had to borrow friend's computer here in hilton head so i could respond to something in USA TODAY on the 1st of july editorial page. the writer was jonah goldberg (editor at large of national review online and author of book called "liberal fascism".
his contention is that senator obama has "real patriotism problem." and here is his argument:
senator obama wore a flag on his lapel after 9-11 but quit wearing it during the debates because, in his mind, it had morphed into a symbol of supporting the iraqi war. in may, he started wearing it again. senator obama was talking about people questioning his patriotism (remember, good readers, that the republicans demeaned max cleland, a double amputee from vietnam as being unpatriotic) but anyway, back to obama, he says "i am going to try to tell the american people what i believe will make this country great and, hopefully, that will be a testimony to my patriotism."
goldberg jumps on that statement and says "what it is not great now." and again i quote goldberg, "this sense that america is in need of fixing in order to become a great country points to obama's real patriotism problem."
"definitions of patriotism proliferate, but in the american context patriotism must involve not only devotion to american texts (something that distinguishes our patriotism from european nationalism) but also an abiding belief in the inherent and enduring goodness of the american nation."
well, i don't know what DEVOTION TO AMERICAN TEXTS means...do you? "devotion" as in, shall we say, a religious sense? what the fuck.
according to goldberg, you could read that as saying americans are patriotic and europeans are nationalistic. what the fuck. we are good they are bad? what the fuck.
ah, but let me get to the INHERENT AND ENDURING GOODNESS OF THE AMERICAN NATION.
inherent? we inherited our "goodness". from whom? god? the british? goldberg sounds like one of those people who think that GOD, in some way or another, favors america over any other country. pssst. if there is a god, it would the god of everyone. if it is just for one people or one nation, that is not a god, that is an idol. remember god was on the side of the nazis. that is what they said. god was on the side of osama bin laden. that is what he said. god told george bush to invade iraq, that is what he said.
"enduring goodness of the american nation." hmmm
were we good we practiced genocide against the indigenous peoples of the north american continent?
were we good when we practiced slavery?
were we good when we dropped the second atomic bomb on japan who was trying to surrender at the time?
were we good when we invaded iraq? or vietnam or
" " grenada
cuba
mexico
russia
haiti ?????
were we good when we supported right wing death squads in central america?
were we good when we infected blacks with syphlysis (sp) and then let them die without treatment?
were we good when we backed iraq in their invasion of iran?
was agent orange a symbol of our goodness?
do we have more people in prison than other country in the world because we are inherently good?
do we lead the western world in murders and violent crime because we are good?
we sell more weapons of war than any other country...are we good because of that?
come on now, we have faults. we have made mistakes. to believe that we are inherently good (and other people aren't) is the belief of fanatics. we will never live up to our ideals, to our promise, to our capabilities unless we see ourselves as we really are and then work together to fix the faults and improve even the good things so that they become better.
the real thing that is special about us is our form of government, we brought democracy to the modern world. we have checks and balances in our constitution because our founders knew that men are venial and ambitions and power corrupts. they put those in there because they knew we were not "inherently good."
do we do good things? abso fucking lutely! am i glad i live here in america? same answer. can we improve? fuck an a we can. should we? fuck an a we should.
senator obama wants us to improve, to get better, to provide a better, safer, more prosperous nation and for this he is attacked by people who think we are perfect as we are.
his contention is that senator obama has "real patriotism problem." and here is his argument:
senator obama wore a flag on his lapel after 9-11 but quit wearing it during the debates because, in his mind, it had morphed into a symbol of supporting the iraqi war. in may, he started wearing it again. senator obama was talking about people questioning his patriotism (remember, good readers, that the republicans demeaned max cleland, a double amputee from vietnam as being unpatriotic) but anyway, back to obama, he says "i am going to try to tell the american people what i believe will make this country great and, hopefully, that will be a testimony to my patriotism."
goldberg jumps on that statement and says "what it is not great now." and again i quote goldberg, "this sense that america is in need of fixing in order to become a great country points to obama's real patriotism problem."
"definitions of patriotism proliferate, but in the american context patriotism must involve not only devotion to american texts (something that distinguishes our patriotism from european nationalism) but also an abiding belief in the inherent and enduring goodness of the american nation."
well, i don't know what DEVOTION TO AMERICAN TEXTS means...do you? "devotion" as in, shall we say, a religious sense? what the fuck.
according to goldberg, you could read that as saying americans are patriotic and europeans are nationalistic. what the fuck. we are good they are bad? what the fuck.
ah, but let me get to the INHERENT AND ENDURING GOODNESS OF THE AMERICAN NATION.
inherent? we inherited our "goodness". from whom? god? the british? goldberg sounds like one of those people who think that GOD, in some way or another, favors america over any other country. pssst. if there is a god, it would the god of everyone. if it is just for one people or one nation, that is not a god, that is an idol. remember god was on the side of the nazis. that is what they said. god was on the side of osama bin laden. that is what he said. god told george bush to invade iraq, that is what he said.
"enduring goodness of the american nation." hmmm
were we good we practiced genocide against the indigenous peoples of the north american continent?
were we good when we practiced slavery?
were we good when we dropped the second atomic bomb on japan who was trying to surrender at the time?
were we good when we invaded iraq? or vietnam or
" " grenada
cuba
mexico
russia
haiti ?????
were we good when we supported right wing death squads in central america?
were we good when we infected blacks with syphlysis (sp) and then let them die without treatment?
were we good when we backed iraq in their invasion of iran?
was agent orange a symbol of our goodness?
do we have more people in prison than other country in the world because we are inherently good?
do we lead the western world in murders and violent crime because we are good?
we sell more weapons of war than any other country...are we good because of that?
come on now, we have faults. we have made mistakes. to believe that we are inherently good (and other people aren't) is the belief of fanatics. we will never live up to our ideals, to our promise, to our capabilities unless we see ourselves as we really are and then work together to fix the faults and improve even the good things so that they become better.
the real thing that is special about us is our form of government, we brought democracy to the modern world. we have checks and balances in our constitution because our founders knew that men are venial and ambitions and power corrupts. they put those in there because they knew we were not "inherently good."
do we do good things? abso fucking lutely! am i glad i live here in america? same answer. can we improve? fuck an a we can. should we? fuck an a we should.
senator obama wants us to improve, to get better, to provide a better, safer, more prosperous nation and for this he is attacked by people who think we are perfect as we are.
posted by Ron Shock | 10:49 AM
7 Comments:
Attack Obama's patriotism, attack McCain's war record.
"Clark said that McCain lacked the executive experience necessary to be president, calling him “untested and untried” on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” And in saying so, he took a few swipes at McCain’s military service.
After saying, "I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war," he added that these experiences in no way qualify McCain to be president in his view:
“He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee. And he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn't a wartime squadron,”
It has become standard to attack any perceved weakness, however irrelevant. It is only unfair if the other side is doing it.
i was questioning goldberg's reasoning, not his attack nor does this have anything to do with senator mc cain. i agree that political attacks are part of the package, so to speak, but some get way out of line. clark was expressing the view that i have, that being a pow, while horrific in itself, is not, in any shape, form or fashion, qualification for the highest office in the land.
In 1998, nobody had ever heard of Jonah Goldberg, but his mother was a principle player behind the scenes in Bill Clinton's sex scandal. She advised Linda Tripp to tape her conversations with Monica Lewinsky, and Lucianne Goldberg later brought those tapes and assorted sordid allegations to the attention of numerous reporters, Paula Jones' attorneys... and her son Jonah.
With his mother, Jonah Goldberg listened to the then-secret Lewinsky tapes, and with this inside knowledge he made himself a popular source among Washington reporters. He sold a few free-lance stories, got himself invited on the news-talk shows, and in the whirlwind of his Monicagate fame he was offered a post at the arch-right-wing National Review, where he is now "editor at large."
I withdraw my previous suggestion that you leave the country. Why don't you stay right there in North Carolina? That would be fine by me.
joe, come on now; it is SOUTH carolina.
Ron, you ignorant slut. (I'm still being SNL funny when I say that)
I love ya, man. Really I do.
But your side is no different. Just ineffective. I don't condone what was done in any way whatsoever.
But the hypocrisy is killing me.
Clinton bombed more countries than any other peacetime president ever, including Yugoslavia, Sudan, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan. In 1998 he bombed alleged terrorist training camps in Afghanistan supposedly being used by Bin Laden and a factory in Sudan. Clinton alleged it was producing chemical weapons for Bin Laden. No proof that this factory was producing chemical weapons was ever provided and it was later proven that the plant was actually a medicine factory.
Oops. Sorry about that.
Clinton repeatedly bombed Iraq throughout his term. In 1998 Iraq stopped cooperating with weapons inspectors, claiming they were being used by the US as spies. Clinton had the inspectors withdrawn and launched Operation Desert Fox, a major bombing campaign against Iraq much larger than his previous bombings of Iraq. Afterwards the US continued bombing Iraq on an almost daily basis until the invasion.
Clinton’s pretexts for all this were the same pretexts used by Bush to invade Iraq, but with more emphasis on weapons of mass destruction and less emphasis on Al-Qaeda. On February 4th, 1998 Clinton said, "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." On February 17th, 1998 he said, "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
In his defense of Operation Desert Fox on December 16th, 1998 Clinton argued that, “Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons” and that, “The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government.”
Clinton had the right idea in most respects. Bush actually DID what Clinton was talking about doing.
Personally, I don't think the US should be in the business of nation building. But to think Republican policy is any different than Democrat policy is a crock of shit.
One more quote:
“I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq … I don't believe he went in there for oil. We didn't go in there for imperialist or financial reasons” and that “You couldn't responsibly ignore the possibility that a tyrant had these weapons of mass destruction stocks. I never really thought he'd use them. What I was far more worried about was that he'd sell this stuff or give it away. So that's why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you're the President, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for.”
-Bill Clinton
Time Magazine, June 2004.
Fuck all of 'em. They aren't any different.
the only thing i have ever defended slick willie on was job creation and, truth be known, that was more luck than skill, the internet exploded while willie was there and a lot of jobs were created. if you go back over my posts, you will run across a poem about the party with two faces but behind the masks is one party, the war party.
everything you say is true. clinton was just as big a warmonger as is bush, he was just a little more careful about it.
Post a Comment
<< Home