Commentary and analysis on American politics, culture, and national identity, U.S. foreign policy and international relations, and the state of education
- from a neoconservative perspective! - Keeping an eye on the communist-left so you don't have to!
Here's Allahpundit on President Obama's reversal on the Iranians and 4th of July hospitality:
I wonder what changed his mind. Was it the mass head-cracking today in Baharestan Square? Or, like me, did he read the story about regime filthbags evicting Neda’s grieving family from their home and find himself consumed with righteous rage? Probably not the latter. President Spock doesn’t do rage.
Also, Jennifer Rubin:
The president has rescinded his invitation for hot dogs with Iranian diplomats after days of criticism from the blogosphere, members of Congress, and conservatives. Once again the Left has been marched up the hill to defend the inexcusable (How rude to disinvite someone with whom we may have to “engage”! How petty!) only to abandon the position when common sense or political necessity intervene.
This is a pattern of course — on the president’s language on Iran, on release of detainee abuse photos, on Chas Freeman, and sort of on a Truth Commission. One would think the Right has more influence with this administration than do those who launched his campaign and put him in the White House ...
In this article, the “truth commission” notation is what hit me. I have to say that the very idea of the Obama Administration organizing this truth commissions is nothing but vindictive. I don’t see anyone, and the GOP should, saying anything about the unusual concept of this coming up. A truth commission is more appropriately associated with global, emerging countries, not the U.S. I am not sure whether I can ever forgive this charming devil of a president, who proffered “non-partisan solution to issues” from taking that malicious road. Shall we put every former president in a sinister truth commission? Aren’t we closer than that as a nation? No. By my observation, the left are strangely filled with vindictive and petty invectives. Even though they control the presidency and congress there is a strange nastiness that abides. The press act embarrassingly like crushing schoolgirls over Obama, and so, lash out like wounded lovers with psychological baggage from personal disappointments. As an artist, a free thinker, I was liberal for many years – rebelling against my military Dad. I don’t remember ever having that level of hatred towards the opposition. More of a sense of wanting to know how the opposition thought, agreeing that we would stand ultimately for the same principles. Were has that gone?
Rusty: How would you refer to the Kenneth Starr reports? Were they not vindictive? And active during Clinton's presidency too. How much more vile and vindictive can a party and its followers get towards Clinton, Carter and the already BHO.
You are way off base my friend. I get where you are going, and I appreciate your sensibilities though. I just ask for some perspective.
The truth commissions were set up in South Africa, but that was not an "emerging nation" just an evolving one. Let's be clear.
Tim, RE: your refernce to Ken Starr: the Paula Jones lawsuit, as I remember it, struck me as selfish opportunism. As for Ken Starr, he had no business investigating Bill Clinton in my brand of politics. And, as I have said here before, if I had to live in matrimony with the likes of a Hillary Clinton, Monica Lewinsky might have turned my head as well. That said, NEVER in the sacred Oval Office; take it off site, for goodness sake.
Clinton had affairs while Governor which to me, Democrat or Republican, is not the public’s business’s (my historical favorite is JFK and Marilyn Monroe, and then, Robert Kennedy – kept secret for many years by the press, not to mention FDR). So I am consistent. It is dirty politics. I have always despised attorneys such as Ken Starr. The concept of politicizing affairs seriously disappoints me. It takes attention away from the serious issues.
Rusty: Nice to know we have some common ground. I feel sorry for Sanford, and applaud his wife for being so forthcoming and not doing the fake stand-by-your-cheating-man at the press conference bit. But the whole thing is a bit weird, and different. And "going hiking" now takes on a whole new meaning!
We may not agree on all things on a go forward basis as you and I debate for ultimate truths in this forum, but, I respect you and your opinion. It is a refreshing surprise occasionally to agree. Thanks.
I am a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for me to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites. Thank you for shopping through my links.
6 comments:
This is what happens when you don't use Evite.
In this article, the “truth commission” notation is what hit me. I have to say that the very idea of the Obama Administration organizing this truth commissions is nothing but vindictive. I don’t see anyone, and the GOP should, saying anything about the unusual concept of this coming up.
A truth commission is more appropriately associated with global, emerging countries, not the U.S. I am not sure whether I can ever forgive this charming devil of a president, who proffered “non-partisan solution to issues” from taking that malicious road. Shall we put every former president in a sinister truth commission? Aren’t we closer than that as a nation? No.
By my observation, the left are strangely filled with vindictive and petty invectives. Even though they control the presidency and congress there is a strange nastiness that abides.
The press act embarrassingly like crushing schoolgirls over Obama, and so, lash out like wounded lovers with psychological baggage from personal disappointments. As an artist, a free thinker, I was liberal for many years – rebelling against my military Dad. I don’t remember ever having that level of hatred towards the opposition. More of a sense of wanting to know how the opposition thought, agreeing that we would stand ultimately for the same principles. Were has that gone?
Rusty: How would you refer to the Kenneth Starr reports? Were they not vindictive? And active during Clinton's presidency too. How much more vile and vindictive can a party and its followers get towards Clinton, Carter and the already BHO.
You are way off base my friend. I get where you are going, and I appreciate your sensibilities though. I just ask for some perspective.
The truth commissions were set up in South Africa, but that was not an "emerging nation" just an evolving one. Let's be clear.
Tim, RE: your refernce to Ken Starr: the Paula Jones lawsuit, as I remember it, struck me as selfish opportunism. As for Ken Starr, he had no business investigating Bill Clinton in my brand of politics. And, as I have said here before, if I had to live in matrimony with the likes of a Hillary Clinton, Monica Lewinsky might have turned my head as well. That said, NEVER in the sacred Oval Office; take it off site, for goodness sake.
Clinton had affairs while Governor which to me, Democrat or Republican, is not the public’s business’s (my historical favorite is JFK and Marilyn Monroe, and then, Robert Kennedy – kept secret for many years by the press, not to mention FDR). So I am consistent. It is dirty politics. I have always despised attorneys such as Ken Starr. The concept of politicizing affairs seriously disappoints me. It takes attention away from the serious issues.
Rusty: Nice to know we have some common ground. I feel sorry for Sanford, and applaud his wife for being so forthcoming and not doing the fake stand-by-your-cheating-man at the press conference bit. But the whole thing is a bit weird, and different. And "going hiking" now takes on a whole new meaning!
Yea, it is, Tim.
We may not agree on all things on a go forward basis as you and I debate for ultimate truths in this forum, but, I respect you and your opinion. It is a refreshing surprise occasionally to agree. Thanks.
Post a Comment