-
The View From the Other Side
May 17, 2013 | 23 comments
-
Cyprus Uber Alles
May 10, 2013 | 9 comments
-
After Hugo
May 3, 2013 | 16 comments
-
Theory and Practice of Terrorism
April 26, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Border Security Games
April 19, 2013 | 26 comments
At Large
Summit Backstage
The arrest of ten deep cover agents of Russia by U.S. counterintelligence sheds new light on Obama amateurism.
The biggest news at the Canadian G-8 and G-20 summits was that the United States held to the position of the need for additional stimulus, while the other majors all had decided the time had come to tighten their belts. The Obama administration just doesn’t get it. But we knew that beforehand, didn’t we? What was important was what swirled around the event.
The arrest of the ten deep cover agents of Russia at the end of the G-8 and G-20 summits carries with it a significance far beyond the immediate fact of the counterintelligence action. The Obama administration had just wound up a lengthy and complicated courting of President Medvedev of Russia in conjunction with an aggressive effort along the same line as Germany.
Dmitry Medvedev, the Russian president and big time businessman, had arranged with Washington for a high profile visit to the U.S. with special attention to Silicon Valley. It had been all excellently staged if only the McChrystal affair hadn’t stolen the spotlight. It had been planned for Obama and Medvedev to bask in what the White House adviser on Russian affairs, Michael McFaul, characterized as developing “…a multidimensional relationship with Russia.”
In plain English this meant Medvedev wants American investment and technical assistance in modernizing Russian scientific and technological industries which includes, among other things, civilian nuclear cooperation. Most important to Medvedev, however, was a willingness of Obama to discuss measures to assist Moscow’s efforts to gain membership in the World Trade Organization (WHO).
The context of the US/Russia discussions is considerably broader than immediately seen. The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, has encouraged investment negotiations at the highest Russo/German level on a new political economic security relationship. With Russia supplying about 40% of Germany’s natural gas needs, this was an obvious next step.
The Germans are already heavily invested in Russia. Like their interest in the U.S. Silicon Valley, the Russians are increasingly involved in obtaining German technology and the assistance that goes along with it. Both Medvedev and Putin recently have emphasized the need for Russia to move out of the limitations placed on it by being primarily a commodities exporter. Angela Merkel has argued within the EU that movement toward integrating Russia into a broader European relationship through increased joint venturing with Germany creates a valuable security dynamic.
Here’s where things get a bit sticky. Not only is there a growing potential economic relationship between Berlin and Moscow, but if such an entente is created, the unity of NATO is politically threatened. If Germany independently leans toward an economic balance with Russia, its pivotal role in the European Union will be put under considerable stress. While Merkel has emphasized that a security bond be forged between Russia and the EU rather than Germany alone, there clearly is unease among its traditional Western partners — and serious upset in Poland.
It seemed that once again Moscow had become the darling of the class. The Americans seemed to be in the midst of another “slobbering love affair” (a hat tip to Bernie Goldberg). This time it was the Russians rather than the Chinese. President Hu Jintao had to be satisfied with an invitation for a state visit to the White House. Clearly this courtesy was to balance Obama’s recent courting of Moscow. For some reason the Obama administration seems to think being liked by key opponents is more important than being respected. To that end Washington appears to be doing all it can to find political gifts with which to shower adversaries.
As President Medvedev was touring the United States, the State Department announced it would designate the Chechen leader, Doku Umarov, as a jihadi terrorist whose carefully orchestrated attacks on Russian targets “illustrate the global nature of the terrorist problem we fight today.” The Russian Foreign Ministry responded by calling its American counterpart’s action “an important acceptance of the indivisible and universal nature of international terrorist threats.” Both sides now have the difficult task of handling the roll-up of the Russian net of agents-of-influence. It’s as if the White House and State Department either ignored or had no knowledge of their own counterintelligence operation.
The saccharin sweet policy positioning would be acceptable if both sides benefited. But there appears no sign that’s the case. By example, the Security Council’s Iranian sanctions accord that Russia and China signed on for, and to which Brazil and Turkey did not, was so toothless that Tehran took it as a victory. The arrest of the ten Russian agents purportedly targeted at “influencing policy development” certainly should wake up the embarrassingly amateur Obama Administration. So much for their “new kind” of diplomacy.
President Obama enjoys summits. They give him a chance to posture on the international scene. Both the G-8 and G-20 have figured out that they don’t have to do anything but let him preen. They then go about their own way without losing a step. The G-8 heaped praise on him for the tightening of American financial regulations, ignored everything else, and went home leaving the president of the United States thinking once again he was successful, even though every one of his policy recommendations was turned down.
There’s a message in such international behavior, but will this American president ever really get it? Thanks to U.S. counterintelligence, the White House may no longer be able to avoid the obvious.
About the Author
George H. Wittman writes a weekly column on international affairs for The American Spectator online. He was the founding chairman of the National Institute for Public Policy.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (60) | Leave a comment
More Articles by George H. Wittman
More Articles From At Large
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/06/29/summit-backstage
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
unger| 6.29.10 @ 6:48AM
It seems that if we stay on our present course of fiscal and political irresponsibility our influence in Europe is bound to wane. We really have nothing to offer now that we have abandoned our core Liberal values. We once embodied all the best hopes of the Enlightenment not so anymore. It scares me to say it, but Europe falling into Russia's orbit might be better than the alternative, which will be in effect if not fact a European caliphate. Between the Russians and the Muslims, I will pick Russians.
Alan Brooks| 6.29.10 @ 8:18AM
"and serious upset in Poland."
The Poles should not have provoked the Russians by agreeing to missile defense installations in Poland. And now the shield is maritime-based, which was the correct decision.
Rod Davis | 6.29.10 @ 9:35AM
You are so right... and here is why? The basing of a seaborne missile umbrella around Iran and any other country wanting to deploy WMDs to Poland, Czechoslovakia, or any other country in Europe is easily defensed by the new Aegis class missile systems.
With one hundred eight aft and one hundred nine forward, these missile make a Destroyer look like a Roman candle as they easily intercept 'any' weapon of destruction. What's even better... the technology is in place, it cost us nothing to deploy, and we didn't make waves with the Russians - diplomacy.
Had Bush had his way, it would have been more money spent for a system that was still on the drawing boards and would have cost us more than we would have dreamed of paying - but what is a couple of trillion to a man that is use to throwing the taxpayers money away, if not giving it away!
Alan Brooks| 6.29.10 @ 9:57AM
I'm voting for Obama because the terrors of the known (Clinton, say) are more bearable than a Bush, Dole, McCain.
My judgment call is Obama can do as well as Clinton did-- which is exponentially better than Carter. I am petty, but thankful for small favors. For instance it was a relief Clinton won the election in '96, rather than America being saddled with Dole for four (he would not have been re-elected) years.
Now, many of Obama's people are globaloneyists, yet Obama himself is no fool, and his personal morality is higher than Clinton's was.
So the question is, can Obama rein in his globaloneyists? We had better hope so.
Dai Alanye | 6.29.10 @ 11:24AM
After this none of us need ever take Alan Brooks seriously again.
I'd previously had difficulty understanding his philosophy but now it seems clear--he's one of those who sees everything backwards. American economic stability and military power, naively thought to be good things by us simple patriots, are in fact dangerous and bad in Brooks' view.
As for Clinton doing well, I can only assume he is referring to the relative economic success of the nation during the time a Republican Congress was in operation ('95-'99) and before the dot-com crisis ruined everything. Otherwise, nothing he's said is rational. Obama IS a fool, and though Dole was a RINO he could hardly have been worse than Clinton.
The idea that Obama can or will reign in the administration he is supposedly leading is fantasy of the highest order. BO wnats things to go on as at present--it's his ideology. Better we all suffer than he be forced to admit his entire political and social philosophies are faulty.
Blackknights 1802| 6.29.10 @ 2:14PM
Have you noticed that Brooks always seems to be a Johnny-come-lately with his posts? He always tags onto someone else’s post at the top of the list. How creative. The markings of a true pseudo-intellectual.
Al Adab| 6.29.10 @ 3:37PM
Poor sick puppy. RIP Brooks.
Alan Brooks| 6.29.10 @ 5:57PM
"Have you noticed that Brooks always seems to be a Johnny-come-lately with his posts? He always tags onto someone else’s post"
I wait to see which way the wind blows.
Alan Brooks| 6.29.10 @ 6:50PM
"Poor sick puppy. RIP Brooks"
Perhaps so; I do wait until I see which way the wind blows and-- like a stray dog-- let myself be blown that way... it's a wild world but anyway you can slice it is your business.
However you might have noticed there are all kinds at AS, and AS commenters don't win the cool calm & collected award: sometimes you guys are foaming at the mouth about Obama!
If I'm a sick puppy, well, some of you could chew a little grass from the lawn to ease your dyspepsia.
LRon| 6.29.10 @ 9:33PM
You have no idea which way the wind blows. Better get a weatherman.
Tim*| 6.29.10 @ 9:56PM
This poor fella is depressed.
Diagnosis : Subterranean Homesick Blues.
" You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows ."
Treatment : Go Home
Christopher Holland| 6.29.10 @ 10:12PM
Calling yourself a windsock saves me the trouble. An empty bag of wind, incapable of original thought and with no moral convictions worth mentioning.
Margie| 6.30.10 @ 12:16PM
Yeah, but he still has just as much right to be here as all the other "bad guys." And he isn't any worse than all the other High and Mighty self appointed self righteous self bloviators around here, is he?
Thom| 6.29.10 @ 7:17PM
Rod Davis, if you knew anything of substance about the Aegis/SM-3 capability, the flight profile of short, medium and long range ballistic missiles and had looked at a map of the world starting in Iran and radiating 1500 or so miles outward you wouldn’t make such misinformed statements.
If you knew any of the above, you would realize that capture envelope of an ABM system makes its launch position relatively fixed in relation to the threat axis and that turns a 2 billion dollar Aegis ship into a very expensive barge tied to a relatively fixed location 24/7. It is not mobile if it can’t move outside the threat axis. Given the limitations of Aegis and the SM-3 with regard to slant range and altitude what you are suggesting is like trying to stop a spiked volley ball to the back of the court by a 7 foot player by putting 4 foot opposing players on the line right at the net.
Try learning something about the differences between SCUD type incoming missiles and just the warheads normally found on IRBMs and ICBMs. The intercept possibilities and matching interceptors are worlds apart. If you understood any of this you would understand why the very large long range radars and very long range interceptors were going to be positioned where they were. A Moron can draw a straight line on a world map.
Just for the sake of clarity are you an agent or working on behalf of the Iranian government or ghost writing for our SECDEF BOB Gates? Just had to ask.
JmsA| 6.29.10 @ 9:52AM
And maybe the Russians shouldn't have provoked the Poles with the Russo-German Non-Agression Pact (including annexation of the eastern half of Poland in 1939), the Katyn Forest massacre by the NKVD in 1940, leaving the Polish Resistance Army to be destroyed by the Nazis as Red Army stopped its westward advance just before Warsaw in 1944, as Stalin also did not allow the western allies landing rights so they could drop supplies to the besieged Polish Resistance Army, and finally, but not least, the Soviet forcefully installing a puppet communist regime in Poland until the advent of Solidarity and the subsequent fall of Soviet Communism. If anyone has provoked anyone is the Russians.
Alan Brooks| 6.29.10 @ 10:09AM
Now wait a minute! Stalin was worse than Hitler, yes. but the Non-Aggression pact was after Hitler was allowed:
a. the Rhineland remilitarized.
b. Anschluss
c. Munich
We take into account there was justifiable anticommunism. And Britain needed time to build up its arsenal and plot strategy & tactics. However, Russia had to defend its national interest too-- no matter how bad it was. "Let it be worse, but let it be ours",
many Russians said; and it WAS worse. But nationalism is so deep-seated, it unfortunately trumps all. Nazionalistische Uber Alles. I wont live to see the end of its horrors; as for you? only you can say.
Ray| 6.29.10 @ 11:37AM
I see, Russia should be allowed to build up their defenses, but Poland shouldn't be allowed the same courtesy, correct?
Alan Brooks| 6.29.10 @ 6:01PM
"but Poland shouldn't be allowed the same courtesy, correct?"
So you admit Eastern Europe isn't as peaceful as it appears to be?
Alan Brooks| 6.29.10 @ 6:41PM
...Poland fears Russia somewhat, so a missile shield isn't merely about terrorist threats.
Now, Russia IS paranoid, but even paranoids have enemies.
Christopher Holland| 6.29.10 @ 10:16PM
Especially when they are as annoying as you are. Being paranoid is one thing - being a stupid pain in the arse is another matter entirely
Kelly Staples| 6.29.10 @ 7:10AM
At least Comrade Hussein Soetoro hasn't claimed to have looked into Comrade Putin's "soul". Yet.
ggoblue| 6.29.10 @ 7:16AM
when you are so stupid that you dont even know you're stupid....democrats just believe their own BS and thats why they cannot change.
Melvin| 6.29.10 @ 7:58AM
People if you think for one moment that justice will prevail, may I remind you who the Attorney General is, who has a certain penchant for not prosecuting this type of criminal behavior?
Eric Holder and Big Mama Janet are way too busy going after those eeeville Tea Party Activists, than to go after those pesky Communist Agents.
Oops, I'm sorry for calling those Russian Agents Communists. Mr. Putin may be KGB, but he is reformed KGB, dah. "Dos Vadanya Comrade."
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.29.10 @ 9:20AM
Folks,
As I have said before...
I'm thankful Obamites are lazy and stupid. The worker-bees in the military and intelligence orgs. do a lot of good work under the radar.
Rod Davis | 6.29.10 @ 9:23AM
You Sir, have been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid. First of all, a stimulus does what it is suppose to do until you see that you are gaining, in tax revenues, what you were spending to get the economy going - spend too much, you have inflation; not enough, you continue the recession. The balance is delicate and tedious and probably too hard for you to comprehend.
My prediction is that those nations buttoning down will continue to experience levels of the recession.
On negotiations with the Russians with regard to Silicon Valley - that means jobs my friend. Are you opposed to that?
Germany will never place itself in jeopardy with the NATO Alliance because it continues to invest heavily in Russian industries. Whatever gave you that notion? You made that statement in hopes of conveying what?
A terrorist, is a terrorist! The problem with most conservatives is that you want to pick and chose who is and isn't a terrorist based upon whether the terrorist is attacking a country that you don't like. Well, it doesn't work that way and that is why Bush's international policies were ignored, but you know that, you simply don't care about the results of your positions.
I seem to remember someone else who didn't have any idea of what his agents were doing - it cost us the Twin Towers buildings and a hole in the Pentagon. At least BHO are apprehending the would-be terrorist and spies!
I will continue to remind you that ignorance is not bliss.
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.29.10 @ 10:26AM
Mr. Davis
You sir, are stuck on stupid, and an unrepentant communist, (pardon the shorthand).
I thank God daily that Algore was not president on 9-11.
With all his faults, W, kicked Alqueda/Taliban right in the teeth and knocked them back on their heels...forthwith in Afghanistan.
Given enough slack, BHO is committed to destroying the country I love. He and his cronies are the most serious terrorists we have ever faced.
RCV| 6.29.10 @ 12:05PM
George W, in his bally-hooed "war on terror", did EXACTLY what Al-Qaeda was hoping to accomplish with its 9/11 bombing: he took a small group of marginalized thugs, and elevated them to the prime enemy of the US, an equal with whom we were "at war" instead of a small group of criminals. This allowed Al Qaeda to recruit and strengthen. In the process, Bush also destabilized the middle east, upset the balance of power there so that a real enemy, Iran, now dominates the region, even sucking in our former ally, Turkey, into the new Iran-Syria-Hamas-Hezbollah alliance which threatens our stalwart ally, Israel. Brilliant!
Ken (Old Texican)| 6.29.10 @ 6:01PM
Uh, RCV, see my post on the other thread. You indeed are stuck on stupid. In this post here, you demonstrate quite clearly your inside-out "cause vs. effect" stupidity.
Do you do that because you hope your bolsheviks can beat 50 million patriot snipers on your pitiful behalf?
Think again.
Your "concern" for Israel is as transparent as chewable panties, stupid.
The 9-11 plot was in full swing before W ever found the whitehouse bathroom...even with Secret Service help......stupid.
Again,
your "cause and effect" turned backwards is stupidity in action.
(Honestly, I do appreciate you writing here. You are the perfect ...perfect...example of bassakwards thinking that defines stupid.)
You dumbunny, Iran began calling the US the "Great Satan" in 1979...(uh, Carter's presidency).
Ronald Reagan asked them if they would enjoy being crispy critters. Our hostages were put on the next plane home.
Sir, I must also tell you that you are either unbearably stupid...and a liar as well. You do NOT know history.
RCV| 6.29.10 @ 7:51PM
Ken: I've learned not to tangle with angry Texans over the years, but let me respond anyway. I'm not blaming GWB for 9/11. The "War on Terror" and the Iraw invasion, however, were mind-boggling disasters for the reasons I've set forth. Of course, Iran was our enemy well before Bush -- the result of stupid Carter's failure to back the Shah of Iran, our strong ally and a far more progressive ruler than anyone else in the Middle East, save Israel. The idiocy was upsetting the counter-balance to Iran. Iran is feared, and rightly so, by all our allies in the middle east, Arab and Israeli, and now it has no Iraqi counterweight. The shiites in Iraq will soon join the Iranian axis, and Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Israel will feel that much more vulnerable.
As to Israel, my friend, you will find no stronger admirer or supporter than me. I would fight for its freedom and existence personally.
breffnian| 6.29.10 @ 11:09AM
You get back in tax revenue what you spend in stimulus?? How does that work? The only way to generate wealth is by increasing productivity. The stimulus spent a trillion dollars to keep SEIU democrats in their public sector jobs which destroy wealth.
Would you sell nuclear secrets to Iran for jobs too? You can't treat all nations the same. As Germany trades more and more with Russia she will come under greater pressure to adhere to Russian policies which are to weaken central European states and NATO. Germany already works with Russia on the Nordstream gas pipeline which carries gas to Western Europe and deliberately bypasses Poland. The object is to starve Poland of gas and supply western Europe. The CEO of Nordstream is Gerhard Schroder, ex German chancellor.
Bush's foreign policies were ignored??? I thought he fought two wars and liberated two countries. His policies caused global controversy. Obama is continuing those policies. In fact he has doubled down in Afghanistan.
The point is not that Obama doesn't know what his intelligence services are doing. The point is he ignores reality in order to continue his "we're all friends now" approach with a corrupt and dangerous Russia. That is naivete and will cost America and the cause of freedom.
JmsA| 6.29.10 @ 11:46AM
The stimulus has not helped, nor will it help, for it is only stimulating the non-productive government sector at the expense private sector. The Europeans have come to terms with this and are shedding Keynesian economics, at least temporarily, as evinced by the repudiation of Obama's proposed greater stimulus activity at the latest G-20 summit.
As to the latest Russian entreaties to Silicon Valley, it only means, if anything, American investment in Russia, not to mention the possibility of easier commercial spying in the part of the Russians, given recent events on that front.
Bush policies were not ignored because we were picking and choosing our enemies, but because the French, Germans, etc., were in economic and technical league, and thus in a manner of speaking, allied with Saddam Hussein, at the expense of the Iraqi people, while they also advocated against Israel, and ignoring the doings of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, who had neither threatened nor attacked them.
When Bush, who I don't particularly enjoy defending, took over, there was no anti-terrorist infrastructure in place, for the previous administrations, as the current one is wont to do, believes counter-terrorism should be handled as a police or criminal matter. If Obama is capturing any terrorists, it is because Bush did the heavy lifting insofar as counter-terrorism is concerned.
As to ignorance not being bliss, such appears to be so in your case as you wax ebullient in giving credit to Obama, despite the intelligence failures insofar as the Fort Hood and Arkansas shootings, not to mention the failed attempts by the incompetent Christmas airline and New York wannabe bombers, which hardly speak of counter-terrorism stoutness, let alone prowess.
As far as attacking other countries we don't like, as someone else has posited, the murderer and war monger Saddam Hussein is done and gone, and Iraq is forging ahead towards at least a modicum of democracy.
Alan Brooks| 6.29.10 @ 9:42AM
"The problem with most conservatives is that you want to pick and chose who is and isn't a terrorist based upon whether the terrorist is attacking a country that you don't like. Well, it doesn't work that way and that is why Bush's international policies were ignored, but you know that, you simply don't care about the results of your positions."
I never liked the Bush cabal, but Reagan, the conservative in the positive, not mercenary sense, knew that we are stuck with nationalism for many decades, and we have to accept the national interest and not get bolshie (or libertarian) about it. Russia will look out for its interests and so will we look out for ours'. Naturally, it is whose ox is being gored; no one is objective, everyone is grinding an ax. Academics hide behind analytical objectivity, Chomsky being the most influential. A terrorist is of course, as you know, an entity opposed to a state's national interest. Goes without saying.
Christopher Holland| 6.29.10 @ 10:20PM
If it goes without saying, why did you say it, and why take long to do it when you did?
Margie| 6.29.10 @ 10:37AM
We have a President in whom the Russians know they have a friend. Any Democrat President will do the same. Unless we wake up to the reality of this fact and elect a Republican President we will have more of the same.
Have the Democrats ever met a Communist they didn't like?
Alan Brooks| 6.29.10 @ 10:55AM
Dem?
Truman was better than both Bushes rolled into one, and throw in Jeb and the whole lot of them, too.
breffnian| 6.29.10 @ 11:12AM
Was he better than Reagan as a communist fighter? And Bush 1 was Reagan's VP and the Berlin Wall came down on his watch. Truman fought for sure but it took the invasion of Sth Korea for him to do it and Korea was only a partial victory.
Margie| 6.29.10 @ 11:16AM
Truman? If only. I wonder if he'd be a Republican if he were alive today. The man did have a conscience.
Better than GW? I don't know. Like I always say, no politician is perfect. They all seem to have their Liberal streaks. It is human nature. But at least you vote for a Hawk, and not a Dove. That's where I strongly draw the line.
The Democrat party is lost.
RCV| 6.29.10 @ 2:02PM
Margie, I'm quite confident that Harry would remain a stalwart Democrat. He was an unabashed social liberal, a strong supporter of Social Security, a fervant believer in the United Nations, a man who called the House Committee on Un-American Activites "the most un-American thing in America", a strong fighter for civil rights, an opponent of capital punishment, an opponent of Roosevelt's internment of Japanese-Americans in WWII, and probably more than any other Democratic President, famously partisan
Margie| 6.29.10 @ 2:22PM
Yeah he sure was bitten by the Liberal bug. But there was just something so different about him, and you can't compare him with taday's Democrats. I could be wrong, but putting him next to Obama makes me want to puke. (sorry!).
RCV| 6.29.10 @ 5:35PM
Well, as you know, I'm an Obama-ite. But Harry was indeed a guy who it was hard not to like. I feel the same way about Ronald Reagan, to the chagrin of many of my liberal friends. The title of Merle Miller's homage to Truman, "Plain Speaking", says it all. Truman said what he thought, and it usually made total, plain, common sense. ("If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.")
Margie| 6.29.10 @ 5:50PM
RCV,
My husband really likes Truman. His Dad was a Democrat and I guess he learned a lot about him from him. I bought him I think all of Truman's books, that he wrote himself, plus the one his wife wrote. Some Democrats. like my own Dad, a lifelong Dem, are likeable people. They live conservatively themselves, are hard workers, and Patriots. I think I inherited my love of country from my Dad. He's a quiet man, but when he speaks you know he's honest and he means every single word of what he says. I don't know if he voted for Reagan, and we don't talk politics much. I'll tell you one thing though. He sure didn't vote for Obama. Even he couldn't bring himself to do so. He calls him Obummer.
RCV, you kind of remind me of the poster, Liberal Reader in that you're smart, but unfortunately a Liberal. :^) And maybe a bit nicer.
RCV| 6.29.10 @ 7:58PM
Thanks, Margie ... I think.
There is a great Truman book you should track down and read. It's called "Strictly Personal and Confidential". It's a collection of letters Truman used to dictate at the end of each day, to blow steam off. He'd read them the next day, and put most of them, unsent, in a file marked "Strictly Personal & Confidential". (Some, he sent the enxt morning, and usually regretted it!) But they're wonderful to read. One of my favorites is a letter he drafted to his old friend, Supereme Court Justice William O. Douglas after the Supreme Court's Youngstown Steel decision, holding Truman's seizure of a steel mill unconstitutional. It begins something like, "Dear Bill, What is it that makes otherwise sensible men turn into complete idiots when they get on the Supreme Court?"
You just gotta love the guy!
Margie| 6.30.10 @ 12:08PM
I agree. You gotta love him, RCV. Thanks for the book ref.
God bless.
Alan Brooks| 6.29.10 @ 10:59AM
and Margie, you probably know that libertarians are almost as bad-- morally-- as Commies?
So we get it in both ears.
Margie| 6.29.10 @ 11:18AM
The Leftist Libertarian platform speaks for itself. Anti-war. Period. End of story.
Christopher Holland| 6.29.10 @ 10:25PM
You know a lot of libertarians who run police states, use the secret police to arrest anybody who disagrees with them, have people shot without trial and sent to labour camps? Yes, of course, this does put libertarians on the same moral plane as communists - how silly of me not to recognise this conspicuous fact! Yet another incovenient truth for stupid right wingers to come to terms with.
Margie| 6.30.10 @ 12:12PM
No, a fact that Libertarians need to come to terms with. That their non-interventionism is wrong. That it is anti-American.
My Lord Christopher~ would you really want a 1960's revisited anti-war hippie leftover running this country? Or are you even from this country?
For those "Right-Wingers" who may not know it~ non-interventionism is actually part of the Libertarian platform. They, like the Leftists, Nuff said.
RCV| 7.1.10 @ 1:36PM
Margie - The Libertarians may be wrong -- I think they are. But "anti-interventionism" isn't "Un-American". There have been anti-interventionists of all stripes throughout US history - conservatives like Robert Taft -- and interventionists of all types - liberals like Jack Kennedy or Franklin Roosevelt. I'm a liberal Democrat but a confirmed interventionist. I don't think the US can or should avoid its role of the world's most influential and powerful nation. Do I think it should make sure its national interests are indeed involved and would be served before it commits the lives of its young men and woment to a war? You bet. But the reality is that the rest of the world looks to us and counts on us for positive leadership in the world, and its a little late to even think about turning into Switzerland.
Margie| 7.2.10 @ 12:07AM
RCV,
You know, you are one Liberal here that has been so far quite pleasant to speak with. Thanks.
I'll tell you where I'm coming from with the un American opinion. It's really only because of some of the very heated, nasty conversations I've had here with some of the non-interventionists. I admit I got nasty too and things got way out of hand. There seems to be a certain group of them who actually believe that we cause the terrorists to be terrorists and they do blame America for it. That's what I think is Un-American. Just the blame America firsters. But I get that all Libertarians don't agree with that. Thank goodness.
You're an interesting kind of Liberal. Maybe you are more like a Reagan Democrat? Would you have voted for him, do you think?
Flee| 6.29.10 @ 11:11AM
How is it to the US advantage to call a Chechen leader a jihadi terrorist? The Chechens only want independence from Russia. They are not spreading their attacks outside the country. Have they ever sent terror anyplace but their home? How can a US govt be so blind as to not see the Russians wanting to paint a group fighting for their independence as a terror group? Yet they insist that sanctions will stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Naive is not a strong enough term for this admininstration.
RCV| 6.29.10 @ 12:18PM
The Islamic terrorists in Chechnya have long received their funding from the same Saudi-based Wahabbis that fund Al-Qaeda. It's why the Bush administration in 2003 declaredChechnya-based Special Purpose Islamic Regiment (SPIR) and the Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs as terrorist entities in February 2003. These lovely folks bombed an apratment building in Moscow in Seeptember 1999, killing 64 innocent civilians; in May 2002, they set off a bomb at a parade that killed 41 people, including 17 children; in March 2010, two of their female suicide bombers detonated bombs at a Moscow subway, killing 39 people. Our 9/11 plotter, Zacarias Moussaoui, was an active recruiter for the Chechyn terrorists.
These are not "freedom-fighters", people, they are Islamo-fascist thugs.
Sam Vaughn| 6.29.10 @ 5:19PM
It's surprising that so many liberals are showing up here. It is after all a place to debate. I've even appreciated Alan Brooks comments as they sharpen my conservative/libertarian thinking. Nevertheless it's as if a memo went out at Democrat/Alinsky party headquarters to isolate and obfuscate the debate here at Spectator.org. Alan, if JFK were alive today he would be pilloried by your crowd for being too conservative. No democratic-republic can long survive spending it's children and grandchildren into serfdom. That is what we face.
AMENBRO| 6.30.10 @ 2:48AM
AMATEUR MY ASS
HE's having unprotected sex with these people infecting our country with their disease.