Thursday, February 3, 2011


          Q.  George W. Bush said the other day that he’s out of the politics business, won’t raise money and won’t go out to attack any other president  i.e. Obama.  What gives?
          A.  Terrific. That gives us all a break. What it means is now that I’ve had mine, let others fend for themselves.
          Bush was generally a satisfactory president…acceptably pro-life and firm on defense.  His response by invading Iraq, capturing Saddam and belting `em where they lived was salutary….prompting the acknowledged top expert on Middle East policy, Bernard Lewis, to point out that for the first time ever terrorists experienced some serious discomfort. But beyond that he was a wuss—probably because he was listening to his professional librarian wife—like her kids pro-abort, pro-gay marriage and flaky all round on other things.    Like her mother-in-law also with the big round  syrupy eyes and the rich-lady pearls at her throat: Barbara who almost fatally infected his old man.
       What do I mean by this?  The nonsense he spouted in his first inaugural address which was arrant Wisonianism.  We want to encourage our world neighbors to adopt Jeffersonian democracy. That’s rich lady League of Women Voters talk, the talk of the country clubs
         Q.  By that remark I take it you are a “realist” rather than an “idealist” in foreign policy.
          A.   Absolutely.  I’ve had my innings off the reservation but never veered from the contention that Professor  Wilson was probably one of the worst presidents we ever had—although eclipsed by good old  Number 44, Professor Obama, he of the 3rdWorld.
         Q.   As a former foreign service officer,  how do you think Obama’s doing on Egypt?
         A.   Lousy.   But he reflects on this a lot of contemporary foreign policy talking heads. We have been following a pattern for decades of not supporting our friends when they get into trouble.  As an old guy, I go back to what we did to our longstanding ally in China,  Chiang Kai-Shek.   He fought on our side during World War II against  the Japanese but right after VJ Day  the Chinese Reds who had many allies in our own State Department started an internecine rebellion against him saying….horrors!...Chiang is an authoritarian!  Of course he was!  Did China ever have a democracy? No!
         The old Wilsonian dogma took hold and we were suckered into raising hell with Chiang because he wouldn’t accept Mao’s people into a coalition cabinet.  He told us what would happen if he did: They’re not democrats but worse than authoritarians—Communists. Well, Truman sent George Marshall over there who gave Chiang an ultimatum: accept a coalition government or we’ll pull military aid. He refused, the Chinese Communists defeated him and the government they installed was far worse than Chiang’s.
        Q.  Well, that was one time.
        A.  One time my eye. With South Vietnam we became disillusioned with Diem because he was an authoritarian.   So with the concurrence of Establishmentarian Henry Cabot Lodge we looked the other way while he was killed. The successors…supposedly democrats….couldn’t run things so for all practical purposes we lost the war.  You see what we showed the world then?  The worst thing to happen to you is if you’re an ally of the United States. Were the North Vietnamese democrats?  Of course not.
          Q.  Well that was the second time.
          A.   We were an ally of the Shah.  But he was an authoritarian. So we Wilsonians were upset about that.  We didn’t stand by him and he fell. The point is: we never learn, do we?    And who are the people who are always wrong?   Liberal editorial pages, mainstream news media.  Now we get to Murbarak.
        Q.  What are we doing wrong there?
         A.  We’re telling him how to run his country….telling him to make nicey-nice with the mobs in the streets.   He looked out his window and saw right away from the way they dress, the way they shave that they were from the Muslim Brotherhood.  Then there’s the “democracy activists”…liberals, affected by our nihilistic journalists.  They’re rallying around Mohamed ElBafradel the Nobel peace prize guy as their champion.   ElBafradel hates our guts. Moreover he’s  weak—much like Kerensky who preceded Lenin.  When are we going to learn?
       Q.  Some of our prized journalists were mugged by vicious thugs over there, though.
       A.    By which you mean indubitably Anderson Hays Vanderbilt Cooper of CNN.    Knowing Cooper it was probably the thrill of his life to be manhandled


  1. No one seems to be talking about the amount of 'aid' we give to Egypt - billions per year. And the demonstrators who want the USA out, are they willing to give up on the bucks, or do they even know...?

    We should be telling them: go ahead, we'll keep our money. Make my day!

  2. Q. Some of our prized journalists were mugged by vicious thugs over there, though.
    A. By which you mean indubitably Anderson Hays Vanderbilt Cooper of CNN. Knowing Cooper it was probably the thrill of his life to be manhandled..
    You are a mean, fat little twerp. You will burn in hell, Roeser.