The John Batchelor Show Lee's Link

What's Breaking News Tonight?

Exit Swim Afghanistan

| 19 Comments
 

"Give Peace A Chance!"  

P1-AR832_USAFGH_DV_20090930183107.jpg
The pow-wow at the White House today on the need for a strategy in Afghanistan is a synchronized swim of Obama administration figures who will thrash around and urge POTUS to rethtink, reorganize, retreat. The fix is in. The invited performers were heavy with civilians to beseech POTUS to consider the needs of the economy, the polls, the Democrats.  Better to bug out that to suffer an infestation of peaceniks on the Mall with "Give peace a chance!" as a rap song.  The invited uniforms were restricted to videoconferencing from theater and a few pets. NSA General Jim Jones is powerless to steer the conversation. General McChrystal was given a few moments from Kabul to say that he can win with more troops, or he can not win with more troops. The Politburo long ago decided this debate was headed to the exits. This evening SecDef Bob Gates in on record with his doubts about McChrystal's counter-insurgency plan. Graybeard Leslie Gelb pontificates to Politico with a remark that shows surprising familiarity with the Politburo ambition to use the Saudis to work through the ISI to buy off the Taliban and make a cyber hudna with Al Qaeda. Gelb sounds exasperated and coldly logical when he remarks, "We can rent a whole bunch of Taliban fighters, and pull away some of the leadership, by allowing them to go back and exercise power in Pashtun territory. And by the time you finish that, and do it well, it will have weakened the Taliban. Gelb dismissed the idea of actually defeating the Taliban, "They are talking about a long-haul operation. Eight to ten years. That is inconceivable to me that the U.S. will maintain an effort spending upwards of $100 million or more on Afghanistan with a major combat role for 8-10 years. .... You have to be living on Mars. ... Let the neocons who advocate that do it." 

Living on Mars

The Obama administration will try the fig leaf of counter-terror designed by VPOTUS and a handful of Predator magicians at the Executive Office Building. SecDef Gates opposes counter-terror, too, so there are kinks in the bait and switch of the formula: start with Afghanistan strategy and switch to Al Qaeda strategy. None of this clever buzz will solve the major problem of Hamid Karzai and his narco-lords. Nor will anything story-boarded at the White House answer the Pakistan Imbroglio.  What is the Pakistan Imbroglio? It starts with the Saudis use the ISI to "rent" the Taliban.  What goes wrong quickly is that this rental contract means that Islamabad is not getting its tribute from Washington in order to fight the Taliban. So Islamabad will start a border dispute with India come the Spring 2010 and both sides will rattle their nukes. With Southern Afghanistan in the hands of the savage Taliban, with the lustful narco-lords in control of the drug markets at Kabul, with the cocky and reawakened Al Qaeda tucked up in safe havens in Waziristan, with penurious Islamabad frothing over manufactured provocations in Kashmir, Washington will groan about a diplomatic challenge and few will listen.   By then, Afghanistan will be a CNN World News story, no longer a White House quandry. Back to the stone age in the Hindu Kush, with nukes.

Dr. Abdullah.

I did ask about the putative winner of the Afghanistan election, Dr. Abdullah,  who has been abandoned by the Obama Politburo in favor of the villainous Karzai.  Am told that Abdullah will embrace Fahim and the sturdy Tajiks of the Panjshir Valley (below).  Afghanistan is now partitioned.  Karzai is the Bey of Kabul.  The Pashtuns are to be "rented."  And Tehran?  It is to be appeased and romanced and entreated in exchange for its non-interference in the US withdrawal from Afghanistan, Iraq and the Gulf.

afghanistan(Panjshir_2).jpg

Olympics Rio!

| 14 Comments
 
POTUS Pitch Pitch.  

rio2.jpg
Absent a comet strike on the Amazon, Brazil will get the 2016 Olympics, and the run-off between Brazil, Japan, Spain and the US is a vanity. Why is POTUS demonstrating State concern by suddenly announcing that he is jetting to Copenhagen to make the pitch in person on Friday morning? Two possible answers. The polls. And the polls. POTUS does not have much to do these days except make pitches. That is what a campaign is, a pitch. A rewriting of the first nine months of the Obama administration can render the entire effort as a long series of pitches. The stimulus pitch. The budget pitch. The healthcare pitch. The financial regulation pitch. The Palestinian pitch. The Iran pitch. And now the Olympics pitch. Nothing has to happen to make POTUS successful.  The pitch pitch always works.   POTUS asserts what he wants with the most careful mitigation the speechwriters can build, and then POTUS moves on to the next pitch. So far he has made several versions in different settings of the healthcare pitch. It is a trusted pitch, as nothing has to happen ever for it to be successful.

The Afghanistan Pitch.  

Are all presidents some kind of pitchman? Yes. A few also make decisions, but those are rare in history and even more rare since 24/7 news coverage. Clinton and Bush and now Obama only have to appear to be weighing or considering or contemplating or somesuch a decision for the news coverage to be satisfactory. POTUS is said be preparing to make a decision about Afghanistan. Today and tomorrow are circled as days at the White House to decide how to decide. Biden, Mullen, McChrystal, Jones, NATO's Fogh Rasmussen, and a few other VIPs (perhaps even some from State) will show up with their own pitches to the Politburo, which will then meet with POTUS and work on deciding the decision about the Afghanistan pitch.  Which is why going to Copenhagen for the weekend is shrewd. It buys time to prepare the Afghanistan pitch. 

Rio vs. Chicago.    

Kabul.JPG
President Lula of Brazil is what Mary O'Grady has taught me, a sentimental Lefty. Lula has entangled himself with the Honduran/Zelaya mess just because he let his sentiment do the thinking. Zelaya is a loser. But Brazil is a big winner, with a booming economy even in the worldwide recession, and with gigantic energy reserves and an aggressive state-controlled energy company, PetroBras, that makes Brazil a fierce member of the famous BRICs. Lula will win the Olympics for Rio. The Olympics have never been to South America, never been close to a city as wide-open as Rio. This is not a close contest, Rio vs Chicago. Who is Chicago kidding? But then again, this isn't about Chicago: POTUS is going to Copenhagen to make the Olympics Chicago pitch because it will help his polls in Chicago and maybe also in LA and NY and Boston and other Dem strongholds before POTUS must appear to be weighing or considering or contemplating or somesuch the next challenging decision, the Afghanistan pitch.  The Afghanistan pitch is the pitch the POTUS does not want to win, since the reward is that POTUS gets to hold the 2012 Democratic Convention in Kabul, whether it is inside concertina wire or is in ruins.

Blame-Shifting Is An Option

| 17 Comments

What Is To Be Done? 

Shahab3.jpg
The plan to strike Iran was out of date after 2004, when the Bush administration chose to stay its hand and to constrain Ariel Sharon. The fact that Tehran now fires a Shahab-3 ballistic missile that can carry a warhead to strike Israel is a consequence of the Bush administration's failure to confront Tehran and the United Nations Security Council. The NIE report of 2007 that claimed that Iran had abandoned its nuke weapons program in 2003 was either a ruse or a fiction or an act of political cowardice: Unknown at this time (and Larry Johnson and John Avlon touched on this important debate Sunday 27). What we have now is not the result of Obama administration failures: it is the result of Bush failures and inabilities. The history books that are now under construction will address this policy failure for the rest of this century. What is to be done right now is to rearrange the furniture on the good ship of state and address the facts on the ground. Tehran has a credible missile threat to Israel. Tehran has a credible nuke warhead threat to Israel. Tehran has the military regime to react to an attack on its facilities.

What Is To Be Done? Part 2.  

barack-obama-king-abdullah.jpg
The Obama administration aims to bargain with Tehran.  The trade-off is that we permit Tehran to have its ICBMs and nukes and Tehran permits the US to withdraw combat troops from Iraq and the Gulf and Afghanistan.  The Afghanistan part is critical just now, because McChrystal has delivered his troop request, and the Politburo does not have a cohrenet or even audible response.  The polite way to describe the POTUS indecision is that there is a "split" in the advisers.  The split is that on one side, there is Vietnam is Afghanistan Lite and there is Pakistan is a Nightmare Heavy.  Yet the Politburo must wait on Riyadh paying off the Taliban and Al Qaeda  in order to construct the fiction of a hudna.  And that pay-off must wait on the Karzai brothers politely stepping down from narco-lordship.  The pay-off must also wait on the Obama administration demonstrating Israeli concessions to Palestinian delusions in order to satisfy the larger aggression of the Devils's paymaster, King Abdullah of Riyadh.  You see the broken logic before your eyes?  None of this works because it is all constructed from contingencies that are in large part imponderables if also impossibilities.   Easier to figure out the play-off picture in the NFL based upon week 3 than to figure out what moving part works and what doesn't in the Obama administration's hopes with Tehran and Kabul and Baghdad and Riyadh and Jerusalem.   What is to be done, Part 2, is is to wait on the Obama Politburo to collapse in blame-shifting and finger-pointing and remedial ranting.  Then we can get on to the Israeli plan.  Hint: The Wreckers.   Bush, Rummy and Cheney are still available for scapegoating, though there is a shelf-life date here, and it is approaching on Afghanistan.  

Ballistic Satire

| 1 Comment
 

Huff and Puff.  

The wit of the Tehran Twelvers now includes their sense of the ridiculous. In response to the Obama administration's full-scale assult on the Sunday TV shows (all recorded on Friday), Tehran salvoed a series of short-range rockets -- or claims to have done -- that we have seen before. This is not about ballistic missiles but about ballistic satire. POTUS and the Security Council pretend to huff and puff about Tehran's nukes, and Tehran pretends to be innocent and offended all at once. Now we hear of the new phase in the negotiation game, with Tehran agreeing to the Obama administration demand to inspect the supposedly secret Qom military site. Huff and puff and blow your own house down.

Not Revelations.  

090925_obama_sarkozy_brown_ap_624.jpg
It has been routine to report for years, at least since 2004-2005, that the IAEA does not know what Tehran has built for its nuke cycle, because the military sites have always been out of bounds.  The Qom site ballyhooed by the trio of Obama-Brown-Sarkozy is a military site.  Does it have equipment and practices that will shock, shock, shock the IAEA?  Maybe.  But not anything new.  The dispersal of the Tehran nuke stuff is unknown.  No one has the key, probably not even Tehran.  After 2003 and the fall of Baghdad, the Twelvers plunged into the pool of paranoia that is their birthright and began a deception and decoy protocol that is world class.  They also hired the Russians to do it, and the Russians are the best at fooling the US satellites.

Revelations.  

2189757-Medeu_Almaty_Kazakhstan-Almaty.jpg
David Hoffman, author, "Dead Hand," told me Saturday 26 that the trail of Tehran's agents extends well back to the 1990s and the break-up of the Soviet arsenal.  Tehran has been shopping and hiring Soviet equipment and advisers for at least 15 years.  Hoffman's informant  ran across business cards in 1997 that had been handed to Russian biowar teams  at a WMD fair held in Tehran.  The business cards were a well-known front for the IRGC.  In addition, there were signs of Tehran agents looking for fissile material and for bombs and for missiles in Kazahkstan.  Why Kazakhstan?  Tehran shares the Caspian Sea with Kazakhstan, so it is a neighbor.  More importantly, at the end of the Soviet empire, Kazahkstan contained at least 104 Soviet ICBMs, each with 10 warheads.  Also, Kazakhstan was the center of the Soviet biowar design and manufacturing of anthrax, plague and one unnamed pathogen that could destroy the US wheat fields, among other weird inventions.  Were the Tehran agents shopping for wheat killers?  Did the Tehran agents lease the biowar protocols?  At one point, David Hoffman takes us into a warehouse in Kazahkstan in March, 1994, that is filled with large containers like hotel coffee urns, each containing 90% enriched U-235.  Six hundred kilos in total, in rods wrapped in aluminum foil, in a factory warehouse in the snows of Kazakhstan.  Enough to make forty bombs.  What happened to it?  The US bought it and flew it on C-5s to Dover AFB.  Why was it there?  The Soviets had started and then cancelled a submarine program, and the uranium was for the reactor that was never built on the submarine that was never built.  The best part is that the Soviets never kept a central record of their fissile material or their pathogens.  No one then or today can say what went missing, what was sold, what was borrowed.  And Tehran held job fairs for ex-Soviet ops at least as early at 1997.

KAZAK-W1.gif
  

When Is a Threat Not a Threat?

| 8 Comments
 

Melodrama.  

The Obama administration is manufacturing a media offensive in order to threaten Tehran about the seemingly apparently suddenly surprisingly dramatically revealed third nuke site near Qom, complete with tunnel entrances and mysterious access routes. HRC and Bill Clinton and Bob Gates have already recorded their Sunday morning melodramatic episodes, making stern faces and grave remarks. There is a new deadline of three months for Tehran to "prove" that it has peaceful intentions, according to HRC. Bill Clinton speculates, "The Iranians must have known that the Americans knew, somehow they must have found out that."

No Option.  

090925_rozen_blog.jpg
The most critical observation from the Obama administration ont he Sunday shows (already recorded) is left to SecDef Gates, "The reality is, there is no military option that does anything more than buy time. The estimates are one to three years or so. And the only way you end up not having a nuclear-capable Iran is for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons, as opposed to strengthened."  Emphasis here is no option.  We do not know where all the nuke stuff is located.  The Russians have helped Iran hide the stuff; some of it is Russian stuff; and the Russians are still on contracts to establish decoys and deceptions to defeat the US satellites.

Not A Threat.

The sanctions protocol regime is a mirage.  The Europeans need both Turkmenistan natural gas and Iran natural gas through the yet to be built Nabussco pipeline that will run from the Caspian Sea, through South Ossetia all the way to Austria.  No palaver will intimidate Tehran.  Without the nukes, the Tehran regime falls; with the nukes, the Supreme Leader remains immovable (until he shuffles off the earthly coil and is replaced by the lunatic Mullah Yazdi).  Team Obama can set and reset deadlines for inspections as often as new moons.  Tehran knows how to play the inspection game.   Washington knows how to play the negotiation game.  I am told that at some point we will watch the Nixon in China game, too, but that is well past the 2010 election.  For now, POTUS and his Politburo are happy to run out the clock with "serious negotiations" with the usurper Ahmadinejad and the IRGC.   What what will Jerusalem do while POTUS is repeating threats that are not threats? 

iran.650.11.jpg
 

Rodeo Nuke

| 28 Comments

Radioactive Qom.  

Sarkozy and Brown handed off to POTUS to make the dramatic announcement on Tehran's nuke treachery at the G20 in Pittsburgh not because the intelligence was developed by the US, not because it was developed for Obama, but rather because POTUS is the new kid at  rodeo nuke. The accusation is that Tehran has been consructing a second nuclear enrichment facility near Qom for several years. This is all understatement and misdirection. POTUS knows what we know and what we don't know, and POTUS has known since he was given the President-Elect briefing last November. POTUS remarks about Tehran -- "It's actions contradict it's words." "We will be in a much stronger position... to apply standards that bite." -- are the palaver of youthful and uninspired speechwriters who are running a cut and paste operation on Air Force One. POTUS knows what his Politburo knows. That he will do nothing, and that the Security Council will do nothing. Why? 

Here Is What POTUS Didn't Say.

Tehran has much more than a second secret nuke site. It has numerous hidden sites and has been in the work of dispersing its facilities since 2004. The Bush team chose not to act, chose to corral Sharon from acting, in '04, the last moment we could have inhibited or damaged the program. The Twelvers ran military exercises in '04 and '05 to make sure they were able to retaliate against the Gulf and Israel just because they knew they were vulnerable to our strikes and Israel's strikes. Bush chose not to pull the trigger. Why? The election. Iraq. The UN. Sharon. I do not have the answer. Since then, Tehran has grown stronger and smarter, and has dispersed. Now we know what they have -- we have watched the imports -- but we don't know where it all is. We do know where the National Command Center is located -- the bunker where the Supreme Leader gives the order to launch the nuke-tipped cruise missiles and ICBMs on the Gulf oilfields and on Israel. POTUS knows, and he knows we can't strike it. POTUS also knows that we are not developing intelligence on the Twelvers. The best intel stuff comes from Russia and Israel. Are they using the gigantic British Embassy in Tehran to get the intel out (from snitches)? Is France using its dual use salesforce to get information out. Yes. Consider that the UK, France and German sell Tehran the dual use stuff they need for their secret facilities. What else does POTUS know that he won't say? That his posturing is for the cameras? That Tehran is laughing in its sleeve.  That POTUS can talk softly all he wants, because no one believes what he says.  Does POTUS sound like a man who believes himself?  

Appeasement. 

Not quite nothing.  POTUS will appease and call it engagement.  Bluntly, POTUS will lead the appeasement of the Devils in Tehran and Pyongyang and Caracas and Rangoon. Why? Because POTUS and the Security Council do not have a plan. Does Israel have a plan? Yes. Is it high risk? Yes. Is appeasement low risk? No.   Appeasement gives the Devils time to recruit new Devils. Do we watch while the nuke facilities are dispersed to Caracas and Mexico and Cuba?  Chavez is waiting delivery.  Start the IAEA shuffle.

Last Days of the Republicans: Part 22

| 29 Comments
Rahm's Historic Stupidity
  by John Batchelor  
 

Rahm EmanuelWhen Rahm Emanuel dismissed Obama's critics as descendants of Father Coughlin, he showed that he doesn't know a thing about why we conservatives oppose the president.

  White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel demonstrates earthy zeal in his job as scoutmaster of the President's political bureau, and it is therefore a fresh puzzle that he is apparently uninformed of the true nature of the opposition to the Obama administration's policies.

"Father Coughlin called Roosevelt a socialist, the John Birch Society was created in reaction to Kennedy, Clinton has Scaife and others who went after him," Emanuel told The Washington Post for an article about the "right-wing noise machine." He continued, "And now they've come after Obama on Socialism and other things. This has always been a creed from those voices dealing with Democratic presidents. But yes, there's an intensity, given the time frame we're all under, that's different."

Rahm Emanuel, the man responsible for organizing the responses to the daily criticism of the Obama administration policies, is ignorant of both the Republican Party and modern conservatism.

Before addressing the true nature of Republican conservative opposition to the Obama administration's melodramatic policies of the stimulus the budget, cap and trade, healthcare reform, and national defense, it is necessary to correct the record on Emanuel's Archie Bunker tour of American political debate since FDR......

jamesindentontx

I think the conservative movement needs to worry about something besides Rahm Emanuel. Even if Rahm has made some historically inacurate statements, the author's own credibility on history is doubtful. I find his version of history fantastical and sentimental. I find the so-called conservative arguments against any progress the Obama administration wants to make to be inconsistent and tired. Conservative thought has become muddled and contradictory, and I would be more worried about that. This article, like the Republican party, is focused on a triviality, and is missing the larger point.

|
|
|
(6)
2:21 am, Sep 24, 2009
pricklypear

Which is......

|
|
7:57 am, Sep 24, 2009
diamondgirl

Prove what larger point we are missing?

|
|
12:23 pm, Sep 24, 2009
elvin1

Rahm Emanuel is a thug from the sewer of Chicago politics. Enough said!

|
|
12:55 pm, Sep 24, 2009
elvin1

Pardon me, I should have said that Rahm Emanuel is a foul-mouthed thug from the sewer of Chicago politics. The liberals need to look to their own before getting their panties in a wad over uncivil discourse.

|
|
|
(1)
1:23 pm, Sep 24, 2009
misha1000

"Rahm Emanuel is a foul-mouthed thug from the sewer of Chicago politics"

Like Cheney? To Senator Leahy: "Go f--- yourself." How about no-bid contracts for Halliburton, and other cronies? Hey, where are the WMDs in Iraq? W and Cheney are from the sewer of Halliburton. How about Bush and his coterie's tolerance of Saudi Arabia's public beheadings, which pass for entertainment there? How about their tolerance for women being chattel there? How about their tolerance, and military support, for a corrupt 8th century theocracy? Their tolerance for child brides? Google it.

Cheney is more corrupt than Agnew, another Repug. You people are vile.

|
1:52 pm, Sep 24, 2009
rowland

You base your conclusions on what, exactly? What specific parts of the author's historical credibility do you challenge? You're just parroting boilerplate.

|
|
1:29 pm, Sep 24, 2009
tonyjenson

The point is that we have problems bigger than birthers, medicare recipients railing against government-run healthcare and praising incivility from members of Congress.

I'm an independent who voted for Pres. Reagan and the first Pres. Bush. Then the base of the Republican Party was taken over by a moral majority more concerned with expanding government in order to create social change. 

If given a choice between higher taxes and school prayer, the current Republican Party would choose prayer.

Hypocrisy has taken the place of Buckley conservatism. The Republicans elevate quitters, TV celebrities and family-value liars (ie. Palin, Limbaugh and Sanford/Vitter/Gingrich, et al).

Democrats do it too, but they don't set themselves up as Moral Compasses. As an Independent, I'll take the one that's at least honest about their lack of fiscal restraint, than the Hypocrit that lies to me.

Until the Republicans grow a pair and say the wing-nuts and their representatives don't have a place in the GOP, you'll never get this Independent's vote again.
************************************************************************ ***
Political parties elect candidates, Independents elect Presidents.

|
|
2:07 pm, Sep 24, 2009
misha1000

Father Coughlin, the radio priest, was a vicious anti-Semite. His bishop finally shut him up. The Birch Society is a haven for anti-Semites, too.

Anyone who defends those two, is comfortable with racism. Beck and Limbaugh, who are both junkies, are trying to incite a lone wolf. See Drs. Slepian and Tiller.

"a gifted, Canadian-born Catholic priest who served greater Detroit at the famous Shrine of the Little Flower Church and took up a spectacular career as a pioneering radio preacher on WJR after 1926."

Thanks for confirming you have a Klan uniform in your closet. I've always said the conservative movement is riddled with anti-Semites, white nationalists, theocrats, tax rebels and assorted other kooks.

Any Jew who lies down with conservatives, just gets fleas.

|
|
|
(1)
2:27 am, Sep 24, 2009
mcmchugh99

The Republicans have always appealed to various nativist, racist and right-wing populist groups, going back to the Know Nothings of the 1850s, the American Protective Association in the 1890s, the KKK in the 1920s, and again in the 1950s and 1960s--as part of the Southern Strategy of Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan.

In the past, they were just more blatant about this than they are today. Now, they make racist appeals to these people one day, then deny it the next, which was not really necessary before the 1960s.

|
|
|
(4)
12:30 pm, Sep 24, 2009
sophia5

Ask New York DEMOCRAT Rep. Caroline Maloney about
her recent " N " word comment, that the liberal media ignored.

DEMOCRAT Robert Byrd. "Former" member of the KKK.

|
1:57 pm, Sep 24, 2009
DeaconDrJones

Great. Two guys vs. a century of jackasses. Always fun, Sophia5

|
4:20 pm, Sep 24, 2009
roger37

That's sophie's typical strategy of false equivalency. Nothing new from her.

|
6:38 pm, Sep 24, 2009
ZodiacZelda

Pat Nixon's cloth coat had a sable lining.

|
7:08 pm, Sep 24, 2009
misha1000

"All the politics that Coughlin, Welch...have in common"

What they have in common is virulent anti-Semitism, and they detested black people and Asians.

Jesse Helms: 'UNC stands for university of ni---rs and communists.'

Hagee: 'The anti-Christ will be Jewish, as was Adolph Hitler.'

Any Jew who lies down with conservatives, just gets fleas.

|
|
2:48 am, Sep 24, 2009
Randyrocker

When asked about Afghanistan by Charlie Rose on the 'Charlie Rose Show' you could see Rahm Emanuel had no answer in reply and was trying to play past the question asked, in another attempt by Charlie Rose, Rahm indicated his sense of power in the White House and how he was lapping it up, and would use it for the sheer satisfaction of the feeling it gives him knowing he's got it. It's gone to his head, not in the same way one would lust for power, but as one lost in a power lust with no end. He even portrayed himself in one instance of being more important in decision making than US General Stanley McChrystal, who wants more troops on the ground in Afghanistan. A General who was actually serving the country while Rahm Emanuel was trying to be a Ballet Dancer. Rahm like his partner Obama are too big headed for the country and have less concern for America than for the power and glory they are so desperate to have. There is a feeling that comes through loud and clear they have no actual knowledge of what they are doing for the country nor do they have any real sense of purpose.

|
|
|
(2)
3:58 am, Sep 24, 2009
Natural-Selection

He had no answer because liberals are spring loaded to cry, say their feelings were hurt, then blame the republicans for everything.
Thin-skinned crybabies....that's what we elected. Yay team!

|
|
|
(6)
4:38 am, Sep 24, 2009
Keatsian

You have to be kidding - Conservatives are the queens of crying - just look at Glenn Beck. Not to mention the fact that anytime that anyone criticized president Bush we were called "anti-American" or "traitors" or "Baby Killers". Now, the ex vice president candidate for your party goes to a communist country and bashes the president on foreign soil - where is the Conservative outrage at un-Americanism now?

|
7:37 am, Sep 24, 2009
Keatsian

George W. Bush made it pretty easy to blame Republicans for everything. Increasing the debt from 5 trillion to 11 trillion from Clinton's surplus, starting two unnecessary wars, ignoring the Geneva conventions (not to mention the anti-torture treaties signed by Reagan), allowing millions of people to slip into poverty and lose health care, among many other things... Pretty easy target he gave us. But, it is not just him - Republican presidents are responsible for 77 percent of our current debt - they are wasteful spenders that increase the size of government (especially Reagan and the two Bushes) and then rail against spending and big government. Not to mention the party of pushing morals has the biggest immoral actors in the history of politics - Sanford, Foley, Ensign, Vitter, Craig, Bill O, and many others.

Their hypocritical nature provides a pretty big target for us to aim at.

|
7:55 am, Sep 24, 2009
theoPitt

Keatsian, although Clinton had a surplus budget in his final 3 years, the national debt went up from 4.4 trillion to 5.6 trillion during his 8 years. And the deficit through 2008 in now at 10 tillion. You can get those numbers from the treasurydirect.gov web site.

The projections for the debt are to double again in the next ten years. And at least the first 4 will be Pres. Obamas. You can blame Bush for Obama's first year Debt addition of 1.5 trillion if you like, but if you do, blame the increase of debt in the first years of Bush on Clinton.

Anyway you slice it, our debt sucks, and its only getting worse with our present course of policy.

|
10:22 am, Sep 24, 2009
diamondgirl

Natural Selection, you forgot they cry Racist to try to stop the conversation, which if they havnt noticed didnt work....and wont anymore

|
12:24 pm, Sep 24, 2009
mcmchugh99

Conservatives love to use words like "whine" and "cry" any time people dare to criticize them or point out things like the Southern Strategy.

It is just part of their Standard Operating Procedure to ward off any comment or criticism, along with accusing everyone else of being racist while constantly engaging in racist appeals themselves.

|
12:33 pm, Sep 24, 2009
misha1000

"Thin-skinned crybabies....that's what we elected."

Hey, is Beck sober this week? Are Beck and Limbaugh off the junk this week? Let me know.

When is Beck going to start sobbing on TV again? Does Beck practice polygamy in private, like most Mormons? You guys are the biggest hypocrites going.

|
2:15 pm, Sep 24, 2009
Fubarseven

You gotta be kidding me. His answer was well thought out and clear. For the right, everything in foreign policy seems to come down to 'how many troops can we throw at it'. He clearly pointed out that Afghanistan is a rat hole that we are stuck dealing with. There is no real central government, there is no real economy, there is no 'partnership' with the foreign forces in that country, and as a result there may be no value added to throwing more troops into the hole.

What I hear him allude to was that Afghanistan is probably a lost cause. Unless we are willing to commit trillions to build an economy, an infrastructure to support an economy, and kill every last warlord that dabbles in the poppy trade, we probably can't do much there.

We have accomplished the goal of unseating the Taliban as the ruling entity, we screwed up the goal of killing Bin-Laden, and we are unable to complete the effort to destroy Al-Quaida because they are no longer in Afghanistan in numbers. As with the Soviet's, they are holed up in Pakistan, striking out at coalition troops with sorties across that effectively non-existent border.

Time to refocus the mission. We cannot build a modern Afghanistan, we are a rich nation, but we are not that rich.

If the rest of the world is not going to sign on to building a modern and stable economy in Afghanistan we need to acknowledge we cannot do much more there.

Al-Queda is the target.

|
|
10:17 am, Sep 24, 2009
misha1000

GOP christianity = fascism

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Sinclair Lewis

|
|
|
(1)
5:05 am, Sep 24, 2009
numonk

Yes. Some fucking arrogance, "we're the chosen ones, and you must do as we say because otherwise you will suffer forever."

|
|
|
(2)
10:13 am, Sep 24, 2009
eurydice9276

Well, at least that suffering will happen in some mythical place after we're dead. Secular paternalism hits us while we're living - "we know best, and you'll pay for it until the day you die."

|
11:48 am, Sep 24, 2009
DeaconDrJones

eurydice9276
Seriously? Have you taken a look at teen pregnancy rates in red states? Fear of sex ed is just one of the many ways christianity is working to make the afterlife seem like a great idea.

|
4:24 pm, Sep 24, 2009
misha1000

GOP christianity = fascism

|
|
5:56 am, Sep 24, 2009
misha1000

Coughlin became convinced that President Roosevelt and his "Jewish conspirators" were keeping the country from reaching its full potential. He blamed Jewish bankers for the Russian Revolution. In 1938, Coughlin published a newspaper, "Social Justice," which for all intents and purposes, was a newspaper aimed at directly attacking Jewish people.

Then at a speech Coughlin gave in the Bronx - perhaps his most famous - he gave a Nazi salute and yelled out, "When we get through with the Jews in America, they'll think the treatment they received in Germany was nothing."

Father Coughlin's anti-Semitism made him a hero in Nazi Germany, where newspapers ran daily, stating that "America is not allowed to hear the truth." Some of the American public shared Coughlin's views, and 2,000 supporters gathered and marched in New York, protesting the migration of Jewish refugees from Hitler's camps. These protests were not short-lived; they went on for several months, and Coughlin embraced his supporters. 

At the height of his anti-Semitism, Coughlin had joined forces with an organization named the "Christian Front," which cited the now-famous priest as a vital influence. In 1940, the FBI shut down the Christian Front, after discovering the group was arming itself and planning to murder Jews, communists, and even United States Congressmen. 

So we have a bunch of junkies, getting into bed with racists. Sign me up.

|
|
|
(1)
6:06 am, Sep 24, 2009
mcmchugh99

He was part of the America First movement along with Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh, who both shared his Nazi ideas. They were against going to war with Germany because they wanted Hitler to win. Of course, this "isolationist: movement was always more associated with the Republicans than FDR and the Dems at that time.

|
|
|
(1)
12:36 pm, Sep 24, 2009
eurydice9276

Anti-semitism was pervasive at that time - it wasn't just one party or the other. Most everyone accepted some kind of discrimination against Jews.

|
1:16 pm, Sep 24, 2009
misha1000

When you think Pat Buchanan, think Father Charles Coughlin six decades ago, the chief engineer of the most dangerous anti-Semitism to ever plague America.

Like Buchanan, Coughlin started his career as a respectable figure in the mass media. But both men share the same beliefs.

|
|
|
(3)
6:10 am, Sep 24, 2009
Mixpixlix

I agree with you about Buchanan. I always surprised at how frequently he appears to spout his thinly veiled HATE and self righteousness. Like many modern racists he wears a veneer of sophistication and education which can make him appear rational. He is not.

I'm truly afraid that as America became a country where material possessions outweight issues of social justice, we opened the door for the next Coughlin and others who would seek scapegoats to blame for all the ills of this nation.

|
|
|
(1)
6:44 am, Sep 24, 2009
whipmawhopma

Mixpixlix - "I'm truly afraid that as America became a country where material possessions outweight issues of social justice..."

Please. We've always been like this. The chief writer of the Declaration of Independence, which states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" was a slaverholder who ultimately valued the material things in his life more than he did the liberty of his slaves. 

|
8:11 am, Sep 24, 2009
mcmchugh99

Pat Buchanan was also a long-time admirer of General Franco, the dictator of Spain in in 1939-45.


G. Gordon Liddy had fond memories of listening to Father Coughlin as a boy, and was encouraged in this by the German lady who kept house for them--who was also a Nazi. later, he went to work for the FBI. where J. Edgar Hoover's ideas were not all that different from Liddy's. Needless to say, Hoover also fed some of his famous "files" to people like Joe McCarthy.

|
|
12:39 pm, Sep 24, 2009
cbeenthere

Keep up the good fight, misha1000, Coughlin should not be forgotten.

|
|
12:54 pm, Sep 24, 2009
misha1000

Welch's famous book, The Politician, caused a stir even among many loyal Birch members who were shocked by Welch's assertion that President Dwight D. Eisenhower was "a dedicated conscious agent of the communist conspiracy." 

The Birch Society promoted the book "None Dare Call It Conspiracy" by Gary Allen who included a discussion of the Rothschilds and other Jewish banking interests as part of a sketch of a much larger conspiracy.

The JBS opposed civil rights.

|
|
6:46 am, Sep 24, 2009
Teuthida

Bullshit. He was dead on correct.

|
|
|
(1)
7:09 am, Sep 24, 2009
misha1000

"Bullshit. He was dead on correct."

Welch is in the dustbin of history, where he belongs.

|
|
2:25 pm, Sep 24, 2009
Glenda1976

Rahm thinks he is the smartest guy in the room. Not.

|
|
|
(1)
7:19 am, Sep 24, 2009
cvillekid

And Glenda, not, not, not, not, not.

|
|
4:22 pm, Sep 24, 2009
WestVillager

I think Batchelor mistakes ignorance for interest. Emanuel doesn't care. It's probably part personality and part strategy. Either way it's served him well.

|
|
7:22 am, Sep 24, 2009
johnstafford

rahm emanuel doesn't know history? who taught you american history, john, gerald l.k. smith? 
try googling "father charles coughlin, anti-semetism" & you'll get 115,000 references. he blamed the depression, for example, on an "international conspiracy of jewish bankers."
in fact, the man you call a "gifted priest" is known as the "father of hate radio." his anti-new deal/-fdr/-jewish
rants eventually got his radio show cancelled--are you listening glenn beck?

|
|
|
(1)
7:29 am, Sep 24, 2009
misha1000

Thanks for bringing up Gerald LK Smith, who was a fascist supporter. He and Coughlin made a great pair. They also detested black people, and Asians.

And thanks John, for confirming for the world to see: the Conservative movement is a haven for anti-Semites, white nationalists, theocrats and assorted other kooks. 

I am so happy you wrote glowingly of Coughlin and Welch - you saved me hours of research about what's in Beck's, Limbaugh's and Coulter's closets. Hey, is Beck sober this week? Are he and Limbaugh off the junk this week? Just checking.

Something else: Ezra Taft Benson, a Mormon prophet, was Eisenhower's Agriculture Secretary. He always referred to black people as "darkies." Google it. And Benson was a supporter of the JBS. Ah, it doesn't get any better.

|
|
|
(1)
11:30 am, Sep 24, 2009
eurydice9276

I think Batchelor is full of baloney, but he didn't write "glowingly" of Coughlin and Welch. He said Coughlin was a gifted priest and successful radio personality, but that doesn't mean approval, especially since he goes on to point out what a crackpot Coughlin was. I can say that Rush Limbaugh is a gifted communicator and successful radio personality and still think he's a racist and a viper. And there's nothing glowing about the way Batchelor describes Welch - he pretty much calls him a whacked-out conspiracy nut. Batchelor is trying to say that these crazies that Emmanuel is trying to identify with the Republican party either didn't consider themselves Republicans or were shunned by the Republican party. 

Ok fine. But just as Emmanuel is talking apples and oranges, so is Batchelor. Forget history - right now, certain self-identified Republicans are acting like vicious, paranoid bigots. So, where are the towering conservative intellects, like Buckley, to kick these pests out the door? If Batchelor, who seems to feel he's one of those intellects, isn't willing to stand up to them and stake out what he believes to be true conservatism, then he's pretty much an accessory after the fact. To allow Limbaugh, Beck and the like to run unchecked is the same as accepting them - Batchelor is tarred with the same brush, and he deserves it.

|
1:55 pm, Sep 24, 2009
eurydice9276

Ooookay, so maybe Emmanuel is wrong about history, and maybe there've been some towering conservative minds out there (your examples of which seem to be all dead) - what does that have to do with the conservative movement today? If they don't stand for whatever it is Emmanuel thinks they do, what do they stand for? Because all I'm hearing is a lot of crazy cacophony. In fact, that volatile legion, while not using the exact words as Coughlin, Welch and Scaife, are sounding just as loony.

So, tell me, Mr. Sober Literate Historically Accurate Guy - what does the Right actually represent, and why should the entire country embrace it?

|
|
|
(3)
7:54 am, Sep 24, 2009
piktor

eurydice -- For an answer expect only the sound of crickets.

|
|
|
(2)
8:58 am, Sep 24, 2009
eurydice9276

Such a peaceful sound - I wish there were more of it. But really, if Mr. Batchelor wants to join the ranks of great conservative minds, he might try emulating their courage in being able to face facts. Right now the inmates have taken over the asylum. If conservatives want to be taken seriously, thay have to stop making excuses and do something about it.

|
11:39 am, Sep 24, 2009
misha1000

"If conservatives want to be taken seriously, thay have to stop making excuses and do something about it."

Forget about it. He just wrote glowingly of Coughlin and Welch. Coughlin wa a Hitlerite. Welch detested black people and Asians.

Their true colors came out, for the world to see.

|
11:55 am, Sep 24, 2009
elldeen

It sounds like Mr. Batchelor was just talking about the same old silly right wing to me. It's not much different from what we have today. So how is Rahm so "historically stupid"? I think he was right on about calling Obama's critics the descendants of Father Coughlin - who was a radical right wing polarizing figure.

|
|
12:34 pm, Sep 24, 2009
mcmchugh99

He's not wrong at all. If anything, he greatly understated Republican attempts to appeal to various right-wing populist types over the decades.

|
|
12:41 pm, Sep 24, 2009
cresttwo

There are the wack cases and nativists like Limbaugh who purposely rile up racial hatred, and there are responsible opposition people like Batcheler and Sen Grassley, who unfortunately, don't have the courage to read the haters and wack cases out of the movement. Dems fall all over themselves to condemn even the Move On Betray-Us Ad, but the few GOP pols with the gumption to express some reservations about where Limbaugh, Beck et al are leading them have to execute a craven apology the very next day. There's just too much of the unhinged in the movement on a percentage basis now, the clowns who want the government to keep its hands off their medicare, or who bring monkey signs or guns to town halls. The moderates have fled -- the Becks hate the McCains, and always have -- so how do you weed out your lawn, when it has very little actual grass left in it? 
If Buckley or Goldwater were here, and in a truth-telling mood, they'd admit that your party is paying a high price now for letting the fundamentalist low-information crowd take over the party in the Reagan years. Although Reagan had the good sense to yes the rubes to death, and give them nothing.

|
|
|
(1)