In a fit of journalistic idiocy, Blogging Tory Jonathan "The Strong Conservative" Strong links to yet another of Canada's nauseating embarrassments to organized religion, the National Post's resident religious sleazebag Father Raymond De Souza.
Writes the deluded Jonathan:
Father Raymond J. De Souza has an excellent article in the National Post in which he displays a pattern of recklessness within the Kennedy family. Sadly, the Kennedy family appears to have a pattern of behavior in which they cosy up to America's enemies and undermine their own country's national security for the sake of their own political and personal agendas.
Um ... right ... cozying up to America's enemies for political and personal gain. Feel free to explain to Jonathan what that really means. Here ... let me start things off:
Take it away, kids.
UM ... HELLO? I am seriously disappointed that no one has mentioned this. Or this given this.
I'm also disappointed that no one pointed out how Venezuela's Chavez seems to have been pegged as an "enemy" of the U.S. based on, apparently, that he was democratically elected and is using his country's oil revenues to help the needy. Although, come to think of it, that's just the sort of commie, socialist swill that would make him Public Enemy Number One in the eyes of right-wing hacks like Jonathan, wouldn't it?
Yeah, that Hugo Chavez ... what a prick.
A PARTICULARLY NASTY BLOWBACK: And speaking of picking the wrong friends ...
14 comments:
Poor choice of examples on your part, dude. Iraq was America's dog-of-choice in the effort to contain Iran back in the Eighties. At the same time, the Soviet Union was America's enemy. You cannot logically compare Rumsfeld's meeting with Hussein and Kennedy's with Gorbachev for they are not analogous.
Contain Iran? Is that what Iran-Contra was all about?
Oh yeah, anonymous genius -- wasn't Saddam Hussein recently hung for what he did "back in the eighties"?
What does Hussein's hanging have to do with my point?
You're saying that it was fine for the USA to deal with Iraq in the 80s, because Saddam was their "dog of choice". And you also concede that it's fine for the USA to have Saddam hung, now, for the crimes he committed at that time. And you apparently see no contradiction in those two points, even though Rumsfeld was involved in both.
That makes your objection a little weak.
But people like you just love to have simplistic ideologies foisted on you by people who are smarter than you, don't you? So you believed Reagan when he called Russia an "evil empire", right? And that's why no one should have talked to Gorbachev, right? I bet the idea of Tridents flying over eastern Europe just gave you one hell of a hard-on at the time, didn't it?
God, no wonder Bush was re-elected, with people like you around. Please, dear leader, tell me what to think. Amen.
Thanks for the link CC, I appreciate the hits you generate.
No, I am saying that Rumsfeld met with Hussein when he was an ally, while Kennedy met with Gorbachev, and offered him advice on how to undermine the U.S., while he was an enemy. It is a poor comparison for CC to use in order to undermine the comments about Kennedy made in the articles he was mocking.
You, meanwhile, have spent much effort concocting bullshit projections about what I must be thinking.
CC: I'm busy...
It's difficult to make comparisons to what Kennedy is accused of having done here, because the accusations don't strike me as very credible. Certainly they don't come from a credible source (de Souza for one generally seems divorced from reality) and statements like this:
Senator Kennedy was concerned about Reagan's popularity in the United States and that the president might use that strength to the detriment of the Soviets
(emphasis mine) are simply ludicrous.
Still, if a comparison is desired, I would suggest the Nixon-Kissinger machinations during the 1968 Paris Peace Talks.
No, I am saying that Rumsfeld met with Hussein when he was an ally...
This assertion is a big part of the problem. Hussein was never an "ally" in the sense we understand, or should understand...someone with whom we find shared values and common ground. Hussein's alliance was never more than tactical, in terms of the US's response to a challenge to its power presented by Iran.
Those types of tactics run the risk of blowback, a risk that was evident (and ignored) at the the time because it served the interests of American power and nothing else. It certainly didn't serve the interests of the Iraqi, Iranian and, ultimately, the American, people.
Although nation states in general might see alliances based on the (flawed) principle of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" as inescapable, they shouldn't be surprised when the predicted consequences manifest themselves eventually.
This has been the sad legacy of American modern foreign policy ever since Yalta.
Ti-guy is right, Hussein was never an ally, but Iran was viewed as a greater danger and thus, Hussein was supplied with American made weapons to fight the Iranians.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems very applicable. Saddam was seen as the lesser of two evils.
Ti-guy is right, Hussein was never an ally, but Iran was viewed as a greater danger and thus, Hussein was supplied with American made weapons to fight the Iranians.
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend" seems very applicable. Saddam was seen as the lesser of two evils.
"Saddam was seen as the lesser of two evils."
It never occurs to you right wing knobs to not deal with ANY evils, does it?
No, that would be bad for business....
Now, now, Mike, you Dippers are the ones saying that Canada should dialogue with people like the Taliban.
And Ti-guy, you are correct in your assertion that Hussein was not an ally in the way we would like to think of them. But what exactly is the problem with America being concerned with American power?
The problem lies with the abuse of power. Let's all remember that America's problems with Iran began with the CIA's overthrow of Prime Minister Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah (notice how righties never like to talk about that).
Blowback. As you sow, so shall you reap.
Post a Comment