Taking a hard line on a U.S. foe in the Middle East, Republican presidential front-runner Newt Gingrich indicated Wednesday that he would unilaterally "replace" Syrian President Bashar al-Assad because he is running a "bad dictatorship."Faced with a tossoff performance like that one from the Newtster, I don't even know where to start. His is the hyper-banal voice of unreflective -- no, antireflective -- entitlement. The good news: he won't be elected president. The bad news: someone smoother and more plausible, but fundamentally no better, will be elected president ... I suppose either Killer Romney or Killer Obama, not that it matters which. The best news, however: given that famous Mayan-calendar thing, someone will be elected president, but no one will be inaugurated in January 2013, because the world will have ended and there won't be any January 2013. Obama's the last prexy, and he's a one-termer (slightly less than one full term, even). To those who are about to tell me that the whole Mayan-calendar business is a gross misunderstanding, I say: please be quiet -- I'm having such a nice dream. Thank you.
The former House speaker was asked on a morning radio show in Chicago to offer a "30-second" answer to what he would do about Syria, where anti-government protests have led to a violent crackdown. Gingrich said, "I can give you a three-second answer. Replace Assad. I mean Assad is our enemy. He is an ally of Iran. It is a bad dictatorship. It is to our interest to get rid of dictators of this kind."
Gingrich did not say how he would remove Assad, and acknowledged there would be "consequences" to such an overt U.S. action. He said that as president, it would be his job to manage them. "Now that means you have consequences and have to be much better at managing the consequences than this administration has been," he said on the Don Wade & Roma radio show. "But I think none the less getting rid of Assad will lead to a better future than keeping him there."
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Ugly Stupid Ugly and Stupid American
Please file this away somewhere in your memory, where it'll be easy to find when considering the profound question: Why do they hate us? It's how overcredentialed, underbrained, sawed-off twits get to talk when seeking the presidential nomination of Caucus A of the War Party:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Jim, I'm going to send part of your post to my cousin in Cincinnati, who just recommended this link:
http://www.readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/8777-focus-words-that-dont-work
My cuz is a warm, kind, wonderful woman who honestly believes there's a fundamental difference in the two parties. Seemingly, so does this "Reader Supported News" guy. To me, he seems simply a not-so-subtle Obama/dem fan. I wonder if this site is secretly backed by the party.
Thanks for that link, Mimi. I read it, and agree that it's left-partisan (which should irritate me exactly as much as right-partisan does, but does not ... I guess it's true that "the heresy that one hates most is the heresy that one has come out of"). The author of the RSN piece says much that is true about "progressives," and Right pundits say much that is true about "conservatives." Both ends of the artificial left-right sorting system say some things I can agree with. Unfortunately both can also identify people who they say may be legitimately killed or abused in order to achieve their worthwhile ends; both can point out the eggs that must be broken in producing their omelettes, and there I part company with them. I'm very far from having it all worked out, politically; my only claim is that I recognize other people as creations of God in His image; as, in fact, holy. This isn't going to get me far in world-changing, for sure. I not only can't find a political party to support; I can't even find a militia, or an Occupy group, to join. Oh, well ...
The Occupy group in Boston destroyed the grass and the sprinkler system by camping on it. In the end they cost themselves (tax dollars) the repairs. I'm not sure what they accomplished by Occupying anything in my city. I preferred to focus on local businesses and local food and vote with my wallet against the mall and big box stores. Anyway...I know much of the Occupy movement was good but here in Boston all it did was damage city property while the rest of us worked our tails off in our day jobs.
Well, according to FWPD Deputy Chief and Council Member Marty Bender (who incidentelly is on record as opposing the OFW group), they left their first location in better shape than when they arrived.
Post a Comment