Friends, the Newsmaker Show is back after a brief hiatus, and it's better AND Trumpier than ever before! This week Brian and I digest Trump's incredibly bold cabinet picks, and we consider the risks and opportunities inherent in each of them. Also, is WWIII imminent? You might want to listen in and find out. This week only: a special bonus!!! Operation Uranus. And no, that isn't a double entendre. Get your mind out of the gutter!
Dr. Waddy from Jack: I know you discussed the Ukraine situation on Newsmaker and I haven't listened yet but I do want to record these thoughts while they are fresh in my mind. I just got off deer stand and you have lots of time to think there.
ReplyDeleteI remember how "unreal" it all seemed in the early stages of the Cuban Missile Crisis. "Naw, it just can't happen".Life went on mostly as normal except for increasing unprecedented alarm and dawning realization that it might actually happen. Wasn't much you could do about it. But we were close, so close to unlimited catastrophe. I see some similarities now; this is getting very serious and could fly out of control as the missile crisis almost DID!
Sure, there are differences : for one thing , the missile crisis developed quickly and seemingly out of nowhere ,while this has festered ever since Russia warned us years ago that it would not tolerate Ukraine in Nato and the West, well, didn't believe them. And though he was reckless in
his personal life , in '62 we had a competent President , who, when it got down to cases , acted responsibly. Now we have a mentally impaired one.
In the last few days: Biden told Ukraine "yeah, go ahead, fling US long range missiles into Russia. What else is new. . . ?" So Ukraine did it and Russia replied with possibly uninterceptable hypersonic missiles and/or an ICBM of all things. Now Nato and Ukraine are sitting down together in what is described as an emergency meeting. Yes, some Nato countries have, as I suppose, independently aided Ukraine but to my knowledge Nato as an entity has not been overtly involved. How is Russia to look at this meeting or what cooperation could conceivably result? Might they see it as amounting to the unendurable - Ukraine in Nato? If so, what escalation might they pursue , thinking perhaps that they have no choice, that they have been pushed beyond the pale of toleration? Even should they refrain from, say, use of tactical nukes against. . . who (?)(a big if) when might this precipitous "give and take" spiral out of any possibility of reprieve?!
Its almost as if the succession of decisions leading to the Soviets putting the missiles in Cuba had been done in public and we could have seen the situation develop as we do with this one.
Another critical factor has arisen, I think: Russia has by now paid a terrible price in order to attempt to secure their perceived fundamental right to national security and integrity in the face of powerful foreign imposition. Any settlement of this crisis is going to have to include an assurance for Russia that they will never again have to expend such blood and resource to assure their due. In saying this I do not advocate any sympathy for Russia - its terrible brutality in Ukraine is unforgiveable - but we must face grim facts and, hard as it is, empathize with Russia's position. You don't foolishly prod an already maddened bear, such a situation transcends all moral considerations.It simply IS that way!
Now Ukraine and Nato are conducting an emergency meeting. When, pray, did Nato get overtly involved!? Yes, some Nato
Ray to Jack
DeleteAs you will recall, a few years ago, the word was out that Ukraine wanted to join NATO. That pissed Putin off, so he invaded the place. That of course delighted our military-industrial pukes, who have been making tons of money out of the war ever since.
Nothing complicated here. War pays.
Dr. Waddy bfrom Jack :Re the Newsmaker broadcast: I agree with you that the dems want to gum up the works for DJT; keep him busy with problems of their making or exacerbation so that he is much hampered in his ambitious domestic agenda. And I'm sure they hate him so much that they would welcome any measure of emotional vindication they can get by vexing him. Are they actually capable of risking WWIII in order to work such disfunction? Maybe! "By any means necessary" is their ever byword and they may believe that their antiamerican movement has reached a critical point, with lasting disempowerment for them perhaps a distinct possibility and that desperate measures are called for.
ReplyDeleteWhen W. Clinton took office he was able to slow down the frantically radical impulses of his party and project a disingenuous image of moderation designed only to rein in the wild horses for awhile before resuming the "revolution". His Scotus picks reflected his long term far left outlook and intent, not to mention his attempt to subordinate health care (1/7 of the economy) to Comrade Hillary.
But that was 30 some years ago. Has the antiamerican left since then so corrupted the dem party with its open neomarxism and incipient totalitarianism that such a temporary "reform" (a tactical retreat perhaps) is even possible? And where would find another con artist as effective as Slick Willy?
I suggest it will be AOC. She has already begun a swing to the center and it will be in full bloom by 2026 in time for the 2028 campaign. Its often said there is no one as devoted to a cause as is a convert. I think she will use that cover to, with complete cynicism and disingenuousness, make herself the apparent champion of those who now counsel the dem party to abandon radicalism. She would have to do this very carefully and incrementally but she is young and has time.
She would of course remain true to her far, far left convictions and if she were to achieve office - The Deluge.
Jack of AOC Presidency:
ReplyDeleteYou could be right, Mr. Jack; there could be a movement to the center for Dems, especially from those with a significant following in the different forms of media. AOC would certainly fill that bill. Gavin Newsome himself has even recently made statements that feigned repentance.
It is not a good thing if that directive comes from the powers that be. Conservatives would rather they wear their true colors with pride!
Dr Waddy was quoted recently as saying, "You can still fool most of the people most of the time." And he's likely right.
However, today, 30 years later, it is much easier to find evidence to paint AOC as a fibber than it was back then. It would be much more problematic for her to paint herself as moderate or center on anything.
Isn't there evidence from the previous election that people want authenticity and at least truth from their leadership? Maybe that's just wishful thinking?
All that to say, this poster hopes it is becoming harder to fool "many" of the people most of the time."
Richie from Jack: Good point! Especially with Kamala's blatant attempt at conning us and the public disgust it confirmed for already wearisome Dem disingenuousness and the exacerbation of it she accomplished, it may well be a lot harder for anyone to repeat Slick Willy's games.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I saw one of Newsom's "fingernail on the chalkboard " auto da fes the other day. He's very smarmy and I'd like to see how he plays in Bakersfield or Willetts, CA or in Newton, Kansas. A few years ago a very presumptuous model socialist Ithaca,NY leftist tried to be elected to "represent us"in Congress from this overwhelmingly conservative area. She was inundated with rollicking laughter in her crude effort to "relate" to the unwashed at one rally. And of course she lost. Same thing should happen to Newsom as he holds his nose and commences his royal progress through the provinces to abide with his subjects and grace them with his glowing presence.
Ray from Jack: Still, I wouldn't want to face an enraged bear even if I had a 12 gauge with slugs (standard armament in rural Alaska). Is our industrial establishment as venal as to encourage such risk? I guess it can't be ruled out.
ReplyDeleteJack, Richie, et al. -- I honestly have virtually no knowledge of AOC. I know she's often made fun of on the right, but I'm not sure I've ever heard her speak for herself. My sense, though, is that it is very hard to rise from the House of Representatives to the presidency. Only one president has ever done it, no? And he "won" despite finishing second. I would suspect that AOC needs a different platform to launch her into the presidential stratosphere, but these days I suppose every norm is made to be broken, so I wouldn't stake my life on it...
ReplyDeleteWould the military-industrial complex risk WWIII to make some moolah? I'd say so. They've done it plenty of times before. The calculation of the arms industry as well as the hawks in our political establishment is that they can push Russia around virtually without limits, because...mutually assured destruction. That's pretty sound logic until it isn't.