Follow Dr. Waddy

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

Wednesday, October 9, 2019

To Impeach, Or Not To Impeach -- That Is The Question



Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show is even more mind-blowing than usual!  Naturally, Brian and I get caught up on the latest developments surrounding the effort to impeach President Trump.  We also ask whether Democrats are truly in earnest about impeachment, or whether they're hedging their bets.  We also discuss corruption and back-scratching in American politics, the NBA-China kerfuffle, the "extinction rebellion" destabilizing Europe's cities, Ellen DeGeneres's bold decision to defend her "friend" George W. Bush in the face of leftist attacks, and the end game for Brexit.

Historically, Brian and I wade into the death of Che Guevara in 1967, President Nixon's efforts to bring peace to Vietnam, and the bombing of St. Paul's Cathedral during the Blitz.

Be there or be square -- or, in other words, listen and be amazed!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1oRVKdsMXU&feature=youtu.be

10 comments:

  1. Dr. Waddy: So VERY much to comment upon in your broadcast: It may be that a decision by Pelosi to hold a floor vote for impeachment could be much influenced, yes, by the polls, as you pointed out but perhaps also by the possibility of a clear frontrunner for the Dem nomination. Should that be Warren, Pelosi may reason that it will be worth it to hold a vote she may be confident will succeed, in order to immerse the election in the mire of impeachment and that her party's fanatic left ought to be satisfied with its candidate's triumph.Too, though, the polls could convince her that a pro-impeachment vote could trigger a decisive pro Trump turnout.In that sense we could read a decision on her part not to impeach as a no confidence vote (for what its worth coming from her) in Warren.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr. Waddy: The NBA in China: (shades of "Ping Pong Diplomacy" in '72?) I am of two minds: First, If China wishes to enact official disapproval of even private (in an age of mass communication) foreign support for opposition to its policies is it not for China to do so? But does official China express the will of the Chinese people? In China, is this of essential importance, as it is to us? This is a telling question: " Do you want the NBA to perform in China? Yes, we love it. But what if your government disapproves, for any reason? (the possible answer) we are Chinese first: those people in Hong Kong do not think like us; our country is prospering and that is enough". This is a very much speculative comment on my part.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Waddy: Upon rereading,I see my reasoning in my impeachment comment was insupportable.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr. Waddy: I saw St. Pauls for the first time last January on a Sunday, with its bells chiming continuously. It was sublime! The thought of an assault on it by those subhuman monsters is almost unbearable. You are very much right that the German failure to build large numbers of heavy bombers, like the Allies had, may well have assured their failure in the ill advised Blitz and their consequent loss of the war. London did suffer grievously but the thought of its near total destruction is too painful to imagine.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dr. Waddy: You are very right , though, to point out that mass bombing of civilian centers may not have had the intimidating effect which was purposed. It might have been that a leveled London might only have strengthened British resolve. In the ultimate test, the American onslaught on the paper and wood cities of Japan: history of Japanese command decisions in August, 1945 (including those astonishing actions of the Emperor) reveals that the conventional bombing of Japan, despite its tremendous destruction, might not have persuaded the decision makers as did the atomic bomb.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dr. Waddy: It should have been clear to me since 1975 (when, as you may well imagine, all Vietnam vets, "paused to reflect"), what you have pointed out here. To me, it wasn't for a long while.

    You are right: Nixon clearly perceived the obvious truth that the Vietnamese Communists were willing to do anything to force themselves on those who did not want them ( and those doubters had demonstrated this with their 400,000 strong emigration from the North in 1954). He was right: people willing to take on the U.S. , who regularly employed methods such as slowly suffocating people with plastic bags, had to be BEATEN into the ground!

    By doing so in the regrettable but necessary Christmas '72 Offensive and the subsequent grudging commie acquiescence, Nixon followed up.(Let us not doubt that that brought to the commies fear of subsequent Hiroshimas.) And that agreement would have been fully and militarily confirmed by Nixon whenever the commies might have defied it, had he not been removed by the same leftist, Vietnamese commie supporting crowd which got him in '74.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Interesting impeachment analysis, Jack. I would say impeachment has yet to become an issue central to the Democratic primary race, or central to any of the campaigns, but that could change. I'll be intrigued to see what Steyer has to say about it on Tuesday. He might stir the pot. I have one liberal friend who says that, impeachment or no impeachment, the country will have moved on by Nov. 2020. That may be true. Politics moves at lightning speed these days, and the voters have such short memories that one wonders whether dementia may have set in...

    Does the PRC have the right not to do business with the NBA? Surely. However, an NBA that ENCOURAGES social activism on some issues is poorly positioned to tamp it down on others. My sense is also that the Chinese are doing themselves more harm than good by trying to squelch free speech in the U.S. They should stick to censorship INSIDE China, which they're rather good at.

    Jack, I agree -- it's beyond tragic how many architectural wonders were obliterated in WWII, although to the Europeans immense credit most have been painstakingly rebuilt...

    Civilian bombing is a very tricky question. I tend to believe it's a mistake, mainly because the practical results don't justify the loss of moral authority. On the other hand, some say that the bombing of the Axis powers seriously disrupted their war economies. In the end, I just wish we didn't have that stain on our national conscience...

    Jack, I'm honored that a Vietnam vet (of consummate wisdom) sees eye to eye with me on Nixon's strong-arming strategy in the Vietnam War. It's a myth that any enemy is "unbeatable," or won't ever crack under the pressure. The North Vietnamese clearly did. Were they biding their time? Sure, it looks that way in retrospect -- but I think it would be more accurate to say that the anti-war crowd in Congress was biding its time to stab our allies in the back!

    Speaking of back-stabbing, I see that the Kurds in Syria are now making nice with the Syrian government. This is good. Sooner or later, the Turks and the Syrians will have to settle who will control eastern Syria. A few years of half-hearted intervention does not obligate us to referee this conflict until the end times.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dr. Waddy: Che. Oh yes, Che. In Arthur C. Clarke's novel Childhood's End, benevolent aliens take the earth over. They don't interfere much with human life but they do put paid to some abominations.EG: they cause the audience at a bull fight to feel, for but a moment, the pain the bull is feeling. That does it for bull fighting. Would that those pitiful, shallow types who think Che to be cool were given a brief view of the hideous handiwork, accomplished and earnestly intended, of "Dr." Ernesto Guevara. Most of them would find it unendurable.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dr. Waddy: It is very gratifying to have my perceptions praised so by an accomplished intellectual. From now on, when I meet another Vietnam vet I'm going to express your opinion that, but for the deposing of Nixon, the war would have been won militarily. So many of them still suffer so much and to believe that what they fought for was right and could well have succeeded might make alot of them feel better.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I see your point, Jack. Knowing that the Vietnam War could easily have been won might well make a vet feel better...or it might make him feel far worse! It's a good test, akin to the old "Is the glass half empty or half full?" question. For my own part, I'd say there's nothing sadder and more tragic than a war that claims millions of lives, when all along one of the main combatants lacked the will to grasp imminent victory. What, then, was the point? For shame!

    ReplyDelete