Democratic Party's Notorious Loudmouth: Gee, Maybe I Shouldn't Have Said That



National Review


Today on NRO

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Obama, not Bush, is responsible for the return of the Islamist insurgency in Iraq. A Disaster of His Own Making.

JONAH GOLDBERG: The naked self-interest of the government-worker class. Of the Bureaucrats, by the Bureaucrats, for the Bureaucrats.

RICH LOWRY: In the 21st century, if something offends you, it must be crusaded against and crushed underfoot. Hail to the Redskins!

STEPHEN YATES & CHRISTIAN WHITON: Once again, Obama's inaction is empowering jihadist carnage and Islamist tyranny. The End of Iraq.

SLIDESHOW: Russian Tu-95 Bomber.

Morning Jolt
. . . with Jim Geraghty

June 20, 2014

NR's publisher Jack Fowler will be filling in for me next week. Normal life in the new home see the update below picks up June 30.

Democratic Party's Notorious Loudmouth: Gee, Maybe I Shouldn't Have Said That

Former governor Brian Schweitzer offers an apology:

I recently made a number of stupid and insensitive remarks to a reporter from the National Journal. I am deeply sorry and sincerely apologize for my carelessness and disregard.

I wonder if he reached out to Dianne Feinstein or Eric Cantor.

In a profile in National Journal, Schweitzer said of Feinstein:

"She was the woman who was standing under the streetlight with her dress pulled all the way up over her knees, and now she says, 'I'm a nun,' when it comes to this spying!" he says. Then, he adds, quickly, "I mean, maybe that's the wrong metaphor — but she was all in!"

And here on Eric Cantor, and Southern men:

Last week, I called him on the night Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated in his GOP primary. "Don't hold this against me, but I'm going to blurt it out. How do I say this . . . men in the South, they are a little effeminate," he offered when I mentioned the stunning news. When I asked him what he meant, he added, "They just have effeminate mannerisms. If you were just a regular person, you turned on the TV, and you saw Eric Cantor talking, I would say — and I'm fine with gay people, that's all right — but my gaydar is 60-70 percent. But he's not, I think, so I don't know. Again, I couldn't care less. I'm accepting."

300 More U.S. Troops in Iraq. So . . . Are We At War With ISIS?

I'm not saying this move from President Obama is the wrong one

Obama said he would send up to 300 additional U.S. Special Operations troops to better assess the situation on the ground, where forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) have moved ever nearer to Baghdad, and to determine "how we can best train, advise and support Iraqi security forces going forward."

But what do we do if some of those 300 guys get attacked? If ISIS ambushes some of our guys in a Black Hawk Down Mogadishu-style scenario . . . doesn't that drag us into this war even further? I'm all for killing ISIS, but are we sure we want to pursue this path? Is the president sure?

We all know that our Special Operations guys are the best of the best, but they can't win the war for the Iraqi government.

I suppose if there's a chance you'll run across Persians, 300 guys is a good number to have.

James Oliphant of National Journal acknowledges what so many in Washington have tried to deny for about six years now: The world doesn't work the way Barack Obama thought it did.

[Sending 275 troops to Iraq to help secure the embassy] is a tacit acknowledgment that many of the assumptions that Obama and his foreign policy team made about the world have proven to be incorrect:

  • That without the leverage of U.S. military power in the country, Iraqi leaders would pursue political change that wouldn't leave Sunnis alienated and antagonized and that its security forces could counter internal threats;

  • That Afghanistan would be stable enough for the U.S. to end that war and depart with confidence the government can keep the nation on a stable path;
  • That the U.S. could pursue a "reset" with Vladimir Putin's Russia—but then watched his troops take Crimea and threaten the rest of Ukraine;

  • That the civil war in Syria could somehow be contained within its borders — and could reach a resolution without American intervention.

More than anything, these events and others have served as a rebuke to Team Obama's worldview that a new generation of leadership could move on from both the Clinton-era and Bush-era policies. Both of those administrations were more hawkish and aggressive about the exercise of American power, whether it was to intercede in regional conflicts in the Balkans or take down Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.

Disdainful of much of Washington's foreign policy establishment, Obama and his close-knit circle of advisers, on the other hand, talked about engaging Iran diplomatically, using sanctions to punish bad actors, "pivoting" to Asia, and neutralizing the threat of terrorism more bloodlessly through the use of drones. They viewed American power in terms of limits. This was a president, after all, who opposed the U.S. "surge" that arguably stabilized Iraq to the point where Obama could pull the troops out.

Yet here was Obama on Thursday using the language of presidents past such as John Kennedy and George W. Bush, talking of sending "advisers" into a global hot spot and warning of the need to deny "safe haven" to terrorist groups. "Right now, this is the moment when the fate of Iraq hangs in the balance," he said —something that sounded So 10 Years Ago.

That's why Obama's remarks had to have left such a bitter taste. Iraq was a box that his administration had checked. And already, the unrest there is casting fresh doubt on his decision to leave Afghanistan just a few years removed from calling for his own "surge" there. Americans are giving his handling of foreign policy the lowest marks of his presidency. With Syria on fire, Egypt and Libya in turmoil, and Russia meddling in Ukraine, the world has reached up and pulled the once-soaring avatar of change crashing earthward.

Icarus, we told you so.

Nice: Part Atlas Shrugged, Part House of Cards, Part Forrest Gump

Benjamin Weingarten of the Blaze chatted with me about The Weed Agency a little while back, and wrote a review that is just too nice to not share with you:

Jim Geraghty of National Review has penned a book about a government bureaucracy that you'll actually want to read. The humorous new book is part "Atlas Shrugged," part "House of Cards," and part "Forrest Gump."

You will probably enjoy this book if . . .

You admire ANDREW BREITBART, ADAM CAROLLA or MELANIE PHILLIPS

You appreciate books by authors such as P.J. O'ROURKE, AYN RAND or MARK STEYN

You like movies/shows such as Forrest Gump or House of Cards

You are interested in subjects like POLITICS, ECONOMICS, or HISTORY

The Hard Sell: Jim Geraghty's fictional tale has something for everyone: a hilariously cynical look at government bureaucracies for the politically-inclined, a coming of age story for those interested in the human interest element of life in Washington D.C., and an old-fashioned, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington-like battle between good and evil. Counterintuitively, Geraghty takes a topic that you would not ordinarily be interested in, this weed agency that just can't be removed, and uses the metaphor to draw out lessons on not just government but office politics, careers, and the challenges presented to those actually seeking to make a difference. You'll want to read "The Weed Agency" for the hilarious story that impressively draws on events and characters real and false in a cogent and cynical mosaic, but its broader lessons are of equal importance. We could use more stories like Jim Geraghty's "The Weed Agency" if we want to have any chance at influencing the monolithically leftist culture.

Random Notes From Moving:

You cannot empty a house. You will think you are making progress, but you will mistakenly leave two pieces of "stuff" in a corner. While you are out of the room, those two pieces of stuff will mate and create little baby pieces of stuff, and they will reproduce like Tribbles until the room is as cluttered as when you began.

Somehow what is easily found and quickly unpacked is completely unrelated to what I actually need. For example, I have no idea where any bottle opener is. But the spice rack, full of strangely-scented powders we haven't used in at least a year or in some cases, we've never used them! is fully unpacked and ready to go. Just in case I need access to a cinnamon stick right this second.

Isn't it frightening how attached we get to seemingly frivolous luxuries? Not long ago, examining our new kitchen, I thought, "Oh, who the heck needs a built in ice-maker and water spout in their refrigerator? What, is it really too much trouble to get the ice-cube trays and pour the water from the filter pitcher or the sink?" I've been in here less than a day and I'm ready to build a second Keystone Pipeline from my refrigerator to the desk.

If my new house had any more boxes and crates, it would look like this:

Hey, you. Yes, you the Daddy Long-Legs spider the size of a Buick up in the corner. Don't think I don't see you. You're large enough, I'm going to charge you rent.

ADDENDA: George R.R. Martin, author of the Game of Thrones series known for its high body count of characters, chuckles at a dinosaur book placed next to his work at a bookstore:

 

"Well played, bookstore . . . Well played."


To read more, visit www.nationalreview.com


Why not forward this to a friend? Encourage them to sign up for NR's great free newsletters here.

Save 75%... Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the newsstand price. Click here for the print edition or here for the digital.

National Review also makes a great gift! Click here to send a full-year of NR Digital or here to send the print edition to family, friends, and fellow conservatives.


Facebook
Follow
Twitter
Tweet
Subscribe
NR Podcasts
Forward to a Friend
Send

National Review, Inc.


Spring Fever



Order Today!


The Weed Agency: A Comic Tale of Federal Bureaucracy Without Limits

By Jim Geraghty


Manage your National Review subscriptions. We respect your right to privacy. View our policy.

This email was sent by:

National Review, Inc.
215 Lexington Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10016

No comments:

Post a Comment

An Economist Explains What Trump’s Tariffs Mean for You

Plus: 'HANG TOUGH': Trump Administration Placates Americans as Stock Market Flails   ...