MoonDawg's Den: Quick hits...

MoonDawg's Den

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Quick hits...

~ Condi Rice says that Iran and Syria are intentionally trying to "inflame sentiment" for their own purposes in the Cartoon War, echoing Austin Bay who is calling the whole affair an "information warfare operation" by some Muslim governments, which have become adept over the decades at using propaganda to stir passions and deflect attention from their own miserable governance of their nations.

~ Once again Jimmy Carter's idiocy made me embarrassed to be from Georgia, when the peanut-brain turned Coretta Scott King's funeral into a political soapbox. If there were any justice in the world, one day in the future someone would stand up at Carter's own funeral and recount how his horrendous foreign policy during his presidency was in large part to blame for the problems we face today with Islamic fundamentalism in the Middle East.

~ I have to give Bill Clinton credit (even though I believe my doing so could be one of the signs of the Apocalypse), he showed a lot of class by subtly reminding Carter and the disgraceful Joseph Lowrey that the whole reason they were there was to honor Mrs. King.

~ The AP has a story today about a woman who mailed condoms filled with explosive materials to various places around Boston. The 40 year-old woman said she sent the pyrotechnic prophylactics to protest "being mistreated by men". Sure, makes sense to me - I guess the next time I get upset with the female species I'll make an IED out of an IUD...


  • Since Mrs. King was a political figure, doesn't it stand to reason that some people might mention political issues at her funeral? Right-wingers cried foul about the tremendous display of unity at Paul Wellstone's funeral too. Political figures have political funerals. If it was a more conservative figure, they would talk about conservative issues.

    While I agree that Carter wasn't much of a president, I find it hard to criticize him now since he has done wonderful diplomatic and humanitarian projects that have helped, not hindered, our national security.

    I was glad to hear a conservative praise Clinton. It's about time.:)

    By Blogger Jeff, At 7:17 PM, February 08, 2006  

  • Hey ML -
    I don't have a problem with politics or public policy being raised in a broad sense at such events, but Lowery's and Carter's remarks were direct attacks against the President, who was sitting right there. Perhaps they may not respect the man, but they should at least respect his office.

    The Wellstone incident was far worse, of course. "Display of unity"? It was a political pep rally...the most disgraceful part of it was when the crowd booed Republican leaders who'd come to pay their respects.

    Imagine for a moment that the elder Bush had taken the pulpit at Coretta's funeral and blasted President Clinton for his awful record on civil liberties issues. Dems and the media would be howling in outrage for years to come - and rightfully so.

    Anyway thanks for visiting the Den, you're always welcome here!

    By Blogger Garry, At 10:25 AM, February 09, 2006  

  • Garry,
    Let me address the issues you raised in your post:

    1- Lowery and Carter don't respect the office of the president?

    That's odd, consdering Carter occupied that office. I didn't watch the whole funeral, but what I heard was them criticizing the poor Katrina response, the lack of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and President Bush's domestic spying program. Those are all completely fair questions to raise. Is it disrespectful to the office of the president to questions what the MAN who occupies that office does? If that's the case, Republicans need to take a real hard look at how they treated Clinton. Or, is it only okay to criticize the President if he is a Democrat??

    2- Republicans who criticize the Wellstone Funeral didn't watch it. The booing incident to which you refer was blown way out of proportion by the media. Yes, there were a few selective boos, but it certainly wasn't the whole crowd that was booing like the press made it seem. I would also say that it was more of a joke since Trent Lott walked in right after President Clinton who received a loud standing ovation. Out of 4 hours of speeches at the funeral, only 2 had political overtones. It was hardly a political pep rally like it was reported. That funeral I did watch. Wellstone is one of my heros.

    3-Clinton's record on civil liberties?? I'll put it up against either of the Bushes' anyday. BTW, did Democrats cry foul at Reagan's funeral when Bush used the pulpit to talk about how he was strong on national security like Reagan was and implied that his opponents weren't? No they didn't. The only ones who politicize funerals, at least in my time of following politics, are Republicans, who make a political issue out of any funeral where a liberal speaks.

    My two cents,

    By Blogger Jeff, At 12:11 PM, February 09, 2006  

  • Thanks for replying, ML. To address each point individually:

    1. No, it is not "disrespectful to the office of the president to questions what the MAN who occupies that office does" - in the proper venue. A funeral is simply not the place for partisan attacks - especially when the issues are factually distorted as was the case with Carter's & Lowery's comments on Katrina, etc.

    2. I did watch Wellstone video after the fact, and it was way more than a "few" boos. It wasn't when Lott walked in, but rather when is face was shown on the big screen in Williams Arena. Download the video of the memorial and you can see it for yourself (at 23:59):

    In scanning through it again I remembered some other choice moments, like Rick Kahn's hyperbolic "eulogy". But hey, I hope Democrats keep this kind of thing up - it worked out so well for them in the Mondale-Coleman race, didn't it?

    3. You can find a well-documented CATO Institute analysis of the Clinton administration's poor record on Consitutional rights:

    Even the ACLU labled the Clinton White House as "the most wiretap-friendly administration in history".

    As to Bush's remarks on national security at Reagan's funeral, I challenge you to find anything in those remarks that is even remotely partisan:

    "President Reagan was optimistic about the great promise of economic reform, and he acted to restore the rewards and spirit of enterprise. He was optimistic that a strong America could advance the peace, and he acted to build the strength that mission required.

    He was optimistic that liberty would thrive wherever it was planted, and he acted to defend liberty wherever it was threatened.

    And Ronald Reagan believed in the power of truth in the conduct of world affairs. When he saw evil camped across the horizon, he called that evil by its name.

    There were no doubters in the prisons and gulags, where dissidents spread the news, tapping to each other in code what the American president had dared to say. There were no doubters in the shipyards and churches and secret labor meetings where brave men and women began to hear the creaking and rumbling of a collapsing empire. And there were no doubters among those who swung hammers at the hated wall that the first and hardest blow had been struck by President Ronald Reagan.

    The ideology he opposed throughout his political life insisted that history was moved by impersonal tides and unalterable fates. Ronald Reagan believed instead in the courage and triumph of free men, and we believe it all the more because we saw that courage in him."

    And unlike Carter this week, at least Bush had the class to pay Carter a compliment at the Reagan funeral:

    "Ronald Reagan's moment arrived in 1980. He came out ahead of some very good men, including one from Plains [Georgia] and one from Houston [Texas]."

    By Blogger Garry, At 2:01 PM, February 09, 2006  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home