Comments on: Jonah Goldberg Latest Wingnut To Question Obama’s Patriotism

By: montana

montana — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:08:24 +0000

Hugh,

Very good…..very good

By: Mommybrain

Mommybrain — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:50:21 +0000

Back in the Paul Conrad day, my father was associate editor of the editorial pages at the LAT under editor Tony Day (a rara avis, indeed), probably the most liberal 12 years in the history of the paper. Crap like Pantload’s maunderings, Joel Stein’s adolescent “humor” and Michael Ramirez’ doomed, unfunny attempt to be the right’s Conrad are why I rarely bother with it anymore.

I fished the Times out of a restaurant trash can this morning, got to Pantload and put it right back where it belongs.

By: PaytonsOpa

PaytonsOpa — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 22:15:20 +0000

As Bob once sang “They say patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings, steal a little and they throw you in jail, steal a lot and they make you king”

By: voicevote

voicevote — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:29:12 +0000

The LA Times prints that shit because it’s inexpensive and generates hysterical reactions. Isn’t that what newspapers are for?

By: DennisM

DennisM — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 21:03:02 +0000

The LA Times was a great paper. Its circulation has been plummeting since the Chandlers sold. How much Goldberg and fellow mediocrities David Un-Gelernter (computer science professor borrowed from the Weekly Standard) and Max (”Jack”) Boot have contributed to the paper’s decline is anybody’s guess. Local news and the sudoku puzzle are the only reasons I haven’t canceled yet. This posting is inspired by my deep and abiding patriotism.

By: JimTheCynic

JimTheCynic — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:51:20 +0000

I thought patriotism was a love for what makes one’s country great.

I didn’t realize that it’s a litmus test for being a traitor.

dough-boy (gotta love that appellation) is no patriot. He clearly hates what makes this country great. He is clearly working assiduously to destroy this country. Black is white. War is peace. We don’t torture…

f*** ‘em all

By: Crosstimbers

Crosstimbers — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:20:58 +0000

P.S.
Additionally, JFK was responsible for the develoment of the Special Forces as a means of conducting relatively small operations in opposition to guerilla movements. These type forces, along with the maintenance of strong conventional forces were seen as a means of conducting the Cold War aside from Brinksmanship;i.e., the only response being nuclear, so that both countries were constantly on the brink of nuclear war. So wars like Korea and Vietnam were supposed to be the means of opposing communist expansion without risking nuclear annhialation.

By: Crosstimbers

Crosstimbers — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:12:21 +0000

I was a history major in college from 1961 to 1965. If there was a single lesson we were being taught, with regard to recent American history, it was that we had been unprepared for, and almost waited too long to enter the two major wars of the 20th century. Isolationism was viewed as the cause and we should have learned that the oceans no longer protected us from wars abroad. Additionally, it was understood that Hitler could have be precluded more easily if the democracies had acted early. Accordingly, the lesson was to be prepared and to act when we had to to prevent the spread of the Soviet Union or its surrogates.

I went back to graduate school in 1969, after 4 years in the Air Force, and the history professors were all teaching that communisim was not a monolith, that we should pick and choose only those interventions in which the national interest, in terms of raw materials, trade lanes, or allies required.

I don’t know if that answers your question, but U.S. attitudes tend to work like a pendelum.

By: merkwurdiglieber

merkwurdiglieber — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:06:42 +0000

The great debate on getting in the Indochina War at Dienbienphu was
resolved by Ike having Ridgeway go take a look, brought back assessment
of a 1 million man army for 15 years… Ike, the logistics man, said
the cost would equal the European theater in WWII and was not worth it.
Changed his tune once out of office and became a critical hawk as years
passed.

By: Ann in AZ

Ann in AZ — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 20:04:03 +0000

I just read wiki and it indicated that JFK increased the number of “advisers” from 500-16,000. Doesn’t say precisely when, but it seems our Presidents all think that if they send in a given number and that doesn’t work, if they just send more troops, the problem will be resolved due to overwhelming force. You’d think that by now they would have learned that war doesn’t work that way, but it’s still the SOP today.