Paul Johnson: Quite simply, Kerry must be stopped

georgeob1 wrote:

Wilso wrote:
I see that since abuzz has died, the supercons have needed to find another site to infest, and turn to sh!t like everything else they touch.

Now there's a nice, enlightening, rational contribution to the shared dialogue here. Good to see a contributor adding so much of himself to the conversation.

George...

...yours was even more enlightening!

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Wilso wrote:
I see that since abuzz has died, the supercons have needed to find another site to infest, and turn to sh!t like everything else they touch.

Now there's a nice, enlightening, rational contribution to the shared dialogue here. Good to see a contributor adding so much of himself to the conversation.

0 Replies

From a pen more powerful than mine:

No presidential election has mattered as overwhelmingly and urgently as this one. Four years ago, George Bush was beaten in the popular vote nationwide, yet captured the presidency because of electoral abuse in Florida and a shoddy legal judgment by the nation's highest court. Ever since, far from governing in the unifying manner that would have been appropriate in the circumstances (and that he briefly promised), he has done the opposite. But if Mr Bush has been partisan and confrontational at home - over the federal budget, education, race, civil liberty, the environment and a host of other social and cultural issues - he has been every bit as partisan and confrontational abroad. The attack of September 11 2001, an event of historic seriousness, created an unprecedented outpouring of solidarity worldwide. Three years later, much of that solidarity has been squandered. This has happened largely as a result of a war on Iraq that was not just ill-prepared and ill-executed in its own terms but that also exemplified the administration's aggressive contempt towards other nations, with disastrous consequences that continue to this day.

The Bush presidency has been not merely a crime but a mistake. Mr Bush has proved a terrifying failure in the world's most powerful office. He has made the world more angry, more dangerous and more divided - not less. This, above all, is why it matters to all of us, as it should to Americans, that John Kerry is elected on Tuesday. A safer world requires not just the example of American power but the power of American example. Mr Bush has done more to destroy America's good name in the world than any president in memory. Mr Kerry provides an opportunity to begin to repair the damage. It is as simple - and as important - as that.

0 Replies

AMEN TO ALL OF THAT, McTag.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

AMEN

I tought you are an agnostic.

Anyway, well said McT.

0 Replies

Thok wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
AMEN

I tought you are an agnostic.

Anyway, well said McT.

:wink:

Ahhh, the religious folks don't own Latin!

0 Replies

Well, I'm not really religous and I know Latin. ;-)

vale

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

The muslim world has to be forced to find a place to put the palestinians, at least 500 miles from Israel.

Spoken like a true American patriot of the 19th century: Put them (the indigenous population) all in reservations on the most worthless land and let the die of starvation and disease! You could get some good tips about how to arrange the ethnic cleansing from the Turks who did it to the Armenians, from Stalin who had a lot of success with his Siberia express and from the former Apartheid regime in South Africa. All you need, basically, is a sufficiently large stretch of desert (without mineral resources to be sure, we don't want to have to start another pre-emptive war to displace them from their reservations again).

0 Replies

McTag,

Difficult to deal with the outpourings of an unknown author, however on the assumption that the piece expressed your views too I offer the following;

It is simply not true that,

Quote:

George Bush was beaten in the popular vote nationwide, yet captured the presidency because of electoral abuse in Florida and a shoddy legal judgment by the nation's highest court.

This statement betrays a basic misunderstanding of our constitutional process, and offers the questionable value judgements that (1) there was electoral abuse in Florida, and (2) The judgement of the Supreme Court was "shoddy". The race was close, and a recount was in progress as prescribed by State law. The Gore campaign requested a selective recount, only in districts in which their support was strong - existing law prohibited this. The State Supreme Court, in a highly partisan decision,acted to partly support Gore's request. The national Supreme Court overturned this decision and ordered the recount as prescribed by law. Finally, it was later revealed that Bush would have won, even with the selective recount requested by Gore. This proposition is wrong in every element.

Quote:

But if Mr Bush has been partisan and confrontational at home - over the federal budget, education, race, civil liberty, the environment and a host of other social and cultural issues,

Quote:

The attack of September 11 2001, an event of historic seriousness, created an unprecedented outpouring of solidarity worldwide.

This is one of my favorites. This fictitious "outpouring" was a mile wide and a millimeter deep. It briefly masked the general envy, resentment, and distaste the world, both European and otherwise, has professed for this country for well over a century. There is certainly nothing new in European distaste for America as the history of the last two centuries shows. Only in moments of desperation have any of the European powers discovered a kinship with us. Given the supreme idiocy of European policies in the 20th century, there were lots of such moments in this unlamented century. What we are seeing now that the Cold War is over is a return to the pre-WWI view of America from European governments. Beyond that, no one truly weeps when the top dog gets a serious but non-fatal wound. Schadenfreude is indeed an element of the world's reaction to 9/11.

Quote:

Mr Bush has proved a terrifying failure in the world's most powerful office. He has made the world more angry, more dangerous and more divided - not less.

Compared to what or whom? Napoleon I or III? ,Wilhelm?, Lloyd George ? , Clemenceau?, Lenin?, Stalin?, or any of the several spineless leaders of France & the UK during the interregnum between WWI and WWI? The statement implies that somehow the Presidency of the United States is the worlds's office. It is not. It is of this country alone as are the chief executives of every other nation in the world.

Overall the piece is factually inaccurate, filled with self-righteous puffery, and very highly partisan, despite the attempt to make it appear otherwise..

The contrary view offered by the British historian, Paul Johnson, at the opening ot this thread is far more accurate, balanced, and, for minds not wholly in the grip of the revealed truth of contemporary media elites, persuasive.
.

0 Replies

watched an u.s. 'betting researcher (?)' being intterviewed on CCB-TV this morning. he said that since 1936 the outcome of the football game between the washington redsocks and the green bay packers has always predicted the outcome of the presidential election. he said that the pointspread between the teams is so narrow that he cannot reliably predict the outcome of the game - or the election. he further said that even so he will vote for kerry, he wants the redsocks to win ! i guess i'll have to watch the game. hbg

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

McTag,

Difficult to deal with the outpourings of an unknown author, however on the assumption that the piece expressed your views too I offer the following;

It is simply not true that,

Quote:
George Bush was beaten in the popular vote nationwide, yet captured the presidency because of electoral abuse in Florida and a shoddy legal judgment by the nation's highest court.

This statement betrays a basic misunderstanding of our constitutional process, and offers the questionable value judgements that (1) there was electoral abuse in Florida, and (2) The judgement of the Supreme Court was "shoddy". The race was close, and a recount was in progress as prescribed by State law. The Gore campaign requested a selective recount, only in districts in which their support was strong - existing law prohibited this. The State Supreme Court, in a highly partisan decision,acted to partly support Gore's request. The national Supreme Court overturned this decision and ordered the recount as prescribed by law. Finally, it was later revealed that Bush would have won, even with the selective recount requested by Gore. This proposition is wrong in every element.

Quote:
But if Mr Bush has been partisan and confrontational at home - over the federal budget, education, race, civil liberty, the environment and a host of other social and cultural issues,
Quote:
The attack of September 11 2001, an event of historic seriousness, created an unprecedented outpouring of solidarity worldwide.

This is one of my favorites. This fictitious "outpouring" was a mile wide and a millimeter deep. It briefly masked the general envy, resentment, and distaste the world, both European and otherwise, has professed for this country for well over a century. There is certainly nothing new in European distaste for America as the history of the last two centuries shows. Only in moments of desperation have any of the European powers discovered a kinship with us. Given the supreme idiocy of European policies in the 20th century, there were lots of such moments in this unlamented century. What we are seeing now that the Cold War is over is a return to the pre-WWI view of America from European governments. Beyond that, no one truly weeps when the top dog gets a serious but non-fatal wound. Schadenfreude is indeed an element of the world's reaction to 9/11.

Quote:
Mr Bush has proved a terrifying failure in the world's most powerful office. He has made the world more angry, more dangerous and more divided - not less.

Compared to what or whom? Napoleon I or III? ,Wilhelm?, Lloyd George ? , Clemenceau?, Lenin?, Stalin?, or any of the several spineless leaders of France & the UK during the interregnum between WWI and WWI? The statement implies that somehow the Presidency of the United States is the worlds's office. It is not. It is of this country alone as are the chief executives of every other nation in the world.

Overall the piece is factually inaccurate, filled with self-righteous puffery, and very highly partisan, despite the attempt to make it appear otherwise..

The contrary view offered by the British historian, Paul Johnson, at the opening ot this thread is far more accurate, balanced, and, for minds not wholly in the grip of the revealed truth of contemporary media elites, persuasive.
.

Well said george

0 Replies

No it wasn't very well said at all. It was jaundiced and highly questionable.

One bit in particular I found offensive, the bit that started "This is one of my favourites. This ficticious "outpouring"...."

You know nothing of this. I can say from personal experience that in this country, in the media and among the ordinary people, there was a deep and genuine empathy with the grief and outrage of Americans at the events of 9/11. I also believe that this country was no different in that respect from any other European country, SA, NZ, Australia and i daresay all others excepting a few Middle East countries.

Read the remarks of the US Ambassador in London at the time, and the remarks of many Americans who were in this and other European countries at that time, which were widely published in all the newspapers. This is a slur which you should be ashamed of, and if a genuinely-held view, a quite erroneous one.

0 Replies

Thank you McTag.

Now that truly was something well said!

George wrote:

Quote:

This is one of my favorites. This fictitious "outpouring" was a mile wide and a millimeter deep.

He followed it up later with:

Quote:

Overall the piece is factually inaccurate, filled with self-righteous puffery, and very highly partisan, despite the attempt to make it appear otherwise..

I think his second comment applied to his first a hell of a lot more than it applied to your original post.

0 Replies

I'm just remembering, on 9/11 with all transatlantic flights grounded and many Americans stranded, I phoned up our nearest airport, Manchester International, and asked if we could help any of your countrymen with an offer of accommodation.

I do not want any thanks for that, but please do not tell me that we did not care.

0 Replies

Care is as care does. Brtitain and Australia were indeed with us. The others recovered from their 'emotional outpourings' very quickly.

If a condition of continued care and concern is that we passively wait for the next attack or blind ourselves to growing danger as did Britain and France during the '30s, then it isn't worth having.

I find the implication that this sudden rush of feeling, transient as it was, created any obligation on our part to listern to bad advice, as offensive as you evidently find the suggestion that the caring wasn't all that deep.

0 Replies

George Bush squandered a mountain of good will and empathy for this country.

Apparently, George, in his kneejerk adoration of this incompetent president, is unable to see that. And to rationalize and justify his feelings...he apparently thinks it necessary to derogate the feeling that were extended our way.

Not all Americans feel as George does, McTag. But I suspect you realize that without my prodding.

As for George, I feel a bit of pity.

0 Replies

I just got my latest Issue of the Economist, a London based publication. This magazine has consistently supported the war in Iraq and has cited logical reasons for its position. So I was a tad surprised when they came out to endorse Sen. Kerry. This endorsement cites many aspects and actions of the Bush administration that must be considered. This election is at least a referendum on the incumbent, an examination of job performance, if you will. I will not clutter up this post with cut and paste. Those interested are directed to:

http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3329802

If any body has a URL that can counter this with hard facts in favor of President Bush I would certainly appreciate the info.

Respectfully,

JM

P.S. Let me know if you have problems with the link, if so, I will PM it to you, if so desired.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Care is as care does. Brtitain and Australia were indeed with us. The others recovered from their 'emotional outpourings' very quickly.

If a condition of continued care and concern is that we passively wait for the next attack or blind ourselves to growing danger as did Britain and France during the '30s, then it isn't worth having.

I find the implication that this sudden rush of feeling, transient as it was, created any obligation on our part to listern to bad advice, as offensive as you evidently find the suggestion that the caring wasn't all that deep.

You seem to be perplexed that the feelings of horror from that event did not translate into support for Mr Bush and his ficticious "war on terror", and that some Europeans have the temerity to question the motives and the innate righteousness (sanity?) of Mr Bush and his advisers.

The reason is simple: most here, and I hope now most Americans, concluded that GWB had embarked on a course of action which was unwarranted and counter-productive. Among many other things, he has driven moderate opinion in the Arab world into the arms of the extremists.
Neither he nor Tony Blair has managed to convince a majority here that the invasion of Iraq was legal, moral, or operationally sensible.

Next, I will attempt to bring you an article from this week's Spectator, another right-wing UK publication like James Morrison's Economist.

0 Replies

I'm a fairly regular reader of the Economist. The endorsement reported above is no surprise - it is consistent with their reporting and editorial expressions for at least the past year,

Evidently the general impressions that "there is a mess in Iraq", or "moderate Arabs are turning against us", are decisive among the commentators here. This suggests (to me at least) the implicit notions that (1) Moderate Arabs constitute a significant political force with the potential to influence the short-term political trajectory of that part of the world; and (2) That there would be less of a mess in the Gulf Region had we not intervened and, instead followed the gathering pressures from France, Russia, Germany and others to remove the Iraqi sanctions and enable Saddam to resume his oil and weapons trade on a much larger scale.

I believe both propositions are demonstrably false. While the Moslem world west of Tunisia and south of Malaysia is more or less in the hands of moderate governments, this cannot be said of most of what lies between. There the world is largely populated by either radical theocrats or unstable authoritarian regimes sitting on the backs of increasingly radical populations. Excluding Pakistan and Afghanistan for the moment, this part of the world is, of course, the former Ottoman Empire, which Britain, assisted by France, brought down in 1918 in acts of singular foolishness and greed, culminating nearly a century of imperial adventures on the part of both nations.

This is the historical origin of the present conflict. The abject betrayal of Arab nationalistic hopes at Versailles, motivated by the Anglo French imperial aims enumerated in the Sykes-Piquot agreement, the continued British exploitation of Egypt, and the duplicitous endorsement of Zionism were the seeds of the present distemper. The fury of WWII submerged these issues for a while, but the Holocaust and the indifference of post war Europeans to these "displaced persons" created a flood of European Jews to Palestine which reignited the then latent potential. The subsequent Cold War made the Arab/Moslem cause a pawn in a larger game for a while, but it was kept alive by continuing European stupidities now augmented by those of the U.S.

Today, with supreme hypocrisy, the Europeans profess horror at the combination of Zionist excesses and Arab hostility, which they themselves created. Now they imagine they can tame the world with fatuous illusions such as Kyoto and the ICC. The U.S. is, instead focused on the fundamental conflict itself, and attempting to plant a seed for the development of a modern secular state, offering a degree of free political expression to its population in the heart of the discord, in a state already in crisis. These are the real issues dividing European liberals from what I sincerely hope will be a continuing American majority.

This is the lens through which I view the present situation. You may call my views "prejudices" , but I believe they have a sounder, more objective, historical foundation than any of the alternatives I have yet seen.

0 Replies

Paul Johnson: Quite simply, Kerry must be stopped

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know