[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: Bill Kristol, the Worst Kind of Reactionary July 19, 2007 at 21:52:04 Bill Kristol, the Worst Kind of Reactionary by Timothy V. Gatto Page 1 of 1 page(s) Sometimes the American public gets hung up on so-called “pundits” that are really just snake-oil salesmen. They are vilified and debunked because they go out on the proverbial “ledge” to try and prove their nonsensical views, and this makes them easy targets for anyone with a high school education to show them for what they are, mostly bigoted wretches that think they have something to prove and they do it by attacking the so-called “liberal intelligentsia” that they couldn’t get to notice them in high school and college because they just weren’t, and for lack of a better word, very bright. I put Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Shawn Hannidy and Michael Savage in this category along with a bigger list I don’t want to take the time to write out. You probably can get my drift from the “A” list I mentioned. Then along comes someone that should have actually been embraced by the “liberal intelligentsia” because of his background and breeding. The guy is Jewish, has a good command of the English language, rarely goes on rants and finger pointing escapades, but is still nothing but a shill for every right wing, anal-retentive, preposterous notion out there. I’m talking about Bill Kristol. Here’s a guy that has turned his back on his own intellectual curiosity and taken up with the savages of the human race, and tries to dignify their hare-brained schemes by writing succinct literary prose in defense of …absolute crap. I’ve seen him on TV talk shows and agreed to disagree with him in my mind. He had a nice way about him and tried to justify his opinions, but I just thought he was just wrong. During my trips here and there on the Web however, I ran into the Weekly Standard for which he is the editor. I read this and couldn’t believe what I was reading. In fact, a friend from my town wanted to prove something to me and he did it by sending me an article from the Weekly Standard. My friend turned out to be right about what we were discussing, but I told him that the forum that he used to prove his case was a right wing, cat litter box lining. I continued to read the magazine though, just to make sure that I wasn’t judging the entire publication by one article. I finally followed Mr. Kristol’s muses to an article he wrote for the Washington Post. It was entitled “Why Bush will be a Winner”. He goes on to defend Bush’s Presidency with an arrogance that defies common sense. He talks about this wonderful economy that Bush has wrought. Like other right wingers, his idea of the economy is predicated solely on the Dow-Jones. I want to make a simple statement, the economy should not be judged solely on how the Dow-Jones is performing. Our Ponzi-scheme government with its lopsided balance of payments is an economist’s nightmare. The average take home pay for a middle-class family has taken a definite turn for the worse, leaving 10% of the population with 90% of the nation’s wealth. That’s a good economy? He defends outsourcing, claiming that it was Bush’s vision that stopped the “protectionist” left from stopping it. It’s OK that all of our manufacturing and even our service industry like call centers and the like went to New Delhi and Singapore and the Philippines, we have Wal-Mart and McDonalds to fill the hiring void. He tells us that we should be grateful to Bush for a lack of terror attacks in the US. Why should the terrorists come to the US when we have brought our best and brightest over to them to kill? Not only that, for every Iraqi that dies from “collateral damage” ten new jihadists born. That’s OK though; The Bush family is planning on moving to Paraguay in the near future anyway. They have already bought the land. He praises Bush for putting Roberts and Alito on the court. I guess he is getting a kick out of not having to see white kids go to school with black kids, or a woman having a right to choose if she lives or dies if something horrible goes down in the maternity ward. I think Kristol, like many Jewish people of today in the United States with money; just love the idea of war in the Middle East, just as long as Israel doesn’t have to do the fighting. By the way, he used to be the Chairman of the project for a New American Century. What crap, they should just call that entire group another outgrowth of AIPAC. He goes on to say that if not for Bush that Saddam Hussein would have been victorious over the U.S. and would have restarted his nuclear weapons program. He says that if we could only stop Iran’s “meddling” in the war, General Petraeus could do his job and be successful in September. Sure, and if only the U.S. would leave Iraq maybe the Iraqi’s would stop killing each other to the tune of over a hundred a day. Maybe they would just give us the 75% of their oil that we are demanding of them for being so nice. This guy is dangerous. I don’t understand how he is on talk show after talk show, and they never mention that he belongs to the radical right. They always introduce him as a “respected” journalist. Respected by whom, The Project for a New American Century? I’m disgusted with the news shows that never give out this guy’s credentials. I know what they are now, and if they try to introduce him as a “respected journalist” instead of a “respected right-wing conservative journalist” they are missing the boat. He’s so far to the right, he make Rush Limbaugh look like a Marxist. Sometimes I wonder how these guy’s live with themselves. http://liberalpro.blogspot.com Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
#3. To: Kamala (#0)
(Edited)
Normally, anyone who rips neoconservatism, PNAC, the Bush administration, and Kristol is OK in my book, but whoever wrote this oped doesn't have a clue. Kristol "far to the right" and a "reactionary"? Please. Being an apologist for Bush, who is probably even less of a "conservative" than Clinton was, hardly makes one "far right." Nor does warmongering. At its rotten heart, neoconservatism is a radical and far-left ideology, not a reactionary one. What could be more radical and leftist than perpetual war in the name of globalism? That sounds more like Marx and Trotsky than Burke to me.
There are no replies to Comment # 3. End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||