Beware: Promises Being Kept

David Thornton

David Thornton is a freelance writer and professional pilot who has also lived in Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. He is a graduate of the University of Georgia and Emmanuel College. He is Christian conservative/libertarian who was fortunate enough to have seen Ronald Reagan in person during his formative years. A former contributor to The Resurgent, David now writes for the Racket News with fellow Resurgent alum, Steve Berman, and his personal blog, CaptainKudzu. He currently lives with his wife and daughter near Columbus, Georgia. His son is serving in the US Air Force. You can find him on Twitter @CaptainKudzu and Facebook.

Related Post Roulette

13 Responses

  1. Philip H
    Ignored
    says:

    He’s definitely keeping his promise to drain the swamp. Tens of thousands of probationary federal employees are being fired as I type.

    The only problem is most of them don’t sit in DC. Which means there will be real impacts elsewhere.

    To say nothing of the economic devastation being wrought by ending grants and clawing back infrastructure funding.Report

  2. John Puccio
    Ignored
    says:

    I appreciate the attempt to defend a neocon position with a George Orwell quote.

    Only problem is that there is no evidence he ever said or wrote that sentence – or anything like it.Report

    • Chris in reply to John Puccio
      Ignored
      says:

      Only problem is that there is no evidence he ever said or wrote that sentence – or anything like it.

      Not only is this an actual Orwell quote, but it’s from a fairly well known Orwell essay, one in which he discusses one of his major influences for the ideas in 1984, James Burnham, a man who was a frequent contributor to the National Review, and an influence on American neoconservatism, though like Orwell, the early neoconservatives disagreed with him on many points, and Burnham was himself openly critical of neoconservatives, as was pretty much required back in the day to publish in National Review.Report

      • Chris in reply to Chris
        Ignored
        says:

        Sorry, meant to link to the essay, and somehow didn’t:

        https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwell/essays-and-other-works/second-thoughts-on-james-burnham/

        I’m genuinely curious about what made you so confident that he hadn’t said it. Not only is it on his Wikiquote page, with the source, but it’s from a pretty well-known Orwell essay, at least among people who actually read Orwell beyond the two books everyone’s read. Hell, the essay has its own Wikipedia page:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Thoughts_on_James_BurnhamReport

        • John Puccio in reply to Chris
          Ignored
          says:

          Thanks for sharing this. Great essay.

          To answer your question, I read the quote and thought – that’s a curious Orwell attribution and wondered about the context, because it didn’t sound particularly Orwellian.

          I Googled but couldn’t find the source. I asked ChatGPT a couple of ways and its response was: The quote “The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it.” is attributed to George Orwell, but there is no clear record of him writing or saying it in any of his known works. It does not appear in his books, essays, or journalistic writings.

          I prompted Gronk, and it had a similar output.

          Hence my confidence. Lesson learned.

          In my defense, Thornton did write “but as George Orwell supposedly said” – so I’m not the only one here unfamiliar with this essay. And as I suspected, having now read the essay, the context of the Orwell quote doesn’t actually support the OPs neocon argument.Report

  3. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    One of the best dark comedy moments from his 45 term was actually moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
    He said he was gonna do it and, by gum, he did it!

    And no one will ever be able to use the whole “we’re gonna move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem!” applause line in a campaign speech ever again.

    Well, until the Dems move it back.Report

  4. Jaybird
    Ignored
    says:

    The eternal question is “is a war continuing a worse moral failure than it ending on terms you don’t like?”

    And if the war doesn’t end, we can ask it again next year.

    “This is all well and good, but why do we have to keep sending funds to keep the war continuing?” is a good question to ask and, to be fair, I have received a handful of good answers to the question.

    “We have a moral obligation to make sure that the war ends on our terms and not their terms.”
    “We’re getting real-time feedback on the quality of the weapons we’re sending Ukraine and that means that our weapons will be even better next time.”
    “Russia messed with us during Vietnam, now we mess with them. Payback is a best served cold.”

    And next year is just 10 1/2 months away!Report

    • Chris in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      “Russia messed with us during Vietnam, now we mess with them. Payback is a best served cold.”

      I thought we got them back much sooner, in their “Vietnam.”

      Hopefully this time our payback doesn’t produce villains who will haunt us for decades and result in our being mired in an endless war on a concept like the last one.Report

    • InMD in reply to Jaybird
      Ignored
      says:

      I think you’re being too reductive, which may well be downstream of the politics created by the Biden admin’s apparent lack of strategic thinking.

      The question facing the US is whether any settlement with Russia at this moment can result not just in a temporary halt to hostilities but in sustainable peace. If we cut off support to Ukraine and Russia rebuilds and comes back in a few years, like what’s happened previously, then it wasn’t really peace to begin with. And if that happens, it opens the possibility that the conflict expands to NATO countries which in turn forces us to decide whether mutual defense is real or a bluff. That position is a no win whichever direction we go because we’re either in a hot war with a nuclear armed adversary or we’ve removed ourselves from relevance as a major world power.

      So while we need to be cautious about escalations the idea that we can just walk away from this isn’t born out by the strategic realities.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to InMD
        Ignored
        says:

        So we have to be there indefinitely, giving them money indefinitely, until… what?

        If the answer is “until we’re relatively certain that it won’t happen again the second we stop looking”, I’d like to know how we’re going to measure that.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *