This would be a big deal — particularly in the run-up to a foreign policy debate — if it wasn’t for one simple fact:
RACIST!
(h/t Pablo)
Search
Archive Calendar
| M | T | W | T | F | S | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Archives
Categories
- A Government That Can Force You to Buy Health Insurance Can Make You Do Anything (3)
- a protein wisdom philosophy primer (3)
- academics (25)
- armadillo (8)
- Friday Fiction 100 Word Challenge (51)
- from the protein wisdom conceptual series (136)
- identity politics (33)
- If Republicans Win the Senate in 2014 (1)
- in which celebraties comment on current events (67)
- language / intentionalism (88)
- legal (6)
- My brief conversations with inanimate objects (130)
- NSA / FISA (46)
- One Term to Serve, the 2012 Revival (6)
- Overheard in a Fallujah bunker (27)
- Poems from 196x, Revised by the Ghost of Richard Brauti (27)
- protein wisdom's DNC coverage (30)
- protein wisdom's RNC coverage (29)
- protein wisdom: the movie Lists (20)
- Provocateurism (16)
- real-time empirical observations (51)
- red pills found behind the sofa cushions (42)
- Scenes from my driveway (61)
- Talking back to 80s music (41)
- The Martha Stewart Chronicles (58)
- The protein wisdom interviews (10)
- The protein wisdom original poems (142)
- Uncategorized (20,046)
- Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance, abridged (34)
Recent Comments
- In The Mailbox: 02.28.23 (Afternoon Edition) : The Other McCain on Hey, longtime pw readers…
- In The Mailbox: 12.23.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll truly IS a sad, embittered psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- Danger on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
- In The Mailbox: 07.18.22 : The Other McCain on Patrick J. Carroll might be a psychopath
Brooks is one of those Obama supporters who want Barack to be allowed to be more fully Barack. She’s a deadly enemy of the United States, in other words.
The Taliban are on the inside of the building. Or they’ve resigned in disgust that their utopian vision hasn’t already come to pass and now merely prepare to bring down whatever Romney has to bring to foreign policy in his attempt to repair the damage the progressives have done.
But she knows he won’t and that he’s really not interested in doing the job. It is kind to him only in the most basic, personal way and it’s a devastating professional critique. And she drops this now? I find that intriguing and it has me thinking about Ulsterman’s WHI.
Doing the job from her point of view is bringing the building down around our ears from mine. I loath that woman.
Still, the basic framework of what needs to be done rings true. To what end is a separate matter.
Why wouldn’t we just as soon take strategic direction from a John Bolton, say? He’s at least developed a life-long credential as a devotee to American national security interests and so wouldn’t necessitate the presumption of a change of heart. Brooks is a sophistical lawschool leftist to me, not to be trusted any farther than one could throw her.
I don’t suggest we should trust her. I’m suggesting that her critique of Obama’s managerial performance from a foreign policy standpoint is on point.
Bolton is my first pick for SecState.
‘My son is not very optimal – he is very dead’: Mother of diplomat killed in Benghazi attack slams Obama’s comment on raid
“In 2008, Obama’s principled positions on the Iraq War, Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and interrogation policy helped motivate the Democratic base and send him to the White House with a decisive victory.”
Are these bona fide “principled positions”? What’s the principle? See to it the United States ends its endurance of Obama’s tenure in international disgrace?
sdferr, I’m not talking about her noxious principles or Obama’s. I’m talking about his managerial abilities and his ability to act on his foreign policy principles which, thankfully, is severely lacking.
She says he’s inept and presiding over a dysfunctional FP apparatus. She’s right. This is not helpful with the base that likes his anti-American principles, or with anyone else for that matter.
If process questions were solely the foreign policy problem the leftists bequeath us, who would be alarmed? Certainly I wouldn’t. But kindergarteners can master process problems, easily learning to organize their crayons and playdoh. It’s better I should applaud whatever criticism of the incompetent Obama administration emerges I guess, but the fearsome potential cataclysm he leaves behind him just gets in my way.
Fox just dropped a cable from Amb Stevens to DC. No actual intelligence? Absolute bullshit, per Stevens.
I mean, we have to see what Brooks wants: she wants Obama re-elected on the grounds he’ll vow to square his organization. For fuck’s sake, she can’t say instead he should never be reelected in a zillion years because he’s a danger to the nation’s survival? No, she can’t. Because she’s incapable of thinking it.
That’s already fait accompli, sdferr. I welcome anything that leverages his ass out at this point. Then we’ll take it from there, and hope the world will forget that Obama ever ran this place. Right now, if Debbie Waterhead Schlitz wants to stick a shiv in him, I’ll applaud.
Partly I guess I’m attacking Brooks preemptively, simply because I can see what she’ll be doing two years out into a Romney administration. I’d rather my compatriots not be anyways comfortable with her. She’s evil.
Caroline Glick, on the other hand, is quite clear-eyed as to what we face.