« Breaking News | HomePage | Things to watch, read and ponder »
02/22/2008
Another socialist rant
The defenders of all things Bush, will they ever give me peace?
They're rallying around McCain, not that they love him, they hate the New York Times. And, oddly enough, the New York Times has endorsed his candidacy. That's just one of many contradictions that exist in the skewered world of politics were partisans of all stripes are willing to overlook what they don't want to see.
But, McCain aside, Bush and his disastrous presidency has been given, ad nauseam, the green light to eviscerate every form of control that we believed, in our naivete, to be immutable.
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board is one of the most egregious and that isn't only since taken over by Rupert Murdock and his shameless propagandists. Today, GABRIEL SCHOENFELD opines in The Bush Secrecy Myth - WSJ.com that the Bush administration hasn't really been secretive in its dealings with the American people and if it has been, is that so bad? His concluding paragraph is brilliant in its twisted logic:
The Bush administration has been lambasted for excessive secrecy. But its persistently passive attitude toward the torrent of leaks that have sprung from its intelligence and national-security apparatus make it one of the country's least-secretive administrations. It would be much better for the country if the administration took seriously the dangers of transparency in an age when the revelation of secrets can get us killed by the thousands. This would involve not only the vigorous enforcement of existing laws, but exercising leadership to change a culture in which leakers are hailed by the press as "whistle blowers," even as they flout their oaths of office and violate the law.
See, Bush hasn't been secretive after all, that is, if it weren't for those damn whistle blowers getting us killed by the thousands.
********************************************
A second example, also from today's WSJ, schools us on why it's just too damn hard to have a treaty banning space weapons. Don't Panic About Space Weapons - WSJ.com:
The Bush administration is right to reject this treaty [Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and China's U.N. representative in Geneva, Li Baodong, introduced a joint draft treaty aimed at banning weapons in space ...] and any successor administration should do so as well. The hard, if unpalatable, truth is that a peaceful space regime cannot be achieved by any feasible arms-control arrangement. The long track record of diplomatic failures, going back to the 1978-79 U.S.-Soviet ASAT negotiations, amply corroborates this judgment.
God forbid peace should break out.
********************************************
With everyone from John Stewart to Media Matters daily ripping their arguments to shreds, how do they manage to continue hopping along the bunny trail like they do? They are united by the purest of principles: might makes right, and money makes might.
They stand noble in their call to arms, the invaders are at the gates. We will take them, shake them and break them. We hate them and their children!
Or so, they'd like to believe. Think; Scrooge McDuck and his swimming pools of cash, happily diving in and taking a dip, only today he wears bullet belts across his chest and brandishes an M-16 as we dare to ask, "May I have some more sir...please?" Gene
12:55 Permalink | Comments (1) | Email this
Comments
Now let's see: We have a "torrent of leaks" and we live in an age where "revelation of secrets can get us killed by the thousands"...hmm...guess that means I'm dead.
Mike G.
Posted by: Mike G. | 02/22/2008
Post a comment