Was it a sitcom or a game show?
I’m trying to bring myself back down to Earth by reminding myself that not EVERY moment of my trip was ecstatic. There was, for instance, those several hours we were trapped on a bus that was supposed to be air-conditioned and wasn’t, watching a loud Thai TV show that was some sort of cross between a sitcom and a game show — hard to describe, especially since I didn’t understand a word of what was being said.
Of course, other than that, every moment was fantastic, and even that brief experience I’m trying to remember as negative was interesting… so it’s going to take me awhile to adjust to ordinary routine. Bear with me. And be patient as I unfold bits and pieces of our trip and share them with you, beyond what you’ve already seen on social media.
In the meantime, here’s some stuff for y’all to discuss:
- Hey, didn’t Bryan do an awesome job while I was gone? — Be careful. That’s a fargin’ trick question. No, seriously, I’m deeply appreciative of what he did to allow me to concentrate on being a tourist, which was pretty all-consuming. Now, I’d appreciate some feedback: What did Bryan do that you’d like to see more of going forward here on the blog? Maybe that can be arranged…
- Bergdahl charged with desertion — Well, this was pretty much predictable from the moment the president swapped five high-value Taliban terrorists to get this guy back.What a mess. What an embarrassment for the country. But I’m glad the Army is confronting the problem, and not just ignoring what happened.
- Legislature tries to do the right thing in spite of governor — Trying to catch up on the latest bad craziness here in SC. At long last, lawmakers are facing up to the fact that we need to raise the gas tax, and doing it despite the governor’s insistence that we won’t ALLOW us to have a tax increase, even if we want one. No, really; I’m not making that up.
- FBI still needs to get better at countering terrorism — That’s the conclusion of a review of how well the agency has been doing with implementing reforms after 9/11.
- White House going overboard in anti-Bibi rhetoric — Things seem to have hit a new low with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough saying “an occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end.”
Or, whatever y’all want to talk about…
Related Posts
A different take on Netanyahu’s Israel — from an Israeli:
http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2015/mar/21/israel-elections-ugly-truth/
Prince, kindly help me with any realistic take we are supposed to receive from such a biased, unfactual (Israeli) opinion.
As an Israeli, Mr. Shulman arguably has a much better take and certainly a much greater stake in what happens in his country than we do. At a minimum, it’s instructive for us to know that there are other voices in Israel besides that of it’s current prime minister.
Bryan made sure there was a fresh thread to post on, even when he was superbusy–like a simple Open Thread, and he did a weekend thread, so our commenters who mostly only have time on weekends could comment and moe of us might read it.
I think you should merge Bryan into you–he does a great blog, too, and I like having all my favorite commenters here.
A merger? Would I get stock options, or something?
“What did Bryan do that you’d like to see more of going forward here on the blog? ”
Advocate less government in our lives?
Things seem to have hit a new low with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough saying “an occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end.”
-Brad
That’s exactly what it is, “an occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years”. Why is that a new low? The new low was Boehner giving Bibi a forum for his rhetoric. Or perhaps Bibi race baiting during the election by pointing out that “Arabs were voting in droves”. I say it’s time to stop sending so much money and weapons to the Israelis until they stop building settlements and practicing Apartheid on the Palestinians.
Bud, exactly what better use of the sums our U.S. government considers wise to send Israel would you have in mind?
Am I incorrect in assuming your motive is not anti-semitic (racist) ? If our government is not wise enough to collectively make good decisions, why should we trust it to make any? Just some applicable thoughts (and I certainly have many more).
The low bar on foreign policy rhetoric was set back in 2002. McDonough’s comments, even if you think they misrepresent the situation (I don’t) just cannot be represented in any way shape or form as “a new low”. Here is what the Bush administration claimed the intelligence reports were saying about aluminum tubes Saddam was trying to secure:
“Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.”
George W. Bush
“only really suited for nuclear weapons programs. We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”
Condoleeza Rice
And here’s what the just un-redacted CIA 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), report (cited so frequently by the Bush administration to support its war) ACTUALLY said about the tubes:
“Saddam is personally interested in the procurement of aluminum tubes.” The US Department of Energy concluded that the dimensions of the aluminum tubes were “consistent with applications to rocket motors” and “this is the more likely end use.”
Here’s the smoking gun that proves once and for all that the Bush administration flat out lied in the run-up to the Iraq war in 2002/3. The claims for the bad intelligence just don’t hold water. They had the report then simply did not tell the American people and congress the truth about what it said. The result is now plain for all the world to see. The middle east is a mess thanks to that misguided war.
The middle east is so messed up right now, and our President thinks Netanyahu is the problem.
* Robert Ariail’s latest cartoon is spectacularly apropos, as customary for a great, creative artist.
#1 – Bryan also performed a relatively spectacular job of “holding the fort” for this blog in his own, very worthy style.
#2 – While the Bergdahl “decision” should have been predictable from the moment the president swapped five high-value Taliban terrorists to get this guy back, not only is the final outcome still unclear (which it should NOT be to our loyal troops), I suspect that Bergdahl’s family has weighed undue ($$$) influence on the Obama administration. Time will certainly tell whether my suspicions was correct, so objections from anyone at this point are mute.
#5 – Have to agree with Brad’s and the wall Street Journal’s (an unusually fact-based journal) propositions that the Obama administration and its die-hard supporters (e.g. Bud) have been going overboard in anti-Bibi rhetoric. Good grief! The Obama administration tried to unseat a U.S. ally!
#1: Brian did a great job. He tried to get a sports conversation going, and while it didn’t generate much discussion, it was welcome. He also had a fair number of pop culture posts that were enjoyable. I enjoy reading political posts, but am less likely to comment on them because nobody ever changes their mind or expresses much in the way of a new point of view–you’ve hinted at the same in some of your own posts by predicting what various commentators might say in response to a post.
#3: This is welcome news. Is there any chance there are enough votes in the legislature to override a Haley veto? I’m doubtful.
I liked the art posts.
Can we agree that Israel has often been its own worst enemy with its Palestinian policies, that Bibi is pretty much a one note ass, that US support for Israel is based upon some generally good reasons, that the Congressional letter to Iran was exceedingly Ill-advised, and that the White House’s responses have been on the same level?
I can.
I’d just kinda like to see everybody start acting like grownups about the matter…
Mr. Warthen, I have to take you to task for at least appearing to suggest that Sgt. Bergdahl was not worth getting back – or that the cost of his release was too high. I believe that we owe it to all our troops serving abroad to bring them home, no matter the circumstance, assuming they wish to return and have not gone over to the other side. There is no indication that Bergdahl was a turncoat and every indication that he was a captive. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that there was any real value in holding onto the detainees released from Gitmo in exchange for Bergdahl. And there is no indication that, having been out of circulation for such a long period of time, those detainees were “high value” or pose a direct threat to the US. (The Taliban is not on the State Dept’s list of terrorist organizations.) Plus, a condition of the detainees’ release was that local authorities in Qatar would keep them under surveillance. If Bergdahl committed a breach of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, then he should be punished appropriately. But the appropriate punishment certainly should not be to leave him in the hands of the Taliban.
“I believe that we owe it to all our troops serving abroad to bring them home, no matter the circumstance, assuming they wish to return and have not gone over to the other side.”
No matter the circumstance? Seems like we ought to at least look at the circumstances and make intelligent decisions.
“There is no indication that Bergdahl was a turncoat and every indication that he was a captive.”
Maybe he aided the enemy, and maybe he didn’t. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. What does look pretty clear at this point is that he deserted his unit while in hostile territory and then got himself captured. He was certainly a captive, but he was a captive solely because he walked away. We’re not talking about a fighter pilot who is captured after being shot down.
“Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that there was any real value in holding onto the detainees released from Gitmo in exchange for Bergdahl.”
Except for the fact that they’re hardened terrorists. Just that part.
“And there is no indication that, having been out of circulation for such a long period of time, those detainees were “high value” or pose a direct threat to the US.”
Except for the fact that they were Taliban leadership guys. Just a few Taliban commanders, their chief intelligence officer, and stuff like that. Also, they were doing a really good job of not posing a threat to the US by being incarcerated in Gitmo. Now that they’re chillaxing in Qatar, the potential threat level posed may be a teensy bit higher.
“(The Taliban is not on the State Dept’s list of terrorist organizations.)”
Yeah, the Taliban is totally cool. No worries there.
“Plus, a condition of the detainees’ release was that local authorities in Qatar would keep them under surveillance.”
I’m sure that will work out totally fine. No way these guys could slip away from the crack-trained Qatar folks and attempt to go back to their old tricks or be great recruiters for new jihadis. I’m sure they’ll put their leadership skills to good use in the booming Qatari manufacturing industry.
Do you have any substantiated reason not to trust the Qataris in this matter? The released former Taliban are still there and are still being monitored by the Qataris – as was confirmed by a recent report on an attempt by one of the group to make calls to Afghanistan. Yes, one or all of them probably will make their way back to their home country eventually. But it stretches credulity to suggest that people who have been out of circulation for over a decade pose any great(er) threat to us or to our assets in Afghanistan than do any of the rank-and-file Taliban who are there now and have been there all along. Frankly, at this point we could probably dump Khalid Sheikh Mohammed out on a street someplace overseas (not that anyone would take him) and not face any real threat. (Though I’m not suggesting we do that.) And with respect to Bergdahl, we simply couldn’t come to any conclusions about the “circumstances” of his going missing (let alone sentence him) until we first got him back. We don’t do trials in absentia in the US.
Do you have any substantiated reason not to trust the Qataris in this matter?
I’m inherently suspicious of people who choose not to follow the rule of having the letter “U” immediately follow the letter “Q”.
But only when sounded like “kw” or from the French….
M., the problem was the hoopla surrounding the Bergdahl release — the ceremony with the parents at the White House, the celebration as though this were an uncomplicated, unalloyed source of joy. Instead of what it was, which was the return of a guy with a big cloud over him, a guy we were justified in having some pretty complicated feelings about.
As for the value of the released Taliban — I’m not an expert on that, by a long shot. But I’m thinking the Taliban wouldn’t have wanted them back if they didn’t have SOME significant value. Of course, maybe this was a “Ransom of Red Chief” situation, in which the Taliban just didn’t want Bergdahl on their hands any more…
Of course, Lindsey Graham has no doubt about the deal:
on para1: Ok, so it was just a matter of the “optics.”
on para2: Maybe they’re sorta like us in just wanting their guys back.
Maybe. But I don’t see them as being all sentimental about such things as that. Does the Taliban have a “no man left behind” ethos, or is it more, “every man is expendable?” I don’t know, but I suspect the latter…
Maybe.
On the other hand, being old enough (just barely) to remember how people in the US thought of the Vietcong as essentially bestial, I hesitate to draw blanket conclusions about the motivations of our adversaries.
For me, just off the top of my head, I would say that how an enemy state or non-state actor chooses to fight a war is relevant. For instance:
1. Wearing uniforms/not wearing uniforms.
2. Using their soldiers to essentially commit suicide and take the enemy’s soldiers with them. (Think suicide bombers/kamikaze pilots)
3. How captured soldiers are treated.
4. How civilians/non-combatants are treated.
5. Target selection (military targets vs. non-military targets)
6. Overall objective of the conflict. (Self-defense vs. conquest)
And I can’t say I have a particularly high opinion of the Vietcong, either.
Now now, before you go get up on your “High Horse” about the Vietcong don’t forget about the Crusades.
On my trip to Thailand, I packed only thin, fast-drying clothing that I could wash out at night and maybe be able to wear in the morning. Some of this I bought for the occasion, such as these pants.
But I also packed a simple pair of thin black drawstring pants that I used to use for kickboxing class, which also met the criteria. I think I only wore them once during the trip, because they were lacking in the pockets department.
Anyway, I put them on, and then started to don a black T-shirt that was one of the only things I had left clean… but then I thought that, this being Southeast Asia and me being a farang, the outfit was a bit too VCish to work on me…
Add my kudo to the chorus regarding Bryan’s handling of the blog in your absence. Civility continued to reign, which I don’t see much of elsewhere.
And glad you didn’t get pressed into the fishing slavery reportedly going on off the coast of Thailand these days (according to “The World” on public radio yesterday afternoon).
Both Bryan’s stint as usurper — I mean, substitute blog jefe — and the post that Lynn Teague wrote by invitation while I was gone have inspired me to look for more opportunities to get guest writers to do posts here on the blog.
The deal I’m thinking of is this: I offer them the chance to write what they want, without being edited (which makes my life easier) — but with the understanding that the rest of us will say what we like about it, in comments and in separate posts, within the limits of our civility policy.
I’m thinking that could be an appealing proposition for some newsmakers and others, don’t you think?
Yes, please.