Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 20 of 43 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,193 Posts
Agreed Jayhawk, what a brilliant man he was and I don't use that adjective loosely. I can remember watching Firing Line and being amazed with his vocabulary and dry sense of humor. You probably remember he had a brother James who was a senator from New York. Your thread makes me want to Google him to see what he's been up to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,576 Posts
Sad to see him pass but he had one hell of a life. From the National Review to Firing Line his brilliance was always well presented.

And sorry Drew, I don't think Bill Kristol can begin to carry that torch. First, he is from a completely different right and second, his writing and ideals lacks the intelligence. It is why conservatism will always have a place in American politics and neoconseratism will be a passing fad.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
66,894 Posts
Sad to see him pass but he had one hell of a life. From the National Review to Firing Line his brilliance was always well presented.

And sorry Drew, I don't think Bill Kristol can begin to carry that torch. First, he is from a completely different right and second, his writing and ideals lacks the intelligence. It is why conservatism will always have a place in American politics and neoconseratism will be a passing fad.
I know that, but today I heard that he wanted to take his place:eek:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,652 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Sad to see him pass but he had one hell of a life. From the National Review to Firing Line his brilliance was always well presented.

And sorry Drew, I don't think Bill Kristol can begin to carry that torch. First, he is from a completely different right and second, his writing and ideals lacks the intelligence. It is why conservatism will always have a place in American politics and neoconseratism will be a passing fad.
I think if anyone could fill his big shoes it might be Charles Krauthammer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29,576 Posts
I know that, but today I heard that he wanted to take his place:eek:
hahaha. Right now Kristol is still serving drinks to Capt Bush on the Titanic as they see if they can find another iceberg before his term ends. I think Kristol, Rove, Rush, Dobson and the Bushites have shown their compete lack of relevance in the primaries.

I'm thinking the real Conservatives just might not roll out the welcome mat for the architect of NeoCon v1.0a. Too many bugs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,193 Posts
I think if anyone could fill his big shoes it might be Charles Krauthammer.
Agreed here too, Krauthammer is a bright guy and a worthy conservative analyst in his own right. A friend recently sent me Mr. Krauthammer's analysis of the Iraqi war and I liked what he said. I'll see if I still have that email and will copy/paste it here if so.
 

·
Cruise Control
Joined
·
52,233 Posts
Krauthammer's a very smart imperialist neocon, so he'd best ply his trade over at the Weekly Standard. Buckley was old-school conservative
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
17,193 Posts
Krauthammer on Iraq

Dems dug in for retreat

By Charles Krauthammer

"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. . . . If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government — in security, governance, and development — there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."
— Anthony Cordesman,

"The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing From the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008


This from a man who was a severe critic of the postwar occupation of Iraq and who, as author Peter Wehner points out, is no wide-eyed optimist. In fact, in May 2006 Cordesman had written that "no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good." Now, however, there is simply no denying the remarkable improvements in Iraq since the surge began a year ago.

Unless you're a Democrat. As Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) put it, "Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq." Their Senate leader, Harry Reid, declares the war already lost. Their presidential candidates (eight of them at the time) unanimously oppose the surge. Then the evidence begins trickling in.

We get news of the Anbar Awakening, which has now spread to other Sunni areas and Baghdad. The sectarian civil strife that the Democrats insisted was the reason for us to leave dwindles to the point of near disappearance. Much of Baghdad is returning to normal. There are 90,000 neighborhood volunteers — ordinary citizens who act as auxiliary police and vital informants on terrorist activity — starkly symbolizing the insurgency's loss of popular support. Captured letters of al-Qaeda leaders reveal despair as they are driven — mostly by Iraqi Sunnis, their own Arab co-religionists — to flight and into hiding.

After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama, the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it's all pointless unless you get national reconciliation.

"National" is a way to ignore what is taking place at the local and provincial level, such as Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim, scion of the family that dominates the largest Shiite party in Iraq, traveling last October to Anbar in an unprecedented gesture of reconciliation with the Sunni sheiks.

Doesn't count, you see. Democrats demand nothing less than federal-level reconciliation, and it has to be expressed in actual legislation.

The objection was not only highly legalistic but also politically convenient: Very few (including me) thought this would be possible under the Maliki government. Then last week, indeed on the day Cordesman published his report, it happened. Mirabile dictu, the Iraqi parliament approved three very significant pieces of legislation.

First, a provincial powers law that turns Iraq into arguably the most federal state in the entire Arab world. The provinces get not only power but also elections by Oct. 1. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has long been calling this the most crucial step to political stability. It will allow, for example, the pro-American Anbar sheiks to become the legitimate rulers of their province, exercise regional autonomy and forge official relations with the Shiite-dominated central government.

Second, parliament passed a partial amnesty for prisoners, 80 percent of whom are Sunni. Finally, it approved a $48 billion national budget that allocates government revenue — about 85 percent of which is from oil — to the provinces. Kurdistan, for example, gets one-sixth.

What will the Democrats say now? They will complain that there is still no oil distribution law. True. But oil revenue is being distributed to the provinces in the national budget. The fact that parliament could not agree on a permanent formula for the future simply means that it will be allocating oil revenue year by year as part of the budget process. Is that a reason to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda and Iran?

Despite all the progress, military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our "very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."

Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region, and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now-achievable victory?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,652 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Dems dug in for retreat

By Charles Krauthammer

"No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. . . . If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government — in security, governance, and development — there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."
— Anthony Cordesman,

"The Situation in Iraq: A Briefing From the Battlefield," Feb. 13, 2008


This from a man who was a severe critic of the postwar occupation of Iraq and who, as author Peter Wehner points out, is no wide-eyed optimist. In fact, in May 2006 Cordesman had written that "no one can argue that the prospects for stability in Iraq are good." Now, however, there is simply no denying the remarkable improvements in Iraq since the surge began a year ago.

Unless you're a Democrat. As Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) put it, "Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq." Their Senate leader, Harry Reid, declares the war already lost. Their presidential candidates (eight of them at the time) unanimously oppose the surge. Then the evidence begins trickling in.

We get news of the Anbar Awakening, which has now spread to other Sunni areas and Baghdad. The sectarian civil strife that the Democrats insisted was the reason for us to leave dwindles to the point of near disappearance. Much of Baghdad is returning to normal. There are 90,000 neighborhood volunteers — ordinary citizens who act as auxiliary police and vital informants on terrorist activity — starkly symbolizing the insurgency's loss of popular support. Captured letters of al-Qaeda leaders reveal despair as they are driven — mostly by Iraqi Sunnis, their own Arab co-religionists — to flight and into hiding.

After agonizing years of searching for the right strategy and the right general, we are winning. How do Democrats react? From Nancy Pelosi to Barack Obama, the talking point is the same: Sure, there is military progress. We could have predicted that. (They in fact had predicted the opposite, but no matter.) But it's all pointless unless you get national reconciliation.

"National" is a way to ignore what is taking place at the local and provincial level, such as Shiite cleric Ammar al-Hakim, scion of the family that dominates the largest Shiite party in Iraq, traveling last October to Anbar in an unprecedented gesture of reconciliation with the Sunni sheiks.

Doesn't count, you see. Democrats demand nothing less than federal-level reconciliation, and it has to be expressed in actual legislation.

The objection was not only highly legalistic but also politically convenient: Very few (including me) thought this would be possible under the Maliki government. Then last week, indeed on the day Cordesman published his report, it happened. Mirabile dictu, the Iraqi parliament approved three very significant pieces of legislation.

First, a provincial powers law that turns Iraq into arguably the most federal state in the entire Arab world. The provinces get not only power but also elections by Oct. 1. U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker has long been calling this the most crucial step to political stability. It will allow, for example, the pro-American Anbar sheiks to become the legitimate rulers of their province, exercise regional autonomy and forge official relations with the Shiite-dominated central government.

Second, parliament passed a partial amnesty for prisoners, 80 percent of whom are Sunni. Finally, it approved a $48 billion national budget that allocates government revenue — about 85 percent of which is from oil — to the provinces. Kurdistan, for example, gets one-sixth.

What will the Democrats say now? They will complain that there is still no oil distribution law. True. But oil revenue is being distributed to the provinces in the national budget. The fact that parliament could not agree on a permanent formula for the future simply means that it will be allocating oil revenue year by year as part of the budget process. Is that a reason to abandon Iraq to al-Qaeda and Iran?

Despite all the progress, military and political, the Democrats remain unwavering in their commitment to withdrawal on an artificial timetable that inherently jeopardizes our "very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state."

Why? Imagine the transformative effects in the region, and indeed in the entire Muslim world, of achieving a secure and stable Iraq, friendly to the United States and victorious over al-Qaeda. Are the Democrats so intent on denying George Bush retroactive vindication for a war they insist is his that they would deny their own country a now-achievable victory?
He has written hundreds of truly excellent articles like that...
 

·
Always Remembered RIP
Joined
·
10,146 Posts
^^^^^ In my opinion, all of that may well be true, (the situation has gone from utterly fucked up to just fucked up over there) but the majority of Americans still believe the Iraq caper was a misguided adventure, and the game was not, and certainly now, is NOT worth the candle.

(.....Unless of course you are an Oil Company, Security Contractor, Military contractor like Halliburton, or an arms dealer or broker or manufacturer.)

So long as Mc Cain believes it is and makes it part of his campaign, that alone should guarantee his defeat.

It is too bad in a way, because he has plenty of good ideas, and is in fact willing to cross ideological and party lines if that is what is takes is compromise to implement them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21,652 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
^^^^^ In my opinion, all of that may well be true, (the situation has gone from utterly fucked up to just fucked up over there) but the majority of Americans still believe the Iraq caper was a misguided adventure, and the game was not, and certainly now, is NOT worth the candle.

(.....Unless of course you are an Oil Company, Security Contractor, Military contractor like Halliburton, or an arms dealer or broker or manufacturer.)

So long as Mc Cain believes it is and makes it part of his campaign, that alone should guarantee his defeat.

It is too bad in a way, because he has plenty of good ideas, and is in fact willing to cross ideological and party lines if that is what is takes is compromise to implement them.
Isn't there a rule against mods drinking on duty?
 

·
Always Remembered RIP
Joined
·
10,146 Posts
Err...

Isn't there a rule against mods drinking on duty?
Not that I am aware of, but I DID hear there is a rule about flaming and attacking them.....
 
1 - 20 of 43 Posts
Top