Liz Cheney Demands President Do...What He Is Doing

Liz, Liz, Liz. Every time you go on the Sunday talks, you say something breathtakingly stupid and I get to write another post suggesting, again, that you give it up and go home. I have no idea why you are given air time, but considering the state of news in this country -- and I mean the networks as well as Fox -- there is not much useful said on Sunday mornings (or weekday evenings for that matter). I have studied, among other things, history, political science, economics, psychology, all of the schools, theories, and techniques of counseling, am considered a qualified witness on the ADA, and followed politics in this country since Richard Nixon. I was even a Navy wife. Do I feel qualified to judge President Obama's decisions on Afghanistan? I believe I have as much education and experience in the work world as you (we were both mid-level managers of comparably sized units in the public sector), plus I was actually a military wife. But, no. I have an opinion rooted in my pacifism, but if I were invited to appear on a talk show to discuss defense policy, I would have to respectfully decline. Nor am I qualified to discuss decisions made in my father's field despite many, many dinner-table conversations. But, you've learned how to make a living trying to whitewash your father's history, so I am sure you will continue to present yourself as a foreign policy, terrorism expert.

Appearing on Fox News Sunday today, you inserted both feet into your mouth when you angrily demanded that President Obama do exactly...what he is doing.

After giving your oh so thoughtful approval for his visit to the troops, you said: [emphasis added]

"You know, what I'd like to see-because I do believe that setting the 2011 deadline did cause significant damage to the effort, in terms of convincing people that we're committed to be there to win-I'd like to see the president repudiate it. I'd like to see him say, "Just let's be clear: We are going to make our decisions based on conditions on the ground, not based on dates we set back here in Washington."

"...It's important for the Pakistanis to hear that as well, so that they understand it is not in their interest at all to help to support, provide safe havens to the extent that the Taliban has safe havens in Pakistan. That message is a critically important one, and I'd like to see the president say "conditions-based," not just "deadline set."

What is interesting, is that although I personally would prefer that the President bring the troops home, I understand that he is trying to clean up your father's messes. Typical of the extremist right, you have just plucked words out of the air to create an argument, the support for your argument, and the necessary actions to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

On August 31, 2010, President Obama gave a speech in which he said: [emphasis added]

"... next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: This transition will begin-because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people's."

Discussing the additional troops that he was sending, he said: [emphasis added]

"...these additional American and international troops will allow us to accelerate handing over responsibility to Afghan forces, and allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of Afghanistan in July of 2011. Just as we have done in Iraq, we will execute this transition responsibly, taking into account conditions on the ground."

I think most of us would like all of the troops to come home, and the money that is being spent instead go to restore social programs here in this country and pay back the debt incurred by your father and George W. But, your father wanted war and along with W, ignored Bin Laden to go settle a grudge and start a war that had been planned since the early 1990's. Then, realizing their mistake, moved into Afghanistan and tried to solve the problems that we created. So you don't like how things are going? Neither do I. But next time, pay attention before opening your mouth. You look foolish.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon. (h/t Media Matters)
k

Serial Idiot Goldberg Annoyed At Fascist Name Calling, "Not What I Hoped"

I have a love/hate relationship with Jonah Goldberg. I love to write about him because he is such a rich source of material, one of my "serial idiots" that provides a column in just about everything he has to say because it is so ridiculous. Hate, because by writing about him, I give him and his delusions more attention than they deserve. Holding on tight to his post at the National Review, received shortly after the Monica events for which Jonah held a minor, supporting role which he inflated to get himself on the tv machine as often as possible, Jonah weighs in on the teabag use of the term "fascist."

Speaking on C-Span this weekend, he was quoted as saying:

"One of the great failures of my book is that it has popularized the use of 'fascism' as an epithet. And one of the things I was hoping to do, and I failed miserably, is shut down the use of the word 'fascist' as an epithet. Instead it's become bipartisan. And I don't like it. I don't think it's all that helpful. It might help my books sales, but that's not what I had hoped to do."

After one moves beyond the breathtaking egotism involved in his first statement (after all, fascism has been a discredited political movement since basically forever) you have to consider that one does not write a book with the title "Liberal Fascism" with the intent to remove the word fascist as an epithet. As a member of the "conservative movement" (that's Jonah, always after the main chance, a Democrat who flipped when he saw that that's where the money is) use of the term liberal is an epithet. Attaching anything to it makes it a pejorative and adding a term commonly used to characterize negative political ideology to the term liberal, he has attempted to equate liberals with negative politics. As the two--liberal and fascism--are ideological opposites with fascism typically a preserve of the extreme right, trying to link the two is nothing more than an attempt to demonize liberals.  According to dictionary.com, [emphasis added]

FASCISM:
[fash-iz-uhm] –noun
1.( sometimes initial capital letter ) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2.( sometimes initial capital letter ) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3.( initial capital letter ) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.
LIBERALISM:
[lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-]–noun
1.the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2.a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3.( sometimes initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.
4.a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

Not sure I can find anything that equate the two or even links them other than they each represent a political philosophy. But, the mindset of someone who could equate the two, or believe it, is the same mindset that would believe that socialism and communism are the same thing, and that what was embodied by the Soviet Union was what was envisioned by Marx.

Ah well. Perhaps Jonah hadn't been able to get outside of the pages of the pages of his column lately and needed to get some face time on the tv machine again. If you are unfamiliar with Jonah, he has an amusing history and typically wacky ideas which I have written about here, here, and here.
Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Another Chapter in Serial Stupidity - Jonah Goldberg, Serial Idiot on Elitism

Jonah Goldberg is such a rich source of material although I write about him infrequently as I hate to give him and his delusions too much importance. Making the leap from his so-called expertise on affirmative action and all things racial, Goldberg ties those beliefs to elitism.  He takes issue with progressive concern over the teabags' rage against the elites who, according to him, want to "boss us around." From Media Matters, Jonah is quoted as saying:

"To date, I've seen not one instance of Tea Partiers denouncing engineers, physicists, cardiologists, accountants, biologist, archeologists or a thousand other professions who've emerged from elite schools. Because those people aren't bossing anybody around."

In Tuesday's Washington Post, Anne Applebaum writes about the teabaggers' "anti-elite" rage. Applebaum illuminates the growing resentment of the Ivy-League educated by teabags by saying:

"...Nowadays, successful Americans, however ridiculously lucky they have been, often smugly see themselves as "deserving." Meanwhile, the less successful are more likely to feel it's their own fault -- or to feel that others feel it's their fault -- even if they have simply been unlucky..."

To paraphrase Applebaum's point, when Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell and others call people elitist, they are usually referring to people they don't like, don't agree with, and who don't agree with them. I would add that after all, Alaska senate candidate Joe Miller is a Harvard graduate --an education that is about the most elite possible-- and he would be nowhere without the backing of Sarah Palin. O'Donnell is in trouble partially because of her claims --false-- that she is a graduate of Columbia graduate school. So, fairly good evidence of the validity of Applebaum's claim if teabags feel the need to claim an ivy-league education, true or not.

A point that is brought out in Applebaum's piece, is that the American dream that we are all raised with is the same one that is held against many of those who today most exemplify that dream. We are taught that we can be anything we want, do anything we want, and that we are limited only by our willingness to work hard. Unfortunately, I believe that this dream has caused more harm than good over time as conversely, it tells us that if we do not succeed, that it is our own fault --something that as a sociologist I can say is often not true. Yet, here we have a president who is the embodiment of the American dream, the true rags to riches story, yet considered by the right to be the most elite of the elite.


In his quite derisive piece, Goldberg begins by setting a tone that attacks Applebaum personally before he even starts his analysis of her argument. Referencing a stand she took on an unrelated issue, he conflates the two to suggest that since she has a (to him) inappropriate belief in one area, it carries over to all of her opinions. Goldberg says that use of the term "ivy league" is code for elitism (good to know) and that progressives have it backwards when they see complaints about progressive goals as attacks against the ivy-league elite. Huh? Both Goldberg and Will Collier who he quotes in his update state that Applebaum is clearly biased (she is a Yale graduate) and that her thesis is that only those with an ivy-league education are intelligent. I must say that after reading her piece several times as I write this, I fail to come to that conclusion and believe me, one of the things you must learn in any college education (full disclosure, I went to a state university), is to discover the thesis behind any piece of writing.

Goldberg says:

"For Applebaum, the fact that the elite graduated from top-tier schools is all the proof she needs that these people deserve to be in charge. Indeed, Applebaum — without a moment’s pause to cite any evidence — insists that universities have diversified without dropping standards at all. (But I don’t want to have an argument about quotas and all that, because it’s a distraction from my real objection)."

Then don't bring them (quotas) up. I am so tired of the continuing belief that affirmative action included quotas. It did not. In fact, quotas were illegal. I wrote a thesis on affirmative action and feel somewhat qualified to speak to the right's deliberate misrepresentation of the purpose behind affirmative action and its policies, and the truly ridiculous notion that one generation or less was sufficient to redress the inequities of 300 years. Anyway. I'm not finding where she says that only the "fact" that the elite graduated from "top-tier" schools makes them deserving of being in charge. And, you shouldn't demand that others include evidence in their work when you do not include it in yours.

What is truly bizarre, is that the teabags resent the educated, calling them elite, equating them with an ivy-league education when in fact, what they resent is the education, period. In the past, the ivy-leagues were available only to those with the proper pedigree regardless of SAT's, community service, or gradepoint average (think George W). As a result of affirmative action, it was the ivy-leagues who offered the most in response and thus created the most diverse alumni --people who came from all races and ethnicities, and social classes. The graduates of the ivy-leagues over the past 40 years are truly representative of the American dream that is so hard to reach for most.

Trying to explain what it is the teabags are angry about when they complain about elitism, Goldberg says of Applebaum: [emphasis added]

"She doesn’t seem to grasp, let alone acknowledge, that it’s only one subset of Ivy Leaguers that seems to bother anybody on the right: the lawyer-social engineers-journalist-activists they churn out by the boatload. No one begrudges kids who’ve made good from tough backgrounds. What bothers lots of Americans is when those kids then think they are entitled to cajole, nudge, command and denigrate the rest of America. To date, I’ve seen not one instance of Tea Partiers denouncing engineers, physicists, cardiologists, accountants, biologist, archeologists or a thousand other professions who’ve emerged from elite schools. Because those people aren’t bossing anybody around."

This last is so breathtaking I almost don't know where to begin. "No one begrudges kids who've made good from tough backgrounds." Umm. Okay. Unless you're President Obama or a Democrat.

He goes on to say:

"...it is the agenda of a very specific and very self-styled elite, not the existence of an elite that is pissing so many people off. Some of the angriest and most dedicated people I meet at Tea Party events are quite wealthy and successful, often with shiny educations equal to Applebaum’s. What infuriates them is that they see a country that once determined merit in the market place or in civil society, becoming a country where what counts as merit is determined by government directly, or indirectly."

What does that mean? Merit was determined "in the market place or in civil society." When? Okay. I understand the market place, but civil society? I guess he's saying that if you exhibit the correct values (conservative perhaps?) then you have merit? And where does he get that merit is determined by government directly or indirectly? What does that mean? And what does he mean by "what counts as merit?" Perhaps Jonah doesn't understand definitions. Merit:

• Noun - something that deserves a reward, or the the fact of deserving
• Verb - deserve
• Adjective - based on (ie a raise)

Pretty clear to me. Of course, this idea is one of the primary distinctions between Democrats and Republicans, including teabags. Republicans equate success with money in the bank and morality with church attendance and how much they tithe. Democrats equate success with personal fulfillment and satisfaction and morality with how one makes choices when no one else is looking. Granted, hugely generalized, but you are unlikely to find someone with the later values in the Republican Party or vice versa. Look at this campaign. The 1st Amendment was designed to protect the media from government so that we the people may have the information we need in order to make good decisions about who to elect to represent us, the theory then being that those running for office (and holding office) have an obligation to provide that information. Right? Now, we have teabags who refuse to talk to the media unless they can solicit funds and control the questions. A true return to our Constitutional roots as demanded by the teabags would be a requirement that they stop running away from the media and actually present their policy ideas. Radical concept, I know.

Anyway. Jonah is an interesting character and believes himself to be an expert on affirmative action and has written extensively on that subject. Trying to style himself as an academic type, Goldberg is the author of the oxymoronically titled "Liberal Fascism" and weighed in during the Sotomayor hearings. His "expertise" on affirmative action was highly valued by the extremist right as they used the very program designed to help her and others succeed, to attempt to disallow that success. His comments on affirmative action parroted the continuing Republican mantra of reverse discrimination that hurts those poor, white men. You can read more about it here.

A few days after his intrusion into the Sotomayor affair, Goldberg, suddenly an expert on foreign affairs and the middle east, wrote about what President Obama should do about the situation taking place at that time in Iran (this was during the protests during the summer of 2009). As I pointed out at the time, Goldberg holds a prime position on my serial idiots list.

What are the teabags really doing? In blaming the elitists who are trying to "boss us around" and equating anyone with an ivy-league education as an elitist, they are refusing to acknowledge those who are the embodiment of the American dream if that dream culminates in progressive ideals. Sure there are elites, and there are elites who are graduates of ivy-league schools. But what is truly the definition of an elite? Personally, I believe it is someone who is admitted to an ivy-league school because of their family background and maintains their place despite near failing grades (George W) or believes that because of what they have they are somehow special.

Teabags are really attacking progressive ideals, and equate elitism with being told what to do. They are angry with a government interfering in their lives and telling them what to do and conflate those in government who hold ideas and make policy decisions they don't like with those with a good education because we now have a president they don't like who went to an ivy-league school. My question? A government that wants to move into my bedroom, doctor's office, and re-write scientific texts to match a minority point of view is far more intrusive than a government that is there to provide for the public welfare. I reject, again, Goldberg's premise and his and the teabags continuing attempts to build strawmen (see Fallacies above) rather than address the actual issues.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

President Bush - Ongoing Serial Stupidity & Willful Ignorance (Or Is He Just Evil?)

PHOTO: mindfully.org

I've written 15 posts about torture and although I am deeply disappointed at the Obama Administration's decision to let Bush and Cheney get away with their actions leading up to and during the Iraq war, I had thought that the discussion had subsided into a low murmur.

Unable to keep his mouth shut, President Bush made a cavalier comment while speaking in Grand Rapids, Michigan yesterday, saying that he did indeed have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded, and would do so again if it would save lives. Never mind that there is significant evidence, as discusssed by Matthew Alexander here, that details how waterboarding detainees made us less safe.

Extensive research, readily available to the President and much of it conducted by the FBI - experts at interrogation - and the Department of Defense, has been conducted on how to elicit useful information from people. As a counselor, it is my job to be able to get people to open up as I have discussed here that I have related to SERE training and torture.

Today, Dan Froomkin reports on the response of top military leaders to Bush's comments. Anger appears to be the universal response. They are appalled that Bush, still, has no conception of the illegality of his actions nor does he appear to care (although, why should he? apparently ex-Presidents are above the law).

"George W. Bush's casual acknowledgment Wednesday that he had Khalid Sheikh Mohammed waterboarded -- and would do it again -- has horrified some former military and intelligence officials who argue that the former president doesn't seem to understand the gravity of what he is admitting."

There is no question that waterboarding is torture regardless of what has been discussed in the media in the past year or two. This country has imprisoned people and even executed people for waterboarding, and as recently as a few years ago, a sheriff's deputy in Texas was jailed for using waterboarding as an interrogation technique. More discussion here.

The article goes on to quote military leaders:

"Waterboarding, a form of controlled drowning, is "unequivocably torture", said retired Brigadier General David R. Irvine, a former strategic intelligence officer who taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law for 18 years."

"As a nation, we have historically prosecuted it as such, going back to the time of the Spanish-American War," Irvine said. "Moreover, it cannot be demonstrated that any use of waterboarding by U.S. personnel in recent years has saved a single American life."

Irvine told the Huffington Post that Bush doesn't appreciate how much harm his countenancing of torture has done to his country.

"Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed," Bush told a Grand Rapids audience Wednesday, of the self-professed 9/11 mastermind. "I'd do it again to save lives."
But, Irvine said: "When he decided to do it the first time, he launched the nation down a disastrous road, and we will continue to pay dearly for the damage his decision has caused.

"We are seen by the rest of the world as having abandoned our commitment to international law. We have forfeited enormous amounts of moral leadership as the world's sole remaining superpower. And it puts American troops in greater danger -- and unnecessary danger."

The article continues by quoting other military leaders:

"James P. Cullen, a retired brigadier general in the United States Army Reserve Judge Advocate General's Corps, told HuffPost that the net effect of Bush's remarks--and former Vice President Cheney's before him--is 'to establish a precedent where it will be permissible to our enemies to use waterboarding on our servicemen in future wars."

"Cheney famously once agreed with an interviewer that a 'dunk in the water' was a 'no-brainer' if it saves lives."

What is it with these men? Don't confuse me with the facts? As I wrote about yesterday, this is willful ignorance in the extreme, and the serial stupidity of the Republican Party to the nth degree.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

SUN: 7:02PM Edited for duplicate section

Another Chapter in Serial Stupidity. Cokie Roberts of NPR

My uber-educated, liberal-elite family with whom I spent much of the holidays was appalled to discover that I no longer listen to NPR and left the room rather than watch Ray Suarez on PBS one evening. Knowing how progressive I am, they could not understand why I would not want to watch or listen to the only liberal media available. Liberal? I think not.

The pundits on public television and radio are as firmly entrenched in the village as are those on the major networks and cable channels. They interview each other, socialize with each other, and rotate in and out of government service, journalistic positions, and think tanks with the changing of administrations and corporate ownership of media. Ray Suarez, for example, can more often be seen on Fox News as a champion GOPher whose contract states that Fox can no longer identify him as being with NPR (they, NPR, were embarrassed to be associated with his views as stated on Fox). While his reporting for NPR may be excellent, I cannot watch it without doubting every word he says, knowing what his own personal views are on the subject. Granted, every journalist and pundit has an opinion, but a good reporter keeps it to him or herself. For a journalist to be a pundit, and an extremely biased, conservative one at that, on one network, and attempt to be an unbiased reporter on another, makes all he or she reports suspect. I do not think one can be both.

A classic example is Cokie Roberts on NPR recently discussing the recent attempted terrorist attack on Christmas Day and the ramifications for the president. She stated that,

"Well, it's always politically difficult for Democrats when they are dealing with an issue like terrorism. It remained the Republican's only winning issue through most of President Bush's second term, and it's a particular problem for a Democrat who hasn't served in the military. But the policy problem is that it takes up a great deal of the administration's time, and will from here on out - particularly when the Senate Intelligence Committee starts hearings in a couple of weeks." [h/t Crooks and Liars]

Hello? Did I miss something? When was President Bush in the military? Vice-President Cheney? Secretary Rice? Oh right. Bush was in the National Guard for a few minutes, although the records show that he was absent more often than not and received his plum spot because of his last name rather than ability. Cheney managed five deferments and his obvious fears for his personal safety were evident in that and his behavior on 9/11 and thereafter. Republicans are very, very good at sending poor young men into combat and their own to officers' training school where they can avoid danger. Democrats who served honorably and earn medals (Kerry?) are smeared.

Democrats prefer a party of imclusion, reaching consensus, accommodation, and policies of social justice, so therefore are perceived as weak. Republicans are a party of "I got mine, screw you" and therefore are perceived as strong (by whom, I wonder?). The American ideal of pulling one's self up by one's bootstraps implies that anyone who does not is a failure (that good old Calvinist work ethic again). This ignores the fact that for over 200 years, a very heavy boot remained on the neck of many, many men and all of the women, ensuring that they had no bootstrap to pull.

Waving a magic wand and saying "it's all good now" does not instantly create the back-room networks available to all the good old boys, or change the mindset of the Cokie Roberts of the world that Democrats, especially those who did not serve in the military, are somehow incapable of responding to terrorist or other threats. If President Obama were to have an (R) beside his name, would he then be capable? Is his lack of service any different than Cheney's or Bush's? Or all the other members of Congress who did not serve but yet enact law and set policy?

Did any of these pundits comment on Bush or Cheney's lack of military experience after 9/11? When they planned to go to war? Ever? I didn't think so. So why do we listen and give credence to them now when they attack Obama's lack of military experience as a problem when dealing with terrorists?

What is particularly telling in this statement by Roberts, is her comment that "...the policy problem is that it [terrorism] takes up a great deal of the administration's time." Umm. That's a problem? Isn't terrorism one of the biggest issues facing our country today? We have the economy, global warming, healthcare, and the sub-issues under the economy of jobs, banking reform, and re-regulating some of the areas de-regulated under Reagan and Bush, but still, terrorism and the two wars begun because of terrorism would seem to me to be at the top of the list of important policy issues. Perhaps if Bush and company had spent a little more time on the policy problem of terrorism, President Obama wouldn't have to spend so much of the current administration's time on an issue that Ms. Roberts feels he is so unsuited for.

The Villagers are truly idiots, reporting on serial stupidity. We somehow continue to chant the mantra that NPR and PBS are liberal bastions of the media elite when in fact they are as conservatively biased as the network and cable pundits to whose village club they belong.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Senator Sessions Flips. Again. Enemy Combatants Become Prisoners of War

If you are a regular reader, you know how much I love to write about Senator Sessions and the serial stupidity of the GOP. I believe that Mr. Sessions exemplifies that quality.

As the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, today Sessions inserted both feet into his mouth when he responded to a discussion about Fort Hood, terrorism, and the upcoming trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammad by saying:

"The enemy, who could of been obliterated on the battlefield on one day, but was captured instead does not then become a common American criminal. They are first a prisoner of war, once they're captured. The laws of war say, as did Lincoln and Grant, that the prisoners will not be released when the war - until the war ends. How absurb is it to say that we will release people who plan to attack us again?"

This is a really interesting comment. The "war on terror," according to the terms set forth by just about everyone, has no real ending. When do we say it is over? If prisoners then are prisoners of this war on terror, when can they expect to be released? They can't. That is exactly why Bush and company created the military tribunal system, Guantanamo Bay, and the designation "enemy combatant." The use of the term "prisoner of war" has very specific legal obligations to the country holding that individual.  Why do you think that Bush and company were very, very careful to never, ever refer to any of the "enemy combatants" or other residents at Guantanamo Bay as "prisoners of war?" They and the mainstream media refer endlessly to the "war on terror." But they had to create a new lexicon to wage it. Enhanced interogation. Enemy combatant.

Senator Sessions just as the rest of the Republicans do, chooses which terminology fits the argument, or which argument fits the results he wants to reach.

h/t Crooks and Liars

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Image from irvinehousingblog dot com

Continuing Serial Stupidity of the GOP and Jon-Benet as Halloween Costume. Sick.

Another example of not only the Serial Stupidity of the GOP, but I think, some sort of inability to comprehend appropriate social behavior. This tweet from Nebraska Republican Party Chairman Mark Fahleson on Halloween. @fahleson.

# Done trick or treating with Cleopatra and Jon Benet-now at Dino's for family dinner and to watch 5 different games at once.5:49 PM Oct 31st from TwitterBerry

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k

Kristol Wants to Nuke North Korea

The last I heard, we have a new president. That being the case, the "Bush Doctrine" is no longer operable.

The Bush Doctrine touts preemptive war as the basis of our foreign policy - get them before they get us. We all know how well that worked out, or rather, some of us know how well that worked out.

On Fox New Sunday, Bill Kristol not realizing that he's an idiot, opined--in discussing North Korea's missile launch--that,

"I don't rule out the possibility of us deciding -- and I think it might be wise for us to decide -- to knock out a few. They're apparently rolling a long-term missile to a base to test another one, long-range missile to test another one. You know, it might be worth doing some targeted air strikes to show the North Koreans, instead of always talking about, 'Gee, there could be consequences,' to show that they can't simply keep going down this path."

Also on that same program, fellow conservative Brit Hume agreed with Kristol, but didn't think Obama would do it. This follows Newt Gingrich's demands since April to attack North Korea with lasers following their first attempted rocket launch.

Kristol didn't say why it would be wise to "knock out a few," and didn't discuss the consequences to South Korea, China, and Japan--not to mention future disarmament discussions. Newt still doesn't know that we don't have lasers of the type that he wants turned on North Korea, and none of them appear to have any faith in diplomacy, witness their snide comments about "Gee, there could be consequences."

It's real easy to sit there and tear something down, to idly discuss using nuclear weapons when it isn't their decision to make nor their consequence to bear. The continuing serial stupidity of the punditry.

Thanks for stopping by. Come back soon.
k