Thursday, May 15, 2008

More Stella In The Comments

Stella of SwiftSpeech and I have had two little discussions. First about Walmart and now about George Bush.

I posted this commentary from the Patriot Post on Monday. I printed it because I fundementally agree with the author that Obama should not be President of the United States because he doesn't *get it*. I further agree that those who wish to cast Obama as the next JFK are so far off the mark it isn't funny.

Stella took exception to
"History is an elective few liberals choose to take these days... The lack of historical knowledge among journalists is merely appalling. But in a presidential candidate it’s dangerous."

Her comment is here along with my reply.

Now here is today's comment with my repsponses in red.

Well, we certainly have our differences—but we also have our commonalities. You're right. I should take up these issues with Yale and Harvard. His Yale transcript reflects, at best, a mediocre student. "W" got further than I did. I know other people who were mediocre students and great, successful people. His time as a student is one part of a bigger picture.

I would greatly like to find transcripts of W's B-school days. ("In 1973, 'making the bar' [at Harvard] was 98% meritocracy.") My understanding is that Bush earned a C- average and was given a "gentleman's C," as I wrote before, so he could graduate. Our understandings aside. He graduated and I doubt his family's name or money could have kept him there were he the complete idiot that some try to portray.

An MBA is not, technically, an academic but a practical degree, so here's one conservative that did learn history. A study of Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Jefferson would have helped his presidential policies immensely. I defer to your knowledge of MBAs. I don't see what difference it makes however. The point of the commentary in the post was that *Obama* hadn't learned from history. "W" is nearly done. Obama is not running against "W".

Hussein and bin-Laden were bitter enemies, so I cannot support the excuse for war. It was not given as a reason to go to war. I encounter this arguement repeatedly and I am always baffled. "W" never said we were gong into Iraq because of bin Laden. I never thought that was why we were going in. I have had certain people explain to me that it was implied and therefore *some* people thought that was the reason. But the fact remains that my support of OIF had nothing at all to do with Hussein and OBL conspiring. I know they didn't. Just as an aside, it can not be discounted that they would have in the future. According the 9/11 Commission Report. OBL had made overtures to Hussein, which were rebuffed and Hussein did have a history of funding terrorists. I am told that in the Middle East there is a common saying "Me against me brother, my brother and I against our cousin; my brother, my cousin and I against and outsider." There could easily have come a time when Hussein and OBL would have fought together against the US and/or Israel should the circumstances have been right. But that is just an academic discussion, because that was not the reason for going into Iraq. Nine of 15 attackers on 9/11 were Saudi Arabian; the Bush family are close friends of the Saudi Royalty. The Bush family and their alleged *friendship* with the Saudi Royal family is, IMO the stuff of conspiracy theorists and has no bearing on a serious discussion of 9/11. If the U.S. concentrated their efforts on the Saudis and Afghanistan, could needless deaths been averted? I respect your opinion but, as you probably guess, I never believed in invading Iraq, not even during the aftermath of 9/11. I do credit his Bush Sr. who had the foresight to stop short of invading Iraq possibly from the lessons he learned from studying Theodore Roosevelt's policies. I of course did favor going into Iraq and still think it was the right thing to do. GHW Bush stopped short of invasion, but it was a different situation.

We do have both sides of the media represented in this country. I take your point about Olberman, and probably Bill Maher if I'm guessing correctly about your perspective, but I do admire their wit and intellect. I do not find anything witty about Olberman, but I am a fan of Maher when he doesn't go too far off the deep end. Frankly, I'm not a big fan of Chris Matthews.

You mention the media trap, but we are similar in seeking out differing points of view so we can expand our knowledge.

Bostonmaggie, I do counter your comment about liberals' "lack of historical knowledge..." a statement of bias in that you grouped all liberals together. It was not my comment, Jack Kelly wrote the commentary for Patriot Post and I put it here because I agreed with his sentiments vis-a-vis Obama. We are a diverse, and often well-educated, group of people. I would not group all conservatives in this way. LOL, liberals can be well educated, so can conservatives. No one has an upper hand there. I am well aware how diverse liberals can be. I have many liberal friends. Hello? I. Live. In. Boston. LOL

However, like you, I listen to all points of view, particularly conservative. How else will I learn anything at all? (I already know what I think.) I was surprised to discover that one of my friends, a Republican and veteran, and I had almost identical views on many social issues.

Your blog fascinates me, and I again want to tell you how glad I am you stopped by. I think the most important political issue is to find common ground and that each of us seeks to learn that we need to agree to disagree to create peace. I feel the same way which is why I visit blogs like yours.

A good day to you. Thank you for posting my comments and for your response. This blog has always been open to dissent. I am from Boston and a student of history. I would dishonor this country's forefathers to close off comments from those who disagree. I have used comments moderation to keep out spam and to keep out only three comments, three comments in as many years. One was well meant from a friend but would have possibly revealed something about SB's real identity. One that was cruel about a military person dying and one that was cruel and crude about someone in prison. The last two were just vile words that did nothing to move the discussion forward.

No comments: