Tuesday, January 17, 2006 More evidence that Charles Krauthammer is a moron blinded by ideology, in case you needed it(link)
I thought I'd do a little survey of the latest neo-conservative talking points courtesy of Mr Krauthammer, and as usual, I was shocked by the latest discoveries they have made in the art of shamelessness and intellectually dishonest. Mr Krauthammer puts blame entirely on the europeans for the collapse of talks with Iran, without even bothering to mention Iraq.
Could it be, Mr Krauthammer, that Iran is so ready to break off talks and return to nuclear brinkmanship because they know the war that you spearheaded in Iraq has utterly incapacitated U.S. military deterrence of every other country that could be a threat, including Iran? Could it be that Iran feels it needs nuclear weapons because of what happened to Iraq when it failed to acquire those weapons? If I were an Iranian dictator (imagine that), I'd see the quagmire in Iraq as perhaps the last opportunity to openly step up my country's nuclear program. If Mr Krauthammer were an Iranian dictator (more plausible), he'd doubtless see the situation the same way. But he's a neo-con pundit, and thus can only bury his commentary in delusional half-truths and smokescreen accusations of European diplomatic inadequacies. He laughs that Europe is scared out of its wits that Iran will cut off its oil if any real pressure is applied. Perhaps Mr Krauthammer should be a bit scared of this possibility too, rather than scoffing it, as if this problem wouldn't damage our economy as much. But, alas, neocons won't feel any pain if the domestic economy is stressed further by higher oil prices, because they only care about foreign policy.
Posted by Justin Sarma,
11:37 PM
-
Monday, January 16, 2006
A Second Trend
Here's another possibility. Not one I'm endorsing, but one I'm wondering is really happening.
A man is elected Vice President. Eight years later, he recieves his party's nomination for President, but loses. He sits the next election out, but shortly thereafter begins making noise with high-profile speeches and the like. He runs for President two elections after losing and once again secures his party's nomination, but this time also captures the White House, succeeding a man known for illegal wire-taps.
Am I talking about Richard Nixon following LBJ in 1968, or Al Gore following Dubya in 2008? Even the years match - Nixon won VP in a year ending in 2 (52), relection in a 6 (56), nomination in a 0 (60), sat out a 4 (64), and won the Oval in an 8 (68). Gore has those same last digits - not that that matters. But he did give another high profile speech yesterday yelling about how Bush doesn't follow the law (which we know is true). Could he be trying to pull a Nixon?
Yesterday, Chile elected a Socialist president. This continues a Latin America trend, with Venezuela, Bolivia, and Brazil also putting Socialists at the helm.
Chile's new President is also its first woman president. Germany and Liberia have also recently elected their female heads of state.
We know the Socialist trend will have its own small thumbprint here in America - Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), a self-declared Socialist, is likely to win a Senate seat next year, and win big, with Jim Jeffords' retirement. Could the female trend also spread to America?
Hopefully not in '08, but let's keep our eye on '12 or '16. I say hopefully not '08, as I'd rather not see Hilary win the Democratic nomination. Condi Rice, the only other woman with a real shot, says she has no interest in running, and let's be thankful for it. But a woman president would be nice, as it would break down barriers and possibly introduce a new leadership style (a recent study at Northwestern University shows city governments run by women tend to be run with less heirarchy and more cooperation and efficiency). There are numerous possibilities - Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe both come to mind. Let's keep our fingers crossed for 2016 (I'd say '12, but hopefully a Democrat not named Hilary will in '08 and be re-elected in '12).
