“If we had wanted Bush’s wars, and contractors, and corruption, we could have voted for John McCain.”
Garry Wills in a piece titled “The Betrayal”
“I did not think he would lose me so soon—sooner than Bill Clinton did.”
5 thoughts on “Line of the day”
Comments are closed.
“… we could have voted for John McCain.”
Wrong! McCain is a Republican.
I’m always amazed at how many ways there are to interpret Obama’s call for ‘hope’. It seems that everyone who voted for Obama had their own definition for ‘hope’. It seems that for Garry Wills ‘hope’ means ‘no more war’ AND Democrat.
If you project your own hopes on someone else, specially a politician, you’re going to be disappointed sooner than later. Much sooner if that someone else doesn’t share your hope.
While I understand the author’s frustration, I’m not saying I agree with everything he is saying.
During Bush’s terms, a growing majority of people stated that they felt the country was going off in the wrong direction, and that is where the “Hope & Change” bit came from. I disagree that those people each had their own definition of what that meant. It was a consensus that Bush’s policies were the wrong ones, especially when it came to light that the Iraq war was bogus.
The right wing will never, ever support Obama, no matter what he does. His push for bipartisanship irks the hell out of his supporters, and reminds us that when challenged, the Democrats will fold like tissue paper. We’ve seen this happen time and time again.
This is at the core of where the “Hope & Change” slogan starts to stink. In some cases Obama seems to be following the very same policies as Bush, seemingly to placate the Republicans and gain their support.
This Afghanistan issue is right out of Bush’s toolbox, and many of us know it’s a mistake right from the beginning. There is a hell of a lot more than meets the eye at play there in Afghanistan.
I am aware he campaigned on focusing on Afghanistan rather than Iraq and in this he is being consistent, but things have changed since those days, and now the idea doesn’t seem so hot.
I, like the author am deeply disappointed.
In addition, public opinion is beginning to weigh in on this latest development:
WASHINGTON — Americans are turning away from the world, showing a tendency toward isolationism in foreign affairs that has risen to the highest level in four decades, a poll out Thursday found.
Almost half, 49 percent, told the polling organization that the United States should “mind its own business” internationally and let other countries get along the best they can on their own, the Pew Research Center survey found. That’s up from 30 percent who said that in December 2002.
Results of the survey appear to conflict with President Barack Obama’s activist foreign policy, including a newly announced buildup of 30,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan to fight Taliban and al-Qaida extremists.
“Isolationist Sentiment Surges to Four-Decade High,” the nonpartisan research center headlined its report on the poll about America’s role in the world.
Only 32 percent of the poll respondents favored increasing U.S. troops in Afghanistan, while 40 percent favored decreasing them. And fewer than half, or 46 percent, of those polled said it was somewhat or very likely that Afghanistan would be able to withstand the radicals’ threat.
–snip–
What we are seeing is war fatigue. This whole thing reminds me of “Vietnamization”, the same sort of program they had started in the sixties, training the South Vietnamese to fight the Vietcong while propping up the corrupt government. It didn’t work.
If you don’t mind some more cut & paste, let’s look at the costs:
— The 2010 Pentagon budget means “every man, woman and child in the United States will spend more than $2,700 on (defense) programs and agencies next year,” reports the Cato Institute. “By way of comparison, the average Japanese spends less than $330; the average German about $520; China’s per capita spending is less than $100.”
— “(The Pentagon budget) dwarfs the combined defense budgets of U.S. allies and potential U.S. enemies alike,” reports Hearst Newspapers.
— “President (Obama) is on track to spend more on defense, in real dollars, than any other president has in one term of office since World War II,” reports National Journal’s Government Executive magazine.
— In 2000, the Pentagon admitted it has lost — yes, lost — $2.3 trillion. In 2003, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a subsequent Department of Defense study said it was only $1 trillion. To put such numbers in perspective, contemplate what those sums could finance. $1 trillion, for instance, could pay the total cost of universal health care for the long haul. $2.3 trillion would cover universal health care plus the bank bailout plus the stimulus package.
–snip–
Now, one would think that this information would make the teabagger’s heads explode. The punchline is that this has been going on for some time now, but it takes a Democrat in the WH with a socialist healthcare plan to get them up out of their Barc-o-loungers and scream their heads off at town hall meetings. Go figure.
“Now, one would think that this information would make the teabagger’s heads explode.”
The Teabag philosophy is not reality-based.