I'm not a newshound. I'm missing all the spitting about Spitzer, for ex. Not that I care (synopsis: tough-on-crime governor gets caught whoring). Should a guy resign because he dishonored his wife? I don't know. Broke the law? Well, okay.
But now and then I look. Seems our top Middle East general is "resigning" because of press reports that "suggest a disconnect" between his views and the President's on going to war with Iran. In other words, he's a good man, the White House is run by blood-eyed idiots, and guess who wins? Of course, Gates grants the retirement "request" with "reluctance and regret." The best thugs always talk nice while slowly inserting the screwdriver. But it's obvious even from the VOA's writeup that Gen. Fallon is being given the bum's rush.
And what do those idiots hope to accomplish? Do they really think a trumped-up war with Iran will distract the populace from an economy that is collapsing like a house of securitized mortgage cards so much that they will elect their boy McCain? Or do they even care about that? I think they do not. They don't really care who gets elected (neither do I, as McCain will only be marginally better than Clinton/Obama for the country, though none of those people are any better than power-mad union bosses). I'm rather more convinced that the people who are really in control just want to design the next President's leash by tying him/her to a war already under way. With a deliberately chaotic foreign policy in place, the next President will have few choices, all of them bad. I have a hard time seeing that as in any way accidental. The ouster of capable and principled men such as Gen. Fallon is probably also part of the plan.
So what about Spitzer? Clinton didn't resign, and he did far worse. Ah, but he didn't go to actual prostitutes so far as we know. I don't know why interacting with highly-paid call girls is somehow worse than manipulating emotionally unstable women, but our society apparently thinks it is. Consorting with whores! Gee, that's far worse than date-raping a starry-eyed intern. And all of that is obviously far, far worse than whipping up a war frenzy over peoples we barely understand.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Don
I'm too serious
Tell me, tell, me, if you think you know
Labels
- About Me (15)
- aminals (25)
- architecture (3)
- burningman (41)
- ceaseless self-examination (19)
- history (17)
- inchoate entrepreneurialism (2)
- kid stuff (24)
- long unedited essays (22)
- music (4)
- NaNoWriMo (29)
- nanowrimocrastination (3)
- oh my godless (2)
- OMG IM OCD (4)
- people are strange (2)
- people are stupid (11)
- people what matter (18)
- perpetual picture-taking (24)
- politics (67)
- random life events (59)
- random whining (14)
- reading (4)
- San Francisco (11)
- shameless sexism (1)
- short fiction (3)
- short unedited essays (10)
- society (14)
- sports (2)
- thinking too much (9)
- Thursday Thirteen (6)
- travel (53)
- wha-a-atever (25)
- wordless wednesday (6)
- work (34)
- writing (15)
- xmas (13)
27 comments:
The Fallon thing seemed weird to me, too.
As far as Spitzer, I think he should resign cuz he committed a crime, but I don't think it should be a crime. I can understand why peeps don't want prostitutes walking the streets, but a high-class call girl ring? I don't see how that's worse than a married guy having a mistress in an apartment he's paying for. And as far as single men going to them, who cares? And yeah, manipulating some young girl is worse than what Spitzer did for sure.
No one should really care about this except his wife. And people quickly assume she's been wronged -- how do we even know that? Maybe she approved of this long ago cuz she had her own stuff going on. You just don't know. Many wives of powerful men turn a blind eye to this behavior because they enjoy their lifestyle. Silda is educated and beautiful, so she certainly could leave if she wanted to.
I don't feel sorry for Spitzer though -- what an idiot! He had to know he'd get caught.
Good points, all. I do think he should resign, absolutely. And I also think that having pity for his wife requires some assumption that she didn't know or that she cared. Maybe she did know and didn't care. The whole scene just turns my stomach.
You off trumped-up wars now? Why shouldn't Iran share in the good fortune you've brought Iraq?
off trumped-up wars now?
Yes. That last one made sense to me at the time, and for quite a while afterwards. Never mind the justifications, it's especially important that we continue with the follow-up. But no more new adventures, please. I'm no longer even the statist I used to be.
But this wasn't about that.
Wonder whose money the governor spent on those high dollar call girls?
I don't in general think the people involved in making the law work ought to be breaking it.
I certainly see what Clinton did as worse, not because of any of the sex stuff, which I mostly wish had never been made into my business, but because of that little perjury thing.
The character debate is a little naive because I don't really think you can find a politician who has much of it, but there are degrees and you have to go for the best you can get. Character does matter when it comes to liars in charge of democracies. Current administration included, obviously.
I don't really care much about this guy because I've got a child's attention span and I'm more focused on the election right now, but yeah he should resign.
Forgot to add: the thing with all these sex scandals isn't that someone else's marriage is our business, it's that it speaks to poor judgment. Hiring hookers and getting blowjobs in the Oval Office and all that are pretty stupid things to do when you're a politician. You KNOW such things will ruin your career if you get caught. That you lack the self-control and/or possess the arrogance to do it anyway makes me pause to think about whether you should be in charge.
Yeah, I never cared about BC's sex life either, but he did look into the camera and straight out lie about it.
It's funny, we want politicians we can trust, and yet their ranks are mostly drawn from the nation's frat boys.
One thing that so far as I know is totally missing from the discussion around these events is any discussion on why those escort services are so profitable, what is it that drives people to make certain choices, etc. IOW why is there such a disconnect between our culture's myths around marriage and other sexual relationships, and the reality?
A coworker of mine thinks that the people who are really in power are finished, and are now just sitting back and waiting, and don't really care who wins the election. That seems so fatalistic it is depressing.
I sometimes think you can determine who is really in power by noticing who never complains or whines or bitches. And I think it's those bankers and corporate muckitymucks. The oil industry is usually pretty quiet, too.
power-mad union bosses
Heh. Everyone's power mad, Don. After that, it's just a matter of choosing which bus you get on.
I'm married to a bank svp and he complains, whines, and bitches plenty.
Well, maybe after a few more days on that diet he'll be chipperier.
ITA about the poor judgment aspect of these scandals being our business.
Well it's Admiral Fallon, not general. This doesn't make it better, as carrier groups are the only reasonable base for an attack. To have a publicly reluctant warrior leaving command of these groups is not exactly progress.
Second, you bet Georgie and Dickie care who gets elected to succeed them. McCain has already gone on the record to scoff at claims of malfeasance in the Bush administration. Meaning he's already declared his administration won't look into illegal wiretaps, repeal of habeus corpus, and other constitution shredding parties.
But while the Democratic frontrunners don't want to talk about such things, who knows what they'll do if they get in and have the DOJ at their command.
Oh, yes. They care.
Admiral Fallon had problems with General Petraeus' view of strategy in the area. General Petraeus is clearly Bush's monkey, so there we have it. It's happened this way since time immemorial. Anyonw remember what happened with Truman and MacArthur. It was a little more blunt, but so was Harry.
What a great name for a president! Harry.
How the hell is Petraeus "Bush's monkey"? He's an extremely capable commander whose programs have been very successful, considering what he has to work with and in. That overall reductions in violence are not politically harmful to Bush hardly makes the architect thereof some kind of monkey or puppet.
I know zip about disagreements within Staff on strategy. It sucks that Adm. Fallon appears to have been rushed out; but I wouldn't assume it was because he didn't follow some political program before I knew whether or not he'd been spouting off publicly, as MacArthur learned the hard way a command-rank officer should not be doing in a civilian-run government.
I don't trust Dem administration to make much difference. If you object to our looking like an empire now, you will object then. I do trust them to make it look as though they had no choice, however.
Yes, Don. Everyone should stfu and do what your boys say.
The idea that Clinton did worse than Spitzer is so laughable that it's not worth discussing.
"I don't trust Dem administration to make much difference."
Don, you have absolutely no fucking idea what's been going on the past eight years, do you?
Yes, the Dems will provide continuity. There's going to be no revolution. But you should be *praying* that they will turn some of the shit round that's gone on.
"Yeah, I never cared about BC's sex life either, but he did look into the camera and straight out lie about it."
It speaks volumes for the totally fucked-up "values" you wingnuts have that you don't mind that millions of dollars of taxpayer's money were wasted on "investigating" Clinton's sex life, but you're all riled up that he wasn't honest about it. You'd have actually preferred "Yeah, the intern sucked me off. So what?"???
If Spitzer has to resign for whoring, Bush should be impeached for treason, murder, lying us into war yada yada woof woof then, after he is found guilty, because he is, WATERBOARDED.
Petraeus is doing Bush's bidding. Fallon had objections to Petraeus' outlook on strategy. he wasn't pushed, he left knowing that he was not being given, and wasn't going to be given, real decision making power. this is not my assumption, this is the story that's come out.
Flag Officers at the level these guys are operating on live deeply political professional lives. They are and should be affected by the political decisions made by the Executive because the military is supposed to be an instrument of policy. The MacArthur example was just an example of that by way of illustrating that point. MacArthur was pushed out for basically political reasons, and alos because he was attempting to dictate policy to his civlian C-in-C.
The reductions in violence are not being followed up by the political changes the reductions were supposed to enable. Ask yourself what the surge was really for. Then see if any thing other than reduced violence has resulted. Where is the great political push by the Iraqi government that wqas supposed to take place when the surge "worked?"
Ho can you conclude anything at all abotu a democratic administration? What makes you think that they will continue Bush's imperial adventure?
Yes, Don. Everyone should stfu and do what your boys say.
Huh?
The idea that Clinton did worse than Spitzer is so laughable that it's not worth discussing.
Bill manipulated a starry-eyed intern barely into her twenties and then baldly lied about this abuse of executive power. He would have been fired immediately from any corporation and stood before a martial jury if a military officer. But no, all we get is accused of being obsessed over blow jobs.
Spitzer hired a hooker and paid her an astonishing market rate. He should get what's coming to him, but he didn't abuse any power over the woman, and he didn't lie (much), certainly not after getting called out.
Yes, the Dems will provide continuity. There's going to be no revolution. But you should be *praying* that they will turn some of the shit round that's gone on.
I hope they do. I have however no such expectation. I'm a cynic, perhaps. Power does not give up power, however gained.
It speaks volumes for the totally fucked-up "values" you wingnuts have that you don't mind that millions of dollars of taxpayer's money were wasted on "investigating" Clinton's sex life, but you're all riled up that he wasn't honest about it. You'd have actually preferred "Yeah, the intern sucked me off. So what?"???
The only investigation I cared about was into his honesty. It sucks to find out your President is fundamentally a liar and user of other people. It speaks volumes for your inability to get my point of view (or disinterest in it, fine) that you think I'm a "wingnut" who cares about others' sex lives. But the millions were bound to be spent no matter what. Washington is a pit of infamy run entirely by lawyers, you expect anything else?
If Spitzer has to resign for whoring, Bush should be impeached for treason, murder, lying us into war yada yada woof woof then, after he is found guilty, because he is, WATERBOARDED.
Funny thing, Bush's crimes aren't out of the mainstream for presidents generally; but I admit this viewpoint requires some cynicism as well as not being able to credit Bush with the intelligence to know he was lying when he was. No excuse, of course. It wouldn't hurt my feelings to see him punished for it. But not impeached: It's way too late for that. This so-called election campaign is distraction enough. And no waterboarding: That's just for interrogating and there isn't a damn thing left for him to say that I'd want to hear.
Ho can you conclude anything at all abotu a democratic administration? What makes you think that they will continue Bush's imperial adventure?
Pure cynicism. Well, no, also that they have no choice, really, if by continue you mean try to stabilize Iraq (good luck). I sincerely hope they don't fuck with Iran but personally I don't think McCain will either. However, you all can say I don't know shit about that because I don't. Didn't know Petraeus was doing "Bush's bidding" either, if by that you mean something beyond following orders as he is bound to do. As for the relative peace not being followed up by useful action by the Iraqis, I'm not surprised, but you seem to suggest this lack of progress is deliberate. Realistically, I wouldn't expect an emotionally-shattered country like Iraq to be capable of real progress for another generation. Maybe we should just follow the classical model followed by both our parties in the past and give it back over to a dictatorship. Waddya say?
Petraeus is the latest in a long line of generals going back to Franks. Many of the others have had disagreements with policy and stratgeic vision for Iraq, and were soon "retiring." "Bush's monkey" is perhaps too harsh, but clearly he is hanging in and attempting to implement the ideas from his Ph.D. dissertation on coutnerinsurgency. He's also clearly toeing some kind of administration line, or he'd be gone by now, as Fallon is going.
I don't think either democratic candidate wants to stay in Iraq, and they will face some serious problems if they don't start moving us out. They are runing on the promise that they will. Frankly, I think Clinton will stall. I think she is a crypto-republican, still a Goldwater Girl at heart. I have hopes for Obama, that he will actually start trying to reduce our involvement on a major scale.
You've got to be kidding. Obama says he'll get us out, but that if Al Qaeda makes a strong appearance, he'll take us back in. The man talks as if only recently introduced to reality, and I'm not sure he's committed to the relationship.
As for Petraeus, if it's a bad mark to get along with your CinC, oh well then. Yes, he's implementing his thesis. Learning from Algiers, for ex. So far as I hear here, the only real problem with it is the Iraqis are too dysfunctional to do anything with the ball we're handing them. So if that's true, shall we give up on them and let the blood of Arab patriots and tyrants re-seed a new Mesopotamian dictatorship? That's what the Dr Zens of the world want, but I'm not sure it's really the best plan.
Obama works from the realization that we can't just evaporate from the scene, but he's talking about a reaction force, not an occupying army of 165,000. You've absorbed too much rightwing talk radio. No one with an ounce of sense thinks we can just disappear from the region and ignore it. Of course Obama isn't committed to the relationship as it exists now because he disagreed with the great clusterfuck ever starting in the first place. Still, he's smart enough to understand that the situation has to be dealt with carefully or it will get worse.
As for Petraeus, it isn't bad to get along with your C-in-C, but perhaps it is bad to not ever disagree if you actually do. This is something I fundamentally don't really trust about the whole thing. Bush is notorious for getting rid of people who tell him things he doesn't want to hear. Is Petraeus delivering hard truths when they crop up? Is it actually getting that much better? If so, why are IEDs still going off maiming our troops and countless Iraqis? Why are we maintaining such a heavy presence? Why are we still getting stories about political discord in the Iraqi government? If the Iraqis are too dysfuntional to do anyhtng with he ball, why is it up to us to sit there bleeding and going further into debt to cover their ass? As for Mesopotamian dictatorships, isn't that a role we are fulfilling now? We're sitting there with this army controlling the situation and our government has long since proven that they can't be trusted on any level with this thing. When do we let them have their country back? Or do we just spend the next seven or eight generations sending our men and women into the Fertile Crescent to drain their blood into the sand for nothing.
I guess I shouldn't worry though, since at the rate of expenditure, and with our skanked economy, we won't be able to afford to continue it because there'll be nothing left in this country we can mortgage to China to pay for it.
You've absorbed too much rightwing talk radio.
How dare you. My news sources consist solely of NPR and the Wall Street Journal.
he's smart enough to understand that the situation has to be dealt with carefully or it will get worse.
That's a relief. I thought he was making things up as he went.
He gives me the impression that once the Prez-elect, it will be very easy for one group or other to take control of his strings. Probably not the Clinton cabal, or the Bush-Saudi bunch. Who else is there? Hmm. Starts with a K, I think. Ah, but they're all invested in the same oil futures.
perhaps it is bad to not ever disagree if you actually do
I don't mean to defend Petraeus but I hate to see a possibly good man kicked for no reason. Juan Cole, who is very anti-war / anti-Bush, sez:
It is worthwhile mentioning that what Gen. Petraeus said about the lack of political progress is the opposite of what John McCain has been saying. I am not saying that the contradiction is intended to be a political statement. But I am saying that Petraeus has just revealed himself again to be a straight shooter of a sort that has been all too rare in the Iraq misadventure.
From Reflections on Petraeus's Comments On lack of Political Progress
Say, how come that Pommie guy in Brisbane keeps calling me pro-Bush when Bush's unremitting bulls4jt was the premise of this post?
"He gives me the impression that once the Prez-elect, it will be very easy for one group or other to take control of his strings. Probably not the Clinton cabal, or the Bush-Saudi bunch. Who else is there? Hmm. Starts with a K, I think. Ah, but they're all invested in the same oil futures."
Well, detach from the Wall Street Journal for a minute and look at what his proposals are. He's less likely to let people take control of his strings than anyone else in this race. Look at the campaign he's run, look at his obvious ability. Just for instance, he writes his own speeches. He gave that speech in Philly against the advice of many of his staff. I think your impression is quite mistaken. He's shown more fiber and independence of thought than either of the other two candidates here.
Post a Comment