More Stupidity From CNN
I am forced to watch the Communist News Network every evening at the gym.
At least it provides endless amounts of material to criticize!
A few items.
First, a little while ago, when the biggest news was North Korea's attempted missile strike on Hawaii...
That didn't get much news coverage, did it?
(btw, why are the NORKs still breathing? Just because the South Koreans were unwise enough to develop their major city within range of the Evil Hermit Kingdom's artillery doesn't mean we now ALL have to live with becoming in range, does it? I really don't care what happens to the ungrateful ROKers when it comes to missile attacks on the US. Should we wait around while they launch another one, wondering where it's aimed, and what kind of warhead it might carry?
Imagine if the Limpdong Missile hadn't failed after 30 seconds. You're the President. NORAD tells you their tracking an ICBM from a rogue nuclear power -- technically still at war with us -- headed for Hawaii. It lands in 15 minutes. What do you do?
Sit around and see whether it's "loaded" or not?
I never understood how the Leftists could be so adamantly opposed to Reagan's missile defense projects for so long -- "oh, the scenario of a rogue nation with just a few ICBMs threatening us is ludicrous! It will Never Happen!" I could only conclude they were deliberatly collaborating with the Red Menace.)
Anyway.
CNN brought on some former CIA head. Woolsey I think it was.
And he was asked what we should do.
Like everyone else on tv talking about Iran and NK, he pointed out we had few options and certainly no military ones (ok, let me get this straight: the world's sole hyperpower somehow can't do ANYTHING about Iran? Wouldn't that make Iran the world's sole hyperpower? As if.)
Instead, he proposed getting tough with some kinds of sanctions.
Some kind of blockade of supplies.
Well -- EXCEPT for humanitarian supplies, of course!
Sigh.
At one time, people knew how to make sieges effective.
You starve the enemy until they die or beg for mercy unconditionally.
Instead, today, the besiegers are supposed to supply food and energy, at their own expense.
Oh, he added this precious line: and somehow we'd have to make sure that the food got to the people, but not the North Korean army!!!
This guy ran the CIA!
And he actually said that!
How is it even possible to imagine such a scenario in any realm even merely close to reality?
Of course, in Gaza, (aka "Gone-za"), we have the double absurdity of Israel not only attempting to besiege them while supplying them with food, electricity, etc and other vitals that Gaza has always needed Israel for, and yet the Gazans have also never stopped trying to destroy the people who provide them these supplies.
Then tonight, I had to endure Jeff Greenfield being deliberately stupid just to make a cheap attack on Bush.
Another digression:
(This kind of anklebiting, like Valerie Plame now suing Cheney etc., is so counterproductive. Don't these morons realize that there are several very real possible futures that involve nuclear armageddon or other major catastrophe in the near future, and the job of preventing that is tough enough for the Bush administration, who are only human after all, and that these constant personal attacks and legal distractions only serve to reduce the effectiveness of these key players on the world stage who should -- for the safety of all of us, including Democrats who apparently think they live on a different planet -- be in top form to deal with these crises? For all our sakes?)
He basically said, ha ha, there goes another Bush policy in tatters, that promoting Democracy in the Middle East will lead to greater stability -- look at war breaking out! Hamas was elected! Nanny-boo-boo on you, Bush!
So what this pinhead is actually promoting is the idea that, what, it's now morally acceptable (or wisely pragmatic) to consign people to tyranny? He'd criticize for supporting dictators with the next sentence, the unserious hypocrite.
Furthermore, he deliberately takes a hyper-literal interpretation of the word "democracy" to mean the simple act of voting. Anyone with any sense knows that Bush is talking about the concept of Liberty rather than simple mob rule.
Voting, or "democracy", by itself is just a process. It confers no special legitimacy. We are under no obligation to take Hamas or Hezbollah any more seriously if they are elected or not.
Any idiot knows that pure democracy, aka "mob rule", is one of the worst systems of governance possible, certainly much worse than enlightened monarchy.
But the real point unfolding that this CNN "pundit" misses is that what "democracy" brings, while perhaps not automatic respectability, is civic responsibility.
Aha. Yes. And that may take some time for the Arabs to learn. But learn it they will, the hard way or the easy way.
The Gazans voted in Hamas, and now they have to take the consequences of that choice.
If they chose war, they shall get war.
And they shall get no sympathy.
There is no way to now call the poor Gazans apowerless people who had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on Israel and are just caught in the crossfire.
No, no more!
They showed their true colors, and now it is not only morally acceptable, but morally imperative, to collectively punish them for their folly.
Learn responsibility, or die.
At least it provides endless amounts of material to criticize!
A few items.
First, a little while ago, when the biggest news was North Korea's attempted missile strike on Hawaii...
That didn't get much news coverage, did it?
data from U.S. and Japanese Aegis radar-equipped destroyers and surveillance aircraft on the missile's angle of take-off and altitude indicated that it was heading for waters near Hawaii, the Sankei Shimbun reported, citing multiple sources in the United States and Japan.A quick digression:
(btw, why are the NORKs still breathing? Just because the South Koreans were unwise enough to develop their major city within range of the Evil Hermit Kingdom's artillery doesn't mean we now ALL have to live with becoming in range, does it? I really don't care what happens to the ungrateful ROKers when it comes to missile attacks on the US. Should we wait around while they launch another one, wondering where it's aimed, and what kind of warhead it might carry?
Imagine if the Limpdong Missile hadn't failed after 30 seconds. You're the President. NORAD tells you their tracking an ICBM from a rogue nuclear power -- technically still at war with us -- headed for Hawaii. It lands in 15 minutes. What do you do?
Sit around and see whether it's "loaded" or not?
I never understood how the Leftists could be so adamantly opposed to Reagan's missile defense projects for so long -- "oh, the scenario of a rogue nation with just a few ICBMs threatening us is ludicrous! It will Never Happen!" I could only conclude they were deliberatly collaborating with the Red Menace.)
Anyway.
CNN brought on some former CIA head. Woolsey I think it was.
And he was asked what we should do.
Like everyone else on tv talking about Iran and NK, he pointed out we had few options and certainly no military ones (ok, let me get this straight: the world's sole hyperpower somehow can't do ANYTHING about Iran? Wouldn't that make Iran the world's sole hyperpower? As if.)
Instead, he proposed getting tough with some kinds of sanctions.
Some kind of blockade of supplies.
Well -- EXCEPT for humanitarian supplies, of course!
Sigh.
At one time, people knew how to make sieges effective.
You starve the enemy until they die or beg for mercy unconditionally.
Instead, today, the besiegers are supposed to supply food and energy, at their own expense.
Oh, he added this precious line: and somehow we'd have to make sure that the food got to the people, but not the North Korean army!!!
This guy ran the CIA!
And he actually said that!
How is it even possible to imagine such a scenario in any realm even merely close to reality?
Of course, in Gaza, (aka "Gone-za"), we have the double absurdity of Israel not only attempting to besiege them while supplying them with food, electricity, etc and other vitals that Gaza has always needed Israel for, and yet the Gazans have also never stopped trying to destroy the people who provide them these supplies.
Then tonight, I had to endure Jeff Greenfield being deliberately stupid just to make a cheap attack on Bush.
Another digression:
(This kind of anklebiting, like Valerie Plame now suing Cheney etc., is so counterproductive. Don't these morons realize that there are several very real possible futures that involve nuclear armageddon or other major catastrophe in the near future, and the job of preventing that is tough enough for the Bush administration, who are only human after all, and that these constant personal attacks and legal distractions only serve to reduce the effectiveness of these key players on the world stage who should -- for the safety of all of us, including Democrats who apparently think they live on a different planet -- be in top form to deal with these crises? For all our sakes?)
He basically said, ha ha, there goes another Bush policy in tatters, that promoting Democracy in the Middle East will lead to greater stability -- look at war breaking out! Hamas was elected! Nanny-boo-boo on you, Bush!
So what this pinhead is actually promoting is the idea that, what, it's now morally acceptable (or wisely pragmatic) to consign people to tyranny? He'd criticize for supporting dictators with the next sentence, the unserious hypocrite.
Furthermore, he deliberately takes a hyper-literal interpretation of the word "democracy" to mean the simple act of voting. Anyone with any sense knows that Bush is talking about the concept of Liberty rather than simple mob rule.
Voting, or "democracy", by itself is just a process. It confers no special legitimacy. We are under no obligation to take Hamas or Hezbollah any more seriously if they are elected or not.
Any idiot knows that pure democracy, aka "mob rule", is one of the worst systems of governance possible, certainly much worse than enlightened monarchy.
But the real point unfolding that this CNN "pundit" misses is that what "democracy" brings, while perhaps not automatic respectability, is civic responsibility.
Aha. Yes. And that may take some time for the Arabs to learn. But learn it they will, the hard way or the easy way.
The Gazans voted in Hamas, and now they have to take the consequences of that choice.
If they chose war, they shall get war.
And they shall get no sympathy.
There is no way to now call the poor Gazans apowerless people who had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on Israel and are just caught in the crossfire.
No, no more!
They showed their true colors, and now it is not only morally acceptable, but morally imperative, to collectively punish them for their folly.
Learn responsibility, or die.
posted by RDS at 12:36 AM
1 Comments:
I deleted a lengthy comment placed here because it in effect was an ad for a book. The author seems to literally consider himself the Messiah, and has some thoughts on the Tribulation, which the interested can find here.
Post a Comment
<< Home