Follow Dr. Waddy

Submit your email address below to receive updates on new articles, videos, and posts. Don't miss out!

Wednesday, November 21, 2018

Pelosi Now, Pelosi Forever?



Friends, for those of you who have read your Book of Revelation carefully, you must be wondering: was one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse named "Pelosi"?  It's an increasing germane question, as the Democrats debate whether to re-enthrone San Francisco liberal Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House.  In my latest Newsmaker interview, you'll learn whether I think Nancy still has the goods, and we also discuss the election results in Florida and Georgia, the Jim Acosta-CNN case, how to handle those pesky caravans, and the current dynamics in Brexit politics across the pond.  And there's more!  Don't miss out.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdHewWeRRvQ&feature=youtu.be

29 comments:

  1. Dr. Waddy: Your broadcast is full of notable substance and I would not presume to react to it all at once. Re: Pelosi: Oh gee, should we be surprised that the latest Presidential defying order from a District Court peanut came from the Bay Area which embraced emigrant (from Baltimore) Madame Pelosi?

    First, I love the President's endorsement of Nancy. We must needs embrace her as our best chance for reenfranchisement in the House to enable President's Trump's triumphant progress through his second term.

    Meantime, as she bustles in arrogant, haughty ,dismissive and histrionic presumptuousness, she daily inspires newly generated resistance to her airily detached totalitarian dreams.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jack, Trump's endorsement of Nancy Pelosi WAS a masterstroke. He wins if she obtains the Speakership, and he wins if she goes down in flames. I note that, just today, Pelosi garnered the support of Martha Fudge, who had been considering a run for Speaker herself. Martha's reward? Chairmanship of a sub-committee that will search out (and undoubtedly find, in vast amounts) "voter suppression". Nancy is no slouch. She knows what she's doing. I continue to believe that she'll prevail in the leadership fight. Her reign might not be an unmitigated disaster, either. If she can tamp down the talk of impeachment, she will have done the Dems a big favor.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Waddy: Re your broadcast comment to the effect that many in the caravan should not be afforded asylum. I had to think long and hard about that; I can't gainsay your experience - I've seen 3rd world destitution too but in not in Latin America except for Tijuana. We must preserve our national integrity; the alternative is national death. But oh how very much people enmired in ineluctable poverty, essential government corruption and hopelessness must yearn to reach a place where life can be lived as it should be. What to do? We've tried tranferring some of our immense wealth to them but it is preempted by the wicked.

    I liked your comment on the vigor which attended the Georgia election. Leftists need to face it - Georgia ain't their huckleberry.

    Your comment on the probable future need to expand the list of rules for White House correspondents is almost certain to come true. What the left wants is a Presidential auto da fe at their pleasure and this President is not going to accomodate them.

    Thanx for the recognition that the military did not lose the Vietnam war. It certainly was lost in the American political arena. But we defeated world communism eventually and our Vietnam effort did advance that cause. The high respect in which the military is now publicly held is a sign of real American regret that it failed our Vietnam War forces, both in country and upon their return, at the time.

    Britain's equivalent of the real America appears to be set on Brexit and defies the elite which attempts to sabotage it in its continuing hope of effecting British democracy's death spiral into dictatorial leftist bureacracy. Should Prime Minister May be unseated by her own I would hope it will be tactical, not a definitive, setback. Brexit must go forward.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr. Waddy: Also, you were right to caution me about taking NP lightly. She is formidable.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Very formidable! I feel rather sorry for her, I must say. Controlling the House really is a mixed blessing. Ask Paul Ryan. It's like herding cats. Her list of accomplishments is destined to be short.

    I don't doubt that many people are suffering in Central America, but I very much doubt that walking to Los Angeles is the only, or the best, solution to that suffering. No Central American country is a lost cause, like Syria or Somalia. There is opportunism in these caravans, in my view.

    It is indeed comforting to see that the military is held in high regard by most Americans. In some ways, I think our country is missing a big challenge or sense of mission such as the Cold War conveyed. Now THERE was a "war" worth fighting. Most modern wars pale in comparison.

    Theresa May could well be headed for early retirement, but that wouldn't necessarily be bad for Brexit. Political chaos and indecision could produce a hard Brexit by default. The danger, of course, is that it could also produce a Prime Minister Corbyn. One wonders whether the Conservatives can limp along, given how divided they are on Brexit. Perhaps the storm will pass, the break will be made, and, when the world doesn't come to an end, everyone will breathe a sigh of relief...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dr. Waddy, I must admit that I was taken aback during your broadcast the lack of historical context about your comments on the Westmoreland quote about the Vietnam War. There is no doubt that the U.S. had the firepower to bomb the North Vietnamese out of existence. We didn't lose the war, though, because the anti-war movement kept us from winning. We had no business being in that conflict to begin with.

    After the French got their asses kicked at Dien Bien Phu, The Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) and the State of Vietnam (South Vietnam) agreed to a truce and then an election to unify the country in 1956. Instead, Diem forced out Bao Dai and the election never happened as Diem reneged. We never should have been involved with such a corrupt government, and only was because of a flawed notion of the "domino theory."

    By the 1970s (and about 58,000 senseless deaths), we finally got out of a conflict that we should never have been in. It was the right and moral thing to do.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rod and Dr.Waddy: The idea of communists adhering to the principles of a free election is insupportable. The North would have applied lethal force during and after such a sham.

    The domino theory was creditable. The Brits met the murderous Malayan communists with military force, a wise tactic. In doing so they prevented the strategic Straits of Johore from becoming a Marxist turnstile. WWII had taught the hard lesson of the futility of appeasing totalitarians and the Brits knew it first hand. But our boomers didn't and it was they who won the Vietnam War and celebrated (oh yes, I saw it) those who were blithe to put plastic bags over human heads and to dance at the sight of their death throes. These are the bunch that went on a rampage against the ethnic Chinese of the Cholon section of Saigon in 1975 and sent them on involuntary South China Sea cruises. That is what we were fighting and we would have defeated it had not that monumentally naive college protected faction of the boomers thrown its morally effete tantrum. I take no personal offense to your reasoned criticism of our effort but I do offer this counterargument. Dr. Waddy: I don't know that many of us in the service at the time appreciated the necessity of the Cold War but thank God our leaders did and I'm confident that gratitude is seconded by the uncounted millions who emerged from Marxist hell because President Reagan bade our country hold firm.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I respectfully disagree, Rod. If we had allied only with blameless and squeaky-clean governments during the Cold War, it would have been a mighty short war, and we'd all we speaking Russian right now. We needed to get our hands dirty, and frankly it was in our interests to fight communism in a backwater like Vietnam so we didn't have to fight it in Munich, Rome, or Paris. The Vietnam War was a messy, odious conflict, but I believe it was one worth fighting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. And well said, Jack! It's always consoled the Left that our enemies in Vietnam were just nationalist "freedom fighters", but their tactics were monstrous. Surrendering to a flood-tide of barbarism wasn't America's finest hour, by any stretch.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dr. Waddy; As is so often the case our pursuit of our national interests also does great good for other nations. The"peacenik, anti war" crowd was not "anti" the North's war effort, just that of their own country. I would bid them seriously consider the sufferings of the millions of victims of Vietnamese and Cambodian communist subhumans. But for the staggering ingratitude of too many of its children, the U.S. could have prevented this.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I agree, Jack. There's one word that describes our rationale for cutting-and-running from the conflict in Vietnam: cowardice. We goaded the South Vietnamese to fight, and we abandoned them mid-fight. Shameful, really. We're lucky our good name survived that dark chapter.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jack and Dr. Waddy,

    First, the Vietnam War was not worth it for the U.S. Our involvement did not do anything but lose nearly 60,000 good Americans and maim countless others. When Diem reneged on the promised election from the Geneva Accords, he did so because he believed that the North would end up dominating a unified Vietnam. South Vietnam's population was dominated by peasants and low-level service workers who resented the elite autocracy of the South Vietnamese government, and saw more promise with the North Vietnamese system. What happened? The North ended up dominating the unified Vietnam. All the was accomplished was destroying American, South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese lives, as well as destroying major portions of Vietnam through bombs and Agent Orange. Nothing was achieved but death and destruction.

    Second, to say the U.S. "goaded" the South Vietnamese to fight is a little naive. Diem Diem encouraged the U.S. involvement as the U.S. involvement helped keep coups at bay. But, once the U.S. saw that Diem was more of a hindrance than a benefit (esp. after the Buddhist uprisings), the U.S. had Diem assassinated. At that point, the U.S. was in a "you break it, you buy it" situation -- one that they should never have been involved in to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rod: In 1954 approx 400,000 Vietnamese fled south. Of course Diem dreaded the assured domination of the communist North and those 400,000 voted with their feet to agree with him. They knew what hellish degradation was in store; it was happening just north of them in China. Who in their right minds, if they know what it means, would consent to total rule by luxury loving communist sociopaths?

    Meanwhile, the boomers were trying out hula hoops and Davy Crockett hats and the monstrous betrayal of their country indulged in by far too many of them was over ten years ahead in a future which could not have been predicted.

    The war against world communism was as vital and necessary as was WWII. By 1991 it was won, in large part because the Soviet Union imploded from the unbearable strain of pauperizing the population to try to overpower the U.S. militarily. North Vietnamese General Giap knew why he had won: he said" the domestic antiwar movement in the U.S. was all that kept us going". But by the 90's America had changed, due in large part to Ronald Reagan and Saint John Paul II and partly also because the boomers were learning how very ethereal and irresponsible their dream of Aquarius had been; parenthood, property owning, gray hairs and taxes will do that. Desert Storm was the clincher; the Soviets saw the real America at war and finally realized they could never best us. Vietnam was a battle we lost, because of the naivete and ingratitude of too many in the huge boomer generation, in a war we won. Our leaders had legitimate concerns about the constant expansion of the most inhuman political and economic system ever and understandably believed that U.S. power could stop it, to our benefit and that of the world. Churchill was right in saying "better to die resisting than to endure the cold light of the execution yard" which is absolutely assured wherever Marxists take over. How could Eisenhower and even Kennedy have known "your sons and your daughters are beyond your command" then - why, Dylan and his Nobel prize winning wisdom had not yet been revealed to our thirsty ears.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I must say, I think both of you make good points. Rod, I agree that Vietnam was not a war the U.S. NEEDED to fight, and no vital U.S. interests were at stake. Containment was at stake, though, and how many allegedly unimportant countries were we prepared to surrender before we took a stand? The Vietnam War was undoubtedly more costly in lives and treasure than we anticipated, but it was always winnable, and the tragedy is that we lost it AFTER winning it. In military terms, the situation had stabilized, and, by 1972, the South Vietnamese only need air support, training, and weapons from us to keep their independence intact. That we refused after 1974 to pay even that modest price to keep our promise to the South Vietnamese people, and to maintain our national honor and dignity, is really...SAD (to coin a phrase).

    Jack is right that plenty of Vietnamese showed by their actions that they opposed communism, and we can never know how a truly free election in 1954, or any other year, would have turned out. Given what communism unleashed in the USSR and China up to the 1960s, I can't imagine how anyone with common sense in the U.S. could have believed that the Vietnamese people would have been better off under Marxist rule. It would take some rose-colored (pinko?) glasses to reach that conclusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dr. Waddy and Jack, the assumption is that in 1972-74 that the South Vietnam was a unified nation in battling the North. The country was a mess internally. The government was in disarray, and its people were tired of fighting.

      In addition, the conditions in Vietnam in 1954 were not much different in the South versus North. South Vietnam was a French colony, and basically operated in a feudal structure. Life was oppressive for the vast majority of people living in the South. I doubt very much that Communism looked worse to them.

      Delete
  15. Dr. Waddy and Rod: Jean Kirkpatrick discoursed on the difference between authoritarian and totalitarian governments in Commentary in (I think) 1979. Venal authoritarian tinhorns generally leave you alone unless you get in their way. That was S. Vietnam. But totalitarians like Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh's boys do their worst to exert merciless control over every aspect and every moment of everyone's life. OCD must be endemic in their cadre.

    Then there is Cambodia,a country subjected to one of history's most savage injustices. First they were invaded by N. Vietnam (no friend to Cambodians at any rate). What were U.S. forces to do; allow themselves to be flanked? Then the Khmer Rouge .. . ! Cambodians had a relatively decent life before the advent of those execrable idealists; under communism it couldn't have been worse, for those who survived that is. The U.S. could have stopped Pol Pot and his subhumans but . . .

    ReplyDelete
  16. A good debate. We can speculate about what was going through Vietnamese minds at various points, but we know what was going through American minds: a firm determination to stop communist aggression. I believe containment was the best policy in the face of the communist threat. And frankly, even if one doesn't believe that Vietnam was the best place to fight the red hordes, once we were committed and tens of thousands of Americans had died in the cause, why not see it through to victory? As I said, the hard work was already done. Look at what happened to the NVA invasion in 1972. We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Dr. Waddy: We stopped them in '72. I was out in the Gulf of Tonkin and it was as close to wartime conditions out there as I saw in my four years. We were launching strikes on Haiphong harbor with Russian ships docked there. I was near the end of my enlistment and I thought I'd be in for the duration. The successful NVA and Khmer Rouge conquests took place in '75, after our ground forces were almost all gone. Congress refused Ford's request for air strikes. I agree that containment was the right way to go;in the end we won and saved the world yet again. We should do the same with Iran.

    ReplyDelete
  18. How do you mean, Jack? Contain Iran? I suppose in a sense that's what we're doing in Yemen, but Syria is a tougher case...

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dr. Waddy: We convinced the Soviets that we would fight them if they went too far (i.e. Western Europe); I think that was a key component of the containment policy. We should draw a similar line against Iran. At a minimum it should tell them "you WILL NOT attack Israel; if you do you WILL be destroyed, if not by Israel then by us". The survival of Israel is vital for the continued progress of world civilization, just as destroying communism was. As for the tiresome antipathy between Persian and Arab and Turk; a plague on all their houses. They can't "oil" us anymore and if the rest of the world can't ween itself then let it do what it will; let the EU live its green dreams. At the rate we are going we'll probably be the world's best source of oil anyway. I don't know much about economics but that's my take.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jack, you're right that our newfound oil independence puts us in a strong position. The irony is that, although it's Europe, China, and Japan that need Mideast oil, not us, they still expect us to be the hegemonic power in the region, and they reserve the right to snipe at us as we fight to keep THEIR oil flowing. What a raw deal. What keeps the Iranians at bay, at any rate, is us, the Israelis, and the Saudis. Much as the Left would like to throw away that crucial alliance, I doubt it will happen.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dr. Waddy: I wonder about China's dependence. Its a vast land and includes resource rich Sinkiang Province (and in "include" I recognize China's recent totalitarian outrages in non Han Chinese Sinkiang.) Also always for China is the possibility of detente with Russia-Siberia, providing conveniently placed fuel sources. But Japan, it is of course and of painful historical confirmation, utterly dependent on outside sources of fuel for its 1st world economy. But we and Canada can supply them from our surplus, both negating China's fears of Japan militarily resurgent and further defanging the Arabs.

    As for the EU, let them stew; they cannot muster power. Britain has the North Sea Oil and still, the British Navy .

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dr. Waddy: The Japanese,in my experience, are very restrained consumers of energy both on the road and at home and their industry is very modern and efficient. I don't know how much they use natural gas but they are very adaptable and probably would take to it readily. Be it oil or natural gas, I'm confident that we and Canada could supply them enough to preserve their high standard of living and quell any fears about them rearming. Japan sets a very good example for all of East Asia of democratic prosperity.

    I don't see Saudi Arabia as a vital ally for us but we may be one for them. If we can influence them to lead an Arab rapproachment with Israel (if only because they fear Iran) then they may be worth cultivating. But our days of cringing before those medieval potentates are over and good riddance. Now that their petroleum based blackmail is disabled by good old American free enterprise they are going to need an Enlightenment of their own in order to gain our respect and recognition as citizens of the 21st century.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Jack, I fear your analysis is overly optimistic. Here is where the Japanese get their oil:

    http://studies.aljazeera.net/ResourceGallery/media/Images/2016/2/18/201621865034478734_8.jpg

    Here is where the Chinese get their oil:

    https://d1o9e4un86hhpc.cloudfront.net/images/tinymce/nickch2.jpg

    The Chinese have diversified a lot more than the Japanese, but Mideast oil is still VITAL to the global energy picture.

    US exports are significant, but pale in comparison to OPEC production.

    https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/us-oil-exports-boom-to-record-level-surpassing-most-opec-nations.html

    Ergo, I have to respectfully disagree that anyone can dispense with Mideast oil producers, including the Saudis. Look at how the Europeans continue to depend on Russian energy -- despite thumbing their noses at Russia constantly. Oil=clout. That's inescapable, I'm afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Dr. Waddy: I'm going to read all those articles. I must give the empirical evidence you have presented full attention as it is a very creditable response to my opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jack, two of them are just pie charts, and one is an article.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dr. Waddy: My always adversarial computer would not allow me to read the articles you cited. But I am confident in assuming that you would not have linked them had they not been credible. So I stand strongly cautioned against thinking that countries we value would not be adversely effected by a vindictive cut off of Mid East oil analogous perhaps to 1973.

    ReplyDelete
  27. True, Jack. OPEC doesn't have the same clout it had in 1973, but it still has plenty, sad to say. For future reference, it looks like links within these comments aren't clickable, but if you drag your cursor over them (thus highlighting them), and then right-click, you can "open in a new tab"...

    ReplyDelete
  28. Dr. Waddy: I'll try, but computers have a visceral antipathy to me and I return it, not for any doubt of the benefits of modern technology but because they willfully task me!

    ReplyDelete