lobby.” The declaration from Hagel that he is not “the senator from Israel” (Who said he should be?) is again a direct attack on Jews’ fidelity to the United States. For decades this kind of venomous language has been gaining acceptance in Europe. But never in America. In elevating Hagel the president in a real and troubling way moves us closer to Western Europe. Indeed the most disturbing aspect of Hagel’s nomination is not his impact on policy (President Obama has and will continue to make one blunder after another), but what it says about the U.S. president’s willingness to embrace a man espousing the world’s oldest hatred.The nomination will trigger a batch of litmus tests for various political groupings:
The 2016 GOP presidential contenders. Who will move boldly not to say he or she has “concerns” but he or she will do whatever it takes to block the nomination?
The 2016 Democratic presidential contenders. The Hagel pick becomes a burden for Vice President Biden and even for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when they are forced to defend him publicly. Why didn’t they use their good offices to urge the president take another tact? And will savvy pols like New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley take the opportunity to step into the national limelight to speak out against a nominee who questioned the loyalty of Jewish Americans?
Jewish organizations. Many like the Anti-Defamation League, the Simon Wiesenthal Center and the American Jewish Committee have already spoken up and will continue to pan the choice. AIPAC almost certainly will remain quiet on the theory that to do otherwise would destroy the appearance of bipartisan support for Israel. But would it really invite senators who vote yes to be honored at its March national convention? If the organization will remain officially neutral, individual members certainly will not.
Pro-Israel Democrats. They’ve defended the president and turned out in huge numbers to reelect him. But now the president embraces a man who has accused American Jews of standing apart from their country and at odds with its best interests (“Jewish Lobby”). There is no way to countenance a nominee who speaks of Jews as a Fifth Column. If the president were to declare opposition to late-term abortions or embrace an nominee who repeatedly spoke in disparaging terms about African Americans, they would be up in arms. Do they mutely accept this outrage and line up behind the president? (One recalls the Jewish “leaders” of the 1930′s too afraid of making a fuss to take on FDR when it came to rescuing the Jews of Europe.)
Pundits. Mainstream media pundits and cable talking heads would go ballistic if a Republican president nominated a cabinet secretary who was so overtly anti-Israel, went to battle against gays serving in government or opposed Iran sanctions. In fact they’ve done just that when the provocateur was Rick Santorum or Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.). So what do they do now? Be obedient spinners for the president or show some intellectual consistency (for once)? Will any TV interviewers grill the president, his advisers or Senate Democrats on the Hagel pick?Senate Democrats. Senate Democrats, especially those up for re-election in 2014 (e.g., Minnesota’s Al Franken, Michigan’s Carl Levin, Illinois’ Dick Durbin, Virginia’s Mark Warner) will face a vote that can’t be fudged. It is a binary choice: Do they approve Hagel’s rhetoric and extremist views or not? He is far out of the mainstream of both parties on everything from Russian anti-Semitism (his 99 colleagues implored the Soviet Union to cease anti-Semitic conduct, but not he!) to Hamas to Iran sanctions. In addition, potential Democratic candidates (e.g., Massachusetts’s Ed Markey, New Jersey’s Cory Booker) will come under tremendous heat to stand up to the president on this one.
Republican candidates. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has often felt the heat from the right for going easy on Democratic presidents’ nominees, but here is a chance for him to stand tall, engage in ferocious questioning and lead the opposition. Likewise, if Scott Brown is going to make it back to the Senate, he will likely feel compelled to weigh in.
In short the nomination will confirm suspicions the right harbors about Obama (he doesn’t like Israel, he takes Jewish voters for granted, he is weak on defense). They can with much justification claim that Obama is revealing his true preferences and instincts, which lead him to go to the mat for the most anti-Israel nominee in recent memory (in either party). Because it is such a powerful bit of evidence in the right’s favor, a Hagel nomination then forces an early decision in the second Obama term for Senate Democrats: Do they tie themselves to the fate of a lame-duck president who no longer needs to keep up the pretense of moderation or do they put some daylight between themselves and Obama?
A final note: Republicans should be circumspect about tossing around the word filibuster. In this case, the real pressure is on Senate Democrats, who ideally should be compelled to vote, not be spared by shifting the argument to one about process and denying the president an up-or-down vote. On the contrary, Republicans should insist that the hearings be exhaustive and timely. Unlike the budget, this will be a distasteful vote Senate Democrats cannot ignore. And most of all it will settle the argument about the president’s attitudes toward Israel and the American Jewish community.As noted before, Barack Obama has no aversion to anti-Semites
3a) President’s Nomination of Hagel May Encourage Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions
By Alan Dershowitz
President Obama’s nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense risks increasing the likelihood that Iran will develop nuclear weapons. It poses that risk because Hagel is well known for his opposition both to sanctions against Iran and to employing the military option if necessary.
These views are inconsistent with the very different views expressed by President Obama. The President has emphasized on numerous occasions that he will never allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and will use military force if necessary to prevent that “game changer.”
The nomination of Hagel thus sends a mixed message to the mullahs in Tehran, who will likely interpret it as a change from a red light to a yellow or green one when it comes to their desire to develop nuclear weapons. Sending a mixed message at this point can increase the chances that Iran will miscalculate and act in a foolhardy manner thus requiring the actual use of the military option—an eventuality that nobody wants.
The goal of America’s policy toward Iran has always been to frighten the mullahs into believing President Obama’s threat to use military force if sanctions fail. “I don’t bluff”, President Obama has famously and publicly stated. It is imperative that the Iranian leadership believe this. If they do, they may well decide that the sanctions they are currently undergoing are too painful to endure, if the end result is that they will never be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. If they don’t believe President Obama’s threat, then the sanctions alone will not dissuade them from pursuing their nuclear goal. The nomination of Senator Hagel will strengthen the hand of those within the Iranian leadership who think that President Obama is bluffing.
It is also important that the Israeli leadership believes that President Obama really has Israel’s back when it comes to preventing Iran from endangering the Jewish state by obtaining nuclear weapons. Any loss of trust in this regard may result in an Israeli decision to take unilateral military action to protect its citizens against nuclear attacks.
This is the wrong time to send mixed messages by nominating a man who has, at best, a mixed record with regard to sanctions and the military option against Iran and with regard to having Israel’s back.
Senator Hagel will have an opportunity to clarify, and hopefully to change, his previous statements with regard to these issues. He should be asked probing questions about sanctions, about the military option and about Israel’s security. In his answers he must persuade the Iranian leadership that there is no distance between his current views and those of the President who has nominated him. The President must also persuade the Iranian leadership that his nomination of Hagel does not constitute any backing down from his commitment to use military force, if sanctions don’t work.
Independence may be a virtue for a Senator, but it is a vice when it presents conflicting messages at a time when it is imperative that the Iranian leadership understand that the Obama Administration, indeed the United States as a whole, speaks with one voice when it says that Iran will never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, even if that requires the use of military force if all other options fail.
Normally a president, especially a president reelected to a second term with a substantial majority, should be entitled to pick his own Secretary of Defense. But when the President’s decision risks sending a mixed message that could increase the chances of having to employ the military option against Iran, the Senate has an especially important role to play. The burden is now on Senator Hagel to persuade the Senate, the American people, and they leaders of Iran that he is fully supportive of the President’s commitment not to contain a nuclear armed Iran, but to prevent such a catastrophe from occurring, even if that requires the use of military force to achieve that commendable goal.
Nor is this a liberal-conservative or Democratic-Republican issue. Reportedly, the Hagel nomination has been very controversial within the White House itself, with some of President Obama’s closest advisers being critical of it. Many Democrats, both elected officials and rank and file voters, are deeply concerned about the wisdom of the President’s nomination of Senator Hagel. Neither is this an issue that concerns only Jewish or pro-Israel voters. There are serious policy issues at stake here. Those of us who voted for President Obama and who want to be certain that Iran is never allowed to develop nuclear weapons, as the President promised, have legitimate concerns about this nomination. We hope that these concerns can be allayed by the President and his nominee, but if they are not, it will be the highest of patriotic duties to oppose Senator Hagel’s nomination.
Best,
3b)Chuck Hagel's Courage
A brave soldier who knows how to be on the right side of conventional wisdom.
By Bret Stephens
Chuck Hagel, the former Republican senator from Nebraska and Barack Obama's choice to be secretary of defense, served with honor as an infantryman in Vietnam and was wounded twice. This fact, a tribute to Mr. Hagel's personal courage, will now be trotted out repeatedly as proof of his fitness to serve in high office.
If the standard by which our prospective secretaries of defense should be judged is prior military service, neither Edwin Stanton (Lincoln's secretary of war) nor Henry Stimson (FDR's) would have passed the test. Robert McNamara and Don Rumsfeld would have. But I digress.
Perhaps the better test for Mr. Hagel is political courage, something he's supposed to possess in spades. "He had the courage to buck his own party on the Iraq War," says White House spokesman Tommy Vietor. Tweets David Axelrod: "He's tough, courageous, sensible & able to withstand political pressure to do what's right for USA. What we need!"
OK, let's see about that.
In 1998, when it was politically opportune for Mr. Hagel to do so, he bashed Clinton nominee James Hormel for being "openly, aggressively gay," a fact he said was disqualifying for becoming ambassador to Luxembourg. Late last year, when it was again politically opportune, Mr. Hagel apologized for his gay-bashing. Mr. Hormel accepted the apology, while noting that "the timing appears to be self-serving." Yes it did.
In 1999, when the military's "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policy was broadly popular, Mr. Hagel scoffed at the idea of repealing it: "The U.S. Armed Forces aren't some social experiment." Since then, Mr. Hagel has offered his opinions on many subjects in scores of published articles. In not one of them did he recant or amend his views on gay issues. His public about-face only occurred when his name made Mr. Obama's shortlist for secretary of defense.
In 2002, also when it was overwhelmingly popular, Mr. Hagel voted for the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. The lack of political courage is especially noteworthy here, because Mr. Hagel was, in fact, prescient in warning his Senate colleagues that "imposing democracy through force in Iraq is a roll of the dice."
Yet as the inimitable David Corn notes, "Bottom line: Hagel feared the resolution would lead to a war that would go badly but didn't have the guts to say no to the leader of his party."
In 2006, when the war in Iraq had become overwhelmingly unpopular, Mr. Hagel was on the right side of conventional wisdom. "The United States must begin planning for a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq," he wrote in the Washington Post that November. Still swimming with the tide the following year, he called the surge "the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam."
The surge turned out to be George W. Bush's finest hour—a genuine instance of political courage as opposed to Mr. Hagel's phony ones. It rescued the U.S. from humiliating defeat. It gave Iraq a decent opportunity to stand on its feet. It allowed the U.S. to conduct an orderly withdrawal of its forces. And it might have led to a long-term security relationship with Baghdad had the Obama administration not fumbled the endgame. Again there is no public record of Mr. Hagel acknowledging any of this.
Moving forward, in 2008 Mr. Hagel endorsed engagement with Syria's Bashar Assad and North Korea's Kim Jong Il, and he was especially keen on engagement with Iran, enthusing at one point that "Iran had rights for women long before many countries in the world. Women could vote, I actually think before they could vote in America." (He's wrong: Iranian women were enfranchised only in 1963, thanks to the Shah.)
In each case, Mr. Hagel was articulating a view that was exactly in keeping with received Beltway wisdom. In each case, he was subsequently disproved by events. In no case was Mr. Hagel ever held to any kind of account for being wrong. In no case did he hold himself to account for being wrong.
Oh, by the way, in 1995 Mr. Hagel told the Omaha World Herald that his opposition to abortion was total and made no exception for cases of rape or incest—a view that helped get him elected to the Senate the following year. He later voted repeatedly against allowing servicewomen to pay for abortions out of their own pocket, according to the left-wing magazine Mother Jones. Now that Congress has authorized the Defense Department to pay for abortions in cases of rape, it would be worth asking Mr. Hagel if he has evolved on this one, too.
But give Mr. Hagel this: When it comes to expressing himself about Israel, its enemies, and the influence of the so-called Jewish lobby, he has been nothing if not consistent and outspoken. Maybe that's political courage. Or maybe it's a mental twitch, the kind you can't quite help. The confirmation process should be illuminating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment