Why did Bob Dole feel it was necessary to criticize John Kerry's war wounds? Is someone not considered wounded in battle unless they are left disabled? This is what Dole implied and that is just plain stupid. No way around it. Dole reverted to type, acting as the bitter old pol instead of using the wit and wisdom he is capable of, but which only comes out when he is on Saturday Night Live.
Dole knows better than to get entangled with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth(?). That group has so little credibility President Bush won't even defend them. Somehow he managed to get Bob Dole out their to puff for these guys though. Bizarre. Bottom line is that Kerry was in battle, under enemy fire and was wounded, however minor the wounds were. He still has shrapnel in his leg. Why criticize that? According to Dole and other Righties it is because "Kerry made it a centerpiece of his campaign." Yeah so? He was in Vietnam. He was under enemy fire. Let's just stop there. If he was never wounded would it make his service less valuable or honorable? Are those who got wounded seriously the only ones deserving of our respect?
Bush could have neutralized the whole Kerry as war hero theme had he deftly handled the question: Mr. President, is John Kerry more qualified to be commander-in-chief because of his combat experience?
He should answer: No. While I respect and admire Senator Kerry's actions during his service, it does not prepare you for making the decisions with respect to the fate of the nation. Going to war is just not a question of combat. It is a question of leadership and vision. While I do not know the horrors of war first hand, I have surrounded myself with those that do. I rely on them to make sure my expectations are realistic and obtainable and are for a purpose that is worthy of our armed forces. But ultimately, it is a decision that has to be made by a leader who has the right vision for the future of our country, and I have that vision.
Instead, Bob Dole, someone with actual combat credentials, goes out on TV and says "he's not worthy--he didn't even bleed!" What an imbecile. The guy bled. He won medals for valor. He turned his boat into enemy fire. He did his job and he led his men with courage and honor.
Now, Bob Dole is trying to back off the comments somewhat without losing face. He was playing political "hardball" and just trying to "tweak" Kerry a little. Oh yeah, it was good natured ribbin! Did I call him an imbecile yet. I think all that Viagra made his brain stiff (sorry, there had to be a Viagra shot).
Bob Dole - Stupid Old Guy who should know better.
Monday, August 23, 2004
Sunday, August 22, 2004
Equal Time
Some have said that Stupidity Watch seems biased and little left leaning. Untrue, we say. It's just that at this point in time the GOP and its allies are really acting stupid. The left is acting stupid in more nuanced ways that just aren't funny (except Ralph Nader). We like obvious stupid here at the Watch. Anyway, to placate those among us that are thinking we are leaning to far left here is a little anecdote for you to gnaw on. It's a good one about the "liberal media."
Last week Venzuelans voted in a recall election, deciding whether or not to keep President Hugo Chavez in power. If you think the Watch is left leaning you haven't seen anything until you look at Chavez. He thinks Castro is the best thing since sliced bread (or finding lots of oil a la´Jed Clampett). Chavez loves all things Cuban. He also pretty much screwed up Venezuela's oil production (they are the world's 5th largest producer of oil and a member of OPEC).
Well, Chavez got to keep his job, and these two "stupid heads" on Air America's Unfiltered, Liz Winstead and Rachel Maddow, were GUSHING, about how wonderful Chavez is. Now, if you actually talked to people from Venezuela you would realize what a mess he made it. He hurt the economy and rules as an authoritarian. Why then did he win? Well, he threw a lot of money at some very poor people and convinced them it would get better. When the referendum idea was started (after he had protestors shot) it wasn't even close, but through delay he was able to rehabilitate himself with the populace in certain places.
Usually, Rachel and Liz are quite good, but some sort of weird leftist mania swept over them and I felt as if they were hoping that there would be a communist resurgence in South America to liberate the poor and disenfranchised. Maybe it was because Chuck D wasn't there?
Rachel, Liz--get back on message and don't be stupid.
Last week Venzuelans voted in a recall election, deciding whether or not to keep President Hugo Chavez in power. If you think the Watch is left leaning you haven't seen anything until you look at Chavez. He thinks Castro is the best thing since sliced bread (or finding lots of oil a la´Jed Clampett). Chavez loves all things Cuban. He also pretty much screwed up Venezuela's oil production (they are the world's 5th largest producer of oil and a member of OPEC).
Well, Chavez got to keep his job, and these two "stupid heads" on Air America's Unfiltered, Liz Winstead and Rachel Maddow, were GUSHING, about how wonderful Chavez is. Now, if you actually talked to people from Venezuela you would realize what a mess he made it. He hurt the economy and rules as an authoritarian. Why then did he win? Well, he threw a lot of money at some very poor people and convinced them it would get better. When the referendum idea was started (after he had protestors shot) it wasn't even close, but through delay he was able to rehabilitate himself with the populace in certain places.
Usually, Rachel and Liz are quite good, but some sort of weird leftist mania swept over them and I felt as if they were hoping that there would be a communist resurgence in South America to liberate the poor and disenfranchised. Maybe it was because Chuck D wasn't there?
Rachel, Liz--get back on message and don't be stupid.
Friday, August 20, 2004
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth?
Maybe its just me, but it seems that it isn't only Gov. McGreevey who is being blackmailed with incriminating photos. What else could motivate John McCain to campaign for George W (In 2000 W questioned McCain's patriotism) and what could motivate a Vietnam vet to repudiate his own history in order to make a fellow vet look bad?
If you have not heard the overplayed story of the day I will fill you in. Former Lt.jg Thurlow, a Swift Boat Commander in the same division as Sen. John Kerry, was on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Its seems Mr. Thurlow in his ad for SBVFT and on Hardball claimed that there was no enemy gunfire during the alleged battle when Kerry (and Thurlow) earned their Bronze Stars. However, according to the records obtained by the Washington Post it seems there was small arms and automatic weapons fire aimed at the group of swift boats. Mr. Thurlow never answered about whether or not he deserved his Bronze Star if there was no actual battle. Thurlow also argued that it seemed that Kerry had a "plan" during his service in Vietnam. He implied the plan was to make himself a war hero and then self inflict wounds on himself so as to get an "early out."
Michelle Malkin was then put in the uncomfortable position of having to try and explain and defend Thurlow (Malkin was on to promote her book on why internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was OK and why we should do it now to fight Al Qaeda--she is Asian-American, though I am not sure that is relevant).
Unfortunately, Malkin, also a Fox News contributor, decided to defend Thurlow and the book by the SBVFT instead of saying "There is a serious factual discrepancy that must be explored." She went on to have a debate with Matthews about whether Kerry's wounds were self-inflicted. Matthews said she was implying that Kerry intentionally wounded himself and she kept saying "self inflicted." She never got to talk about her book. I think they brainwash the people over at Fox so that they can only "parrot the talking points." Right Sean (see below)?
So a big slap upside the head to Mr. Thurlow, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (?), Ms. Malkin, and Sean Hannity (just for fun). Boy are you guys stupid.
If you have not heard the overplayed story of the day I will fill you in. Former Lt.jg Thurlow, a Swift Boat Commander in the same division as Sen. John Kerry, was on Hardball with Chris Matthews on MSNBC. Its seems Mr. Thurlow in his ad for SBVFT and on Hardball claimed that there was no enemy gunfire during the alleged battle when Kerry (and Thurlow) earned their Bronze Stars. However, according to the records obtained by the Washington Post it seems there was small arms and automatic weapons fire aimed at the group of swift boats. Mr. Thurlow never answered about whether or not he deserved his Bronze Star if there was no actual battle. Thurlow also argued that it seemed that Kerry had a "plan" during his service in Vietnam. He implied the plan was to make himself a war hero and then self inflict wounds on himself so as to get an "early out."
Michelle Malkin was then put in the uncomfortable position of having to try and explain and defend Thurlow (Malkin was on to promote her book on why internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII was OK and why we should do it now to fight Al Qaeda--she is Asian-American, though I am not sure that is relevant).
Unfortunately, Malkin, also a Fox News contributor, decided to defend Thurlow and the book by the SBVFT instead of saying "There is a serious factual discrepancy that must be explored." She went on to have a debate with Matthews about whether Kerry's wounds were self-inflicted. Matthews said she was implying that Kerry intentionally wounded himself and she kept saying "self inflicted." She never got to talk about her book. I think they brainwash the people over at Fox so that they can only "parrot the talking points." Right Sean (see below)?
So a big slap upside the head to Mr. Thurlow, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (?), Ms. Malkin, and Sean Hannity (just for fun). Boy are you guys stupid.
Thursday, August 19, 2004
Sean Hannity
Usually, just using his name would be enough for you to say "yeah he's pretty stupid," but today I must comment on the ongoing stupidity of Sean Hannity. He seems to be battling with Bill O'Reilly over who can make up the most stuff.
I happened to catch a few minutes of Hannity's radio show today as I was scanning the dial. He was running a clip of John Kerry railing against "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" (tomorrow's big winners). As Kerry was talking about how SBVFT are paid for by a few rich Texas Republicans, Hannity kept interrupting and shouting "Talking points, he's parroting talking points."
Sean, they are not talking points when the candidate uses them. Talking points are what the rest of the people use to parrot the candidate's message of the day. Kerry makes speeches, you parrot talking points. See the story below about the Washington Times if you want to see someone who parrots talking points
Hannity was trying to ridicule Kerry in some way--like when he uses "liberal" to mean evil or communist or something. But the more I listen to Hannity, the more stupid he becomes (I hope I don't lose brain cells in the process).
Sean Hannity--just plain stupid.
I happened to catch a few minutes of Hannity's radio show today as I was scanning the dial. He was running a clip of John Kerry railing against "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" (tomorrow's big winners). As Kerry was talking about how SBVFT are paid for by a few rich Texas Republicans, Hannity kept interrupting and shouting "Talking points, he's parroting talking points."
Sean, they are not talking points when the candidate uses them. Talking points are what the rest of the people use to parrot the candidate's message of the day. Kerry makes speeches, you parrot talking points. See the story below about the Washington Times if you want to see someone who parrots talking points
Hannity was trying to ridicule Kerry in some way--like when he uses "liberal" to mean evil or communist or something. But the more I listen to Hannity, the more stupid he becomes (I hope I don't lose brain cells in the process).
Sean Hannity--just plain stupid.
Saturday, August 14, 2004
Washington Times-Unnamed sources provide propaganda
Bill Gertz in the Washington Times quoted an unnamed "intelligence official" who seemed to repeat Republican talking points when he said "The view of al Qaeda is 'anybody but Bush.' "
Do editors read this stuff before it is printed?
Moreover, why wouldn't Al Qaeda want Bush? See this piece from the NY Times: The Arabian Candidate. He seems to have played the terrorists' game by alienating friend and enemy alike without making much headway in the war on terror. More strip club owners have been caught using the USA Patriot Act than actual terrorists (that is a subject for a later post).
Also according to this report at Media Matters for America the only actual terrorist group that has weighed in on the issue did express a preference for Bush being re-elected.
The real question though isn't what the terrorists want or don't want. The question is what is best for America. I guess those who think that Al Qaeda wants anyone but Bush and will vote accordingly are letting the terrorists dictate how they vote. There's a winning strategy.
As for the Washington Times, they are owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon of "Moonies" fame. He recently was coronated in a Senate office building, though many of the Senators in attendance thought it was some sort of awards ceremony when they agree to go. Rev. Moon also bought United Press International some years back. Legendary Washington correspondent Helen Thomas quit UPI at that point as it seems that "editorial direction" (or as we were taught in journalism school "agenda setting") was coming from certain ownership interests and not editors. Sounds like another one of America's favorite news organizations.
Do editors read this stuff before it is printed?
Moreover, why wouldn't Al Qaeda want Bush? See this piece from the NY Times: The Arabian Candidate. He seems to have played the terrorists' game by alienating friend and enemy alike without making much headway in the war on terror. More strip club owners have been caught using the USA Patriot Act than actual terrorists (that is a subject for a later post).
Also according to this report at Media Matters for America the only actual terrorist group that has weighed in on the issue did express a preference for Bush being re-elected.
The real question though isn't what the terrorists want or don't want. The question is what is best for America. I guess those who think that Al Qaeda wants anyone but Bush and will vote accordingly are letting the terrorists dictate how they vote. There's a winning strategy.
As for the Washington Times, they are owned by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon of "Moonies" fame. He recently was coronated in a Senate office building, though many of the Senators in attendance thought it was some sort of awards ceremony when they agree to go. Rev. Moon also bought United Press International some years back. Legendary Washington correspondent Helen Thomas quit UPI at that point as it seems that "editorial direction" (or as we were taught in journalism school "agenda setting") was coming from certain ownership interests and not editors. Sounds like another one of America's favorite news organizations.
Monday, August 09, 2004
Karl Rove: Political Genius/Political Hack (Updated 8/13)
"Bush's Brain" strikes again.
It seems that in order to justify last weeks newest terror alert, the Bush administration, in Karl Rove's infinite wisdom, leaked the name of the Al Qaida terrorist seized in Pakistan just after the Democratic National Convention. Once the world knew that Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan had been captured, all the promising leads and the "increased chatter" seemed to end.
Why did Rove and the Bush administration feel it was necessary to further enhance their credibility by leaking the captured terrorist's name? Probably because despite the polls showing people support Bush's handling of the war on terror, people don't trust Bush or his administration. Gee, why? Don't even start with the whole weapons of mass destruction thing and the way they are trying to spin that. Let's look at some more subtle things that are seeping into the minds of America.
Back in July, some lefties predicted that during the Dem Convention there would be a major break in the war on terror. Lo and behold, just after the convention there was a major arrest of an unnamed Al Qaida operative in Pakistan. But wait, why did they arrest him before the convention and then release it right after? Then they increase the terror alert based on information gleaned from this guy. But wait, the information was old. No, the administration protested, it had been updated. And, by-the-way, this guy we arrested, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, had a lot of useful information on his computer--we were told on background (reporter talk for a leak). So you see he is real and important.
oops.
Y'know, by leaking this guys name to prove our veracity, it seems we blew the cover off of several Pakistani intelligence stings that were leading to more Qaida operatives. So, in order to prove that the administration was not using the war on terror for political motives, they hurt the war on terror.
Karl Rove went to the well one too many times. His political tricks have gotten old on the national stage. We expect an October surprise from this group, because they have lost our trust. So real or not, any success against Al Qaida will be tainted by the thought that the administration probably could have nabbed these guys earlier, but waited for maximum political advantage. You know that there is a credibility problem when the Watergate guys come out of the shadows and start condemning your administration as more secretive and more corrupt than Nixon.
This fiasco comes on the heels of the leak about Sandy Berger. According to that leak he snuck Top Secret documents out of the National Archives in his socks. Turns out he didn't. Turns out everything the 9/11 commission wanted from the Clinton Administration and Berger was provided. Seems nothing is missing from the archives as he was only dealing with copies (he did take 3 copies out of the archives that he should not have and returned those, except one that is missing). Seems that the investigation started last October, and has been sitting with the US Attorney for many months as they mulled over whether or not anything actually criminal took place.
That was a much more successful leak--still a lie, but it did dominate the news cycle for quite a few days. I think it was still more exciting when Oliver North's secretary secreted away documents in her bra. I'll take that over Sandy Berger's socks any day. No matter what the documents.
So, Karl, it seems that you have fallen down on the job. Sandy's socks were amusing, but this Al Qaida thing was down right dangerous. Karl you have gone from Genius to Hack. Stop Being Stupid.
UPDATE: According to this USA Today story it seems that the attacks really weren't "imminent". Oops. Nothing like panicking the country's largest metropolitan area and center of business for political purposes.
It seems that in order to justify last weeks newest terror alert, the Bush administration, in Karl Rove's infinite wisdom, leaked the name of the Al Qaida terrorist seized in Pakistan just after the Democratic National Convention. Once the world knew that Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan had been captured, all the promising leads and the "increased chatter" seemed to end.
Why did Rove and the Bush administration feel it was necessary to further enhance their credibility by leaking the captured terrorist's name? Probably because despite the polls showing people support Bush's handling of the war on terror, people don't trust Bush or his administration. Gee, why? Don't even start with the whole weapons of mass destruction thing and the way they are trying to spin that. Let's look at some more subtle things that are seeping into the minds of America.
Back in July, some lefties predicted that during the Dem Convention there would be a major break in the war on terror. Lo and behold, just after the convention there was a major arrest of an unnamed Al Qaida operative in Pakistan. But wait, why did they arrest him before the convention and then release it right after? Then they increase the terror alert based on information gleaned from this guy. But wait, the information was old. No, the administration protested, it had been updated. And, by-the-way, this guy we arrested, Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan, had a lot of useful information on his computer--we were told on background (reporter talk for a leak). So you see he is real and important.
oops.
Y'know, by leaking this guys name to prove our veracity, it seems we blew the cover off of several Pakistani intelligence stings that were leading to more Qaida operatives. So, in order to prove that the administration was not using the war on terror for political motives, they hurt the war on terror.
Karl Rove went to the well one too many times. His political tricks have gotten old on the national stage. We expect an October surprise from this group, because they have lost our trust. So real or not, any success against Al Qaida will be tainted by the thought that the administration probably could have nabbed these guys earlier, but waited for maximum political advantage. You know that there is a credibility problem when the Watergate guys come out of the shadows and start condemning your administration as more secretive and more corrupt than Nixon.
This fiasco comes on the heels of the leak about Sandy Berger. According to that leak he snuck Top Secret documents out of the National Archives in his socks. Turns out he didn't. Turns out everything the 9/11 commission wanted from the Clinton Administration and Berger was provided. Seems nothing is missing from the archives as he was only dealing with copies (he did take 3 copies out of the archives that he should not have and returned those, except one that is missing). Seems that the investigation started last October, and has been sitting with the US Attorney for many months as they mulled over whether or not anything actually criminal took place.
That was a much more successful leak--still a lie, but it did dominate the news cycle for quite a few days. I think it was still more exciting when Oliver North's secretary secreted away documents in her bra. I'll take that over Sandy Berger's socks any day. No matter what the documents.
So, Karl, it seems that you have fallen down on the job. Sandy's socks were amusing, but this Al Qaida thing was down right dangerous. Karl you have gone from Genius to Hack. Stop Being Stupid.
UPDATE: According to this USA Today story it seems that the attacks really weren't "imminent". Oops. Nothing like panicking the country's largest metropolitan area and center of business for political purposes.
Saturday, August 07, 2004
Ann Coulter - Evil Genius or Stupid Hack
Ann Coulter, self-styled right-wing pundit and "pretty girl", brought herself to the forefront again by getting herself fired from reporting on the Democratic convention for USA Today. Was this an attempt by the liberal media to silence the right? No, it was an op/ed page editor who recognized the difference between journalism and bad writing. Coulter's rejected column can be read here: http://www.humaneventsonline/article.php?id=4646
with her witty comments.
She is desperately trying to be funny by using stereotypes of what Democratic women are supposed to look like: hippies, granola earth-mothers. It is neither witty, nor insightful. It is not even entertaining satire. I mean, I listen to Rush Limbaugh every once in a while because he is funny. You don't have to agree with his politics to appreciate his entertainment value. But Coulter isn't funny.
She goes on to say it is easy to pick out her Republican cohorts as they are the "pretty girls" just like her. Ann, darling, you may have been the best looking girl in the federal prosecutors' office (her official name is Ann Coulter, former Federal Prosecutor--just look the next time you see her on Fox News), maybe in the top ten in your law school class, but really let's not get carried away.
My sources tell me that the article was delivered late, she couldn't deal with the critiques of the editor, and she wouldn't do a rewrite. So, she was replaced by Jonah Goldberg; not a great writer, though his article at least showed some potential. His was a valid attempt to make fun of the Democratic convention from the Republican point-of-view.
The problem with many of the pundits, on both sides, is that they have become a caricature of themselves. They have gone to such extremes to become outrageous they have become useless--even as entertainment. Thoughtful dialogue from the pundits has been lost. I see the problem more so on the right than the left. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush and Coulter are just so often wrong on the facts and so closed to hearing the other side, that it is useless to even listen. Al Franken's books (Rush Limbaugh is Big Fat Idiot and Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them) provide ample evidence of the twisting of facts by this group to try and push their agenda or pump themselves.
Of the group though, Coulter seems to have the least talent and insight. She is not entertaining, she is shrill, and she doesn't write well. She has gotten so caught up in her role as basher of the left and shill for the right that her vitriol seeps from every pore. Moreover, I am told that the persona is really an act, that really she doesn't have the amount of hate for the other side that she projects. That is why I was tempted to call her an evil genius. But as a week passed and the Democratic convention has ended the story has died. So, she got a one day spike in the news cycle and has once again been relegated to guest pundit on Geraldo's Fox News show and to her column.
So Ann, sorry, but is seems you are just a stupid hack. Stop being stupid.
with her witty comments.
She is desperately trying to be funny by using stereotypes of what Democratic women are supposed to look like: hippies, granola earth-mothers. It is neither witty, nor insightful. It is not even entertaining satire. I mean, I listen to Rush Limbaugh every once in a while because he is funny. You don't have to agree with his politics to appreciate his entertainment value. But Coulter isn't funny.
She goes on to say it is easy to pick out her Republican cohorts as they are the "pretty girls" just like her. Ann, darling, you may have been the best looking girl in the federal prosecutors' office (her official name is Ann Coulter, former Federal Prosecutor--just look the next time you see her on Fox News), maybe in the top ten in your law school class, but really let's not get carried away.
My sources tell me that the article was delivered late, she couldn't deal with the critiques of the editor, and she wouldn't do a rewrite. So, she was replaced by Jonah Goldberg; not a great writer, though his article at least showed some potential. His was a valid attempt to make fun of the Democratic convention from the Republican point-of-view.
The problem with many of the pundits, on both sides, is that they have become a caricature of themselves. They have gone to such extremes to become outrageous they have become useless--even as entertainment. Thoughtful dialogue from the pundits has been lost. I see the problem more so on the right than the left. Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush and Coulter are just so often wrong on the facts and so closed to hearing the other side, that it is useless to even listen. Al Franken's books (Rush Limbaugh is Big Fat Idiot and Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them) provide ample evidence of the twisting of facts by this group to try and push their agenda or pump themselves.
Of the group though, Coulter seems to have the least talent and insight. She is not entertaining, she is shrill, and she doesn't write well. She has gotten so caught up in her role as basher of the left and shill for the right that her vitriol seeps from every pore. Moreover, I am told that the persona is really an act, that really she doesn't have the amount of hate for the other side that she projects. That is why I was tempted to call her an evil genius. But as a week passed and the Democratic convention has ended the story has died. So, she got a one day spike in the news cycle and has once again been relegated to guest pundit on Geraldo's Fox News show and to her column.
So Ann, sorry, but is seems you are just a stupid hack. Stop being stupid.
Friday, August 06, 2004
Ed Koch - Mayor Stupidity
A friend sent me this link to an op/ed piece by Ed Koch, the former Mayor of New York (in the late seventies)
In the article Koch, a Democrat, tells us why supporters of Israel should support President Bush over Senator John Kerry. He claims Bush is the best friend Israel ever had. I think all supporters of Israel will agree that Bush is a very good friend of Israel. But does that preclude Kerry from being a supporter. He rightly states that some on the far left see Israel as a villain and not the bastion of democracy that it is.
But while Bush is a strong supporter of Israel, his miscues in the war on terrorism have hurt Israel's and the US's position in the world and our ability to create a lasting peace in the middle east. By alienating the world the people on the street will have knee-jerk negative reaction to any US policy--including support for Israel.
The measure of one's support of Israel has evolved over the years from there being no talk of a Palestinian state to the realization that there will be a Palestinian state and that such a state is in the best interest of Israel.
So, it is stupid to think that unwavering support for the policies of Ariel Sharon equate to unwavering support of the best interests of Israel. Focus on a single issue is no way to pick a president. A strong and respected USA makes it easier for the US to guide the peace process. President Bush lost the moral authority gained after September 11, 2001 and lost the opportunity to impose peace on the region. Koch fails to give us a compelling reason why Bush's policies will be better for Israel than Kerry's policies. Koch does not articulate any of John Kerry's positions on foreign policy or Israel. Koch tries to leave the false impression that the Democratic party has been hijacked by lefties who only support the Palestinians to the detriment of Israel and its Jewish population. Yet he concedes that Bill Clinton was a great friend of Israel.
So, today we watch Ed Koch, a mediocre mayor, and someone trying to find relevance today, and say to him: Don't be stupid.
In the article Koch, a Democrat, tells us why supporters of Israel should support President Bush over Senator John Kerry. He claims Bush is the best friend Israel ever had. I think all supporters of Israel will agree that Bush is a very good friend of Israel. But does that preclude Kerry from being a supporter. He rightly states that some on the far left see Israel as a villain and not the bastion of democracy that it is.
But while Bush is a strong supporter of Israel, his miscues in the war on terrorism have hurt Israel's and the US's position in the world and our ability to create a lasting peace in the middle east. By alienating the world the people on the street will have knee-jerk negative reaction to any US policy--including support for Israel.
The measure of one's support of Israel has evolved over the years from there being no talk of a Palestinian state to the realization that there will be a Palestinian state and that such a state is in the best interest of Israel.
So, it is stupid to think that unwavering support for the policies of Ariel Sharon equate to unwavering support of the best interests of Israel. Focus on a single issue is no way to pick a president. A strong and respected USA makes it easier for the US to guide the peace process. President Bush lost the moral authority gained after September 11, 2001 and lost the opportunity to impose peace on the region. Koch fails to give us a compelling reason why Bush's policies will be better for Israel than Kerry's policies. Koch does not articulate any of John Kerry's positions on foreign policy or Israel. Koch tries to leave the false impression that the Democratic party has been hijacked by lefties who only support the Palestinians to the detriment of Israel and its Jewish population. Yet he concedes that Bill Clinton was a great friend of Israel.
So, today we watch Ed Koch, a mediocre mayor, and someone trying to find relevance today, and say to him: Don't be stupid.
Thursday, August 05, 2004
Welcome
Welcome to Stupidity Watch. There were just so many times a day that I found myself saying "that is so stupid" or "how stupid is that" or just "stupid, stupid, stupid" that, well, I had to just start writing them down and letting other people agree with me. I hope you agree with me, because if you don't there can be only two reasons: I am the stupid one or you are. I prefer the latter. But we shall see.
Now, I would like to focus on the big picture things in the world that are stupid. I will create a section for local stupid things (Darwin Award type stuff), but like I said--let's focus on the big picture. Stupidty of national or international importance. Big issue stupidity.
While political views my be espoused on this blog, I am not here to promote any particular ideology, so feel free to let me know about stupid things from all sides of the aisle--though as I am writing this I do think that we can all agree that Ralph Nader is either stupid or delusional.
Ok, that wraps the welcome. The first few entries will probably be a retrospective on stupidity over the last few weeks. It may take me a little while to catch up to the present. So much stupidity, so little time.
Now, I would like to focus on the big picture things in the world that are stupid. I will create a section for local stupid things (Darwin Award type stuff), but like I said--let's focus on the big picture. Stupidty of national or international importance. Big issue stupidity.
While political views my be espoused on this blog, I am not here to promote any particular ideology, so feel free to let me know about stupid things from all sides of the aisle--though as I am writing this I do think that we can all agree that Ralph Nader is either stupid or delusional.
Ok, that wraps the welcome. The first few entries will probably be a retrospective on stupidity over the last few weeks. It may take me a little while to catch up to the present. So much stupidity, so little time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)