Member Rara Avis
What part of this qualifies as Tea Party conspiracies and feels like attending a KKK meeting to talk about better race relations, Ron?
Sorry, Denise, you posted your question apparently while I was writing mine; I missed it until I came back.
To answer your questions, this quote sounds like Tea Party conspiracy to me:
"I guess it depends on which countries you are trying to facilitate the establishment of the Muslim Brotherhood, or which countries assert their sovereign right to use the gold standard."
And this sounds like the kind of absolutist rhetoric I would expect to hear at a KKK meeting:
"Nothing that he has done has benefited the U.S ... Absolutely nothing ..."
Obama is still the mainstream press's golden boy and, for as long as he is, he is untouchable.
No one is untouchable, Mike. I think Nixon proved that.
As for Obama being a golden boy of the press, that's probably true to the extent the mainstream press is a reflection of the American populace. During those Bush years you cite, for example, I think the media showed President Bush the same admiration and support he was receiving from the American people. Well, no, not ALL the Bush years, of course. But certainly the early ones, say the eighteen months following 911? Public officials don't always get what they deserve from the people, at least not immediately. Then again, it's not always undeserved, either.
America back then also by and large really believed in glory and Heaven; things have changed. Now war should be have to, not want to.
Sadly, John, yes, things have changed. We've changed. Not for the better.
War has, of course, always been have-to, not want-to. It's never been about mere survival, though. Individuals, after all, don't usually walk into a hail of bullets and mortar to guarantee their own, personal survival. They do it for a lot of different reasons, I think, but never because they are the cowards you purport them to be.
Which leads us back to the point where we visited many times before in the late 1990's where Ted Kennedy, Clinton, and almost all top Democrats were calling for the invasion of Iraq and the ouster of Hussein, Clinton specifying clearly that there was undoubtable proof of the existence of wmd's and Kennedy calling for up to and including using nuclear weapons against Hussein.
And yet . . . there was no invasion? Not until Bush swayed public opinion with lies and half-truths. Honestly, I don't recall all that much furor in the Nineties, Mike, but I'll take your word for it. Clearly, in retrospect, we know it was posturing since nothing ever came of it. How many tens of thousands wish it had remained so?
But again. It doesn't matter for the sake of my question. Right, wrong, or indifferent, Mike, Bush led us into war and gave very specific reasons for the necessity of that war. The consistency you demand now, of a different President, should be applied just as strictly to the prior administration. And yet you seem strangely reluctant to do so?
Of course, my whole point isn't that Bush should have led us into three or four additional battle zones just for the sake of consistency. Not even if, by his own criteria, those battles could have been justified. There are no exact parallels, and damn few that are even close. That was true in 2003 and it's equally true in 2011. And the few that are close? We pick and we choose our battles, Mike, because no one, neither man nor nation, can hope to fight all that is evil or wrong in our world.
We pick and we choose, and we pray to God that we choose wisely . . . at least some of the time.