Emotional Feedback On A Timeless Wavelength
By Mitch Berg
Today on the Northern Alliance Radio Network:
- Volume I
The Opening ActThe First Team – John, Brian and Chad – will shoo the Stroms from the studio and kick things off from 11-1. - Volume II “The Headliner” – Ed is off on assignment again, and I’ll will be in next, from 1-3. Talking about the demonstrations, the Petraeus testimony, and interviewing author Marc Howard (Behind Enemy Lines). Tune in!
- Volume III, “The Final Word” – Rep. Laura Brod will join Michael to talk Minnesota trash after that until 5PM.
So join us on the Northern Alliance Radio Network, 11AM-5PM Central on AM1280 The Patriot, and at Townhall.com!
September 15th, 2007 at 8:37 am
Propoganda radio, all the time.
Mitchey, would you explain why, if you’re not a propogandist, you don’t use the adjective ‘Democratic’, but instead use the noun, Democrat, where an adjective is needed? You are a writer, and english expert – so I mean, I know it’s kind of a secret handshake thing among ‘movement Republicans’, which interetingly you describe yourself as one in past (or seemed to have), and then, yesterday, said you aren’t a Republican.
Is that like when you described yourself as a little ‘l’ liberterian, but ran on the big L liberterian ticket? Or was that some other Mitch Berg from St. Paul?
Just curious, maybe you could discuss the reasons for not using ‘Democratic’ on the radio today, or tell people how you’re not a Republican.. just a thought.
One other question from us inquiring minds, just how many Democrats have you voted for in Statewide or National elections in the last oh, say 20 years? By contrast, I’ve voted for 2 Republicans for Governor, 1 Senator, and my own representative is Jim Ramstad, who I voted for each of the past 8 elections, my Mayor is a Republican, whom I’ve not only voted for, but given money to… So just who is the centrist- in your ‘center-right’ radio world, because as centrism goes, you seem FAR from it, and I seem far closer to it.
I’d be interested to hear your take on Patraeus (ok, actually, NO I wouldn’t) because my view of his testimony was that he’s made progress on Al Qaeda through primarily non-military means, meaning the ‘surge’ was meaningless – and that success against Al Qaeda was the easiest area for success, and further, they represent only 5% of the forces fighting against us – i.e. killing each other, in Iraq in this Civil War. So, I’m not exactly sure what this success is that points to us ‘turning the tide’, but perhaps you can enlighten us all how it’s actually GREAT success when Patraues didn’t categorize it as anything other than limited, guarded. Considering the abject failure to resolve the Shiaa/Sunni conflict – well, I’d say the ‘success’ was at the edges at best, and next to meaningless at worst. It’s 4 years too late but you don’t get that, and as a Republican hack, doubtless even when you do, you’ll never admit it.
September 15th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Sorry .. meant last 8 years.. last 4 elections, on Ramstad.
September 15th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Sure am glad the ‘Decider in Chief’ is running (ruining) the Governement like a Business, I mean without him, where would we be..
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-09-15-failed-audits_N.htm
September 15th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Mitchey,
It’s actually “Mitch”. “Mr. Berg” if you’re nasty.
One other question from us inquiring minds, just how many Democrats have you voted for in Statewide or National elections in the last oh, say 20 years?
One.
he’s made progress on Al Qaeda through primarily non-military means
As if that’s either a bad thing or not a key part of fighting a counterinsurgency.
meaning the ’surge’ was meaningless
A long jump to a very short conclusion.
September 15th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Propoganda [sic] radio, all the time.
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
September 15th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Well then, it’s Peev, or Mr. Peevish if your nasty.
And it’s an enormously important point that this has been political generated, not military.. and it’s also enormously important that the ‘progress’ is against about 1% of the total problem (5% of the fighters are foriegn, and attacks are down what, 20% maybe? maybe less), the point is the progress is meaningless, and the presence of troops didn’t create ‘peace’ necessary to create political progress, perhaps you recall that was the goal, maybe? No, you’ll probably not recall that.
So, NO, it’s not a long jump, it’s an easy and obvious jump. And I guess we see just how non-partisan you are, one.
The key point is that the Shiaa are the largest problem, the key problem, and we’ve made no progress. Here’s why:
1. They want us to leave – they don’t give a crap about our threats to leave
2. They DON’T want a permanent presence in Iraq – they want us OUT
3. They are 65% of the population, they both want vengence against the Sunnis, and see that Iran will back them.
The overall problem is that we’ve got to avoid a regional, religious conflict, and while AQ is trying to start one (something to be countered, sure), our presence is basically just forstalling the inevitable. We’ve NOT created an atmosphere of peace, and the little bit of accomplishment is related working with the locals, who hate foriegn, religious zealots, but YOU claim that this country, which DOESN’T embrace religious zealots, is going to fall into zealotry (wahabism) if we leave. You don’t get the fact that we’re pushing them closer to zealotry by our presence, if we left, so would AQ. So YEAH it’s meaningless. and what’s more, it clear you don’t get it. This problem, once again, is far more complex than you have represented it to be, far more complex than this surge ever tried to address – and the success (the miniscule, nearly meaningless success) – is nearly TOTALLY unrelated to military presence. So when you talk about this, maybe you can talk aobut the fact that the military presence isn’t really the source of this very limited improvement, and the very limited improvement, is almost completely unrelated to solving the major problem, and the improvement could just as easily have been achieved by our leaving.
All that said, I don’t think we can leave. We would be condemning the Sunnis to death, and that’s just dead wrong, we can’t allow it. We also would be risking a regional religious war, and that would be dead wrong, we can’t allow it. THAT would be what you should talk about, but do it realistically, that we broke this thing, we have to fix it. But that would require you to be honest about it, which I don’t think the neo-kooks are willing to do.
September 15th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
And I guess we see just how non-partisan you are, one.
Everything else aside – and there might be a discussion there – but when have I ever tried to pass myself off as nonpartisan?
September 15th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
What? Mitch is partisan? This blog is partisan? I refuse to believe this! My fragile worldview cannot fathom such a thing!
September 16th, 2007 at 10:25 am
Yossarian,
Heh. Indeed.
Not sure where “non-partisan” has EVER leaked into my approach to things; this blog EXISTS as an act of overt partisanship.