You probably first became aware of former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren when he became disgusted by the debt-ceiling fiasco, quit his job, and went public with a scathing tell-all article at Truthout.org in September 2011.
To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.
Lofgren made news with this rhetoric chiefly because of his Republican pedigree. He began as a staffer for Rep. John Kasich in the early 1980’s. Kasich is now a two-term governor of Ohio. From there, Lofgren built his career focusing on military matters for the House Armed Services Committee and the budget committees of both the House and the Senate.
He followed his Truthout article with a 2012 book: The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted. I think the title is self-explanatory.
In the latest issue of the Washington Monthly, Mr. Lofgren writes about the war on terror and James Risen’s new book: Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War.
Lofgen doesn’t pulls any punches in this review, as you can tell with his opening:
When I was a congressional staffer, I became acutely aware that elected officials choose issues to put at the top of their agendas mainly for their ability to shake money out of the purses of contributors. The subsequent histrionics in the House or Senate chamber are pure theater for the benefit of C-SPAN and the poor recluses who watch it. Behind every political cause is a racket designed to privatize the profits and socialize the losses.
Lofgren concludes that the War on Terror is ultimately this kind of racket, too.
It is difficult to read Pay Any Price and not come away with the sick feeling that the Bush presidency—which, after all, only assumed office by the grace of judicial wiring and force majeure—was at bottom a corrupt and criminal operation in collusion with private interests to hijack the public treasury. But what does that say about Congress, which acted more often as a cheerleader than a constitutional check? And what does it tell us about the Obama administration, whose Justice Department not only failed to hold the miscreants accountable, but has preserved and expanded some of its predecessors’ most objectionable policies?
Partisans may squabble over the relative culpability of the Bush and Obama administrations, as well as that of Congress, but that debate is now almost beside the point. If Risen is correct, America’s campaign against terrorism may have evolved to the point that endless war is the tacit but unalterable goal, regardless of who is formally in charge.
You definitely want to read the whole thing. Over a 28-year career in Congress working on defense issues, Lofgren gained the kind of perspective you can’t get any place else.
I always thought of George W. Bush as a kind of tapeworm – blind, deaf, and stupid, but highly skilled at getting into the guts of anything that could produce nourishment and sucking on it. As long as a tapeworm is not too big, it doesn’t kill the host, but the parasites are proliferating.
once the middle class has been sacrificed to endless new markets for defense industry and grifters, they will have killed the host.
Yes.
Well, Dwight Eisenhower warned us. It really started with Kennedy, it’s just continued to grow. This is not a brand new insight.
Few things are new, but important truths have to be repeated endlessly because people are more easily led by emotional appeals than truths.
It wasn’t new when Ike said it either. Plus, he didn’t speak until he was on his way out the door after having allowed the MIC/CIA to proliferate while he was in office.
Ike wasn’t FDR who intended the decommissioning of the Pentagon at the end of WWII. Convenient for the military that he didn’t live that long.
And you have to remember that he knew all those other generals, many from cadet days at West Point, making his distrust all the more interesting.
Probably more concerned about those his generation left behind in positions of power. The Westmorelands, etc.
Those were the majors and colonels that were under him. He knew them too. And I found this snippet on Wikipedia that I never knew. “As a lieutenant colonel who served under LeMay, Robert McNamara was in charge of evaluating the effectiveness of American bombing missions” Interesting! Is that where Lt. Col. Robert Strange McNamara got his idea that if you just kill enough civilians you will win a war?
Didn’t know or recall that McNamara worked under LeMay in WWII, but did know what he did and that if he had been half as smart as he pretended to be, would have properly analyzed the results of WWII bombings and seen that it was a failure. iirc it’s in James Carroll’s House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power
All lives have through-lines which is why the bios of appointed and elected officials are very important. Contextualized bios are predictive of where those through-lines lead in later years. What Democrats dismiss about Hillary is that she was never a liberal. Probably unfair to characterize her as having been an authentic “Goldwater Girl” — but legitimate to recognize her Republican roots and at that time it wasn’t inconsistent for a Republican woman to reject segregation and embrace feminism. What does make a difference is when influences appear in a life and how their incorporated into an existing political thought and affiliation.
It appears that Hillary’s political/social development was sequential. GOP>support civil rights>feminist>anti-Vietnam war. Different profile from a woman raised to be oriented in favor of socialism/New Deal fairness and concurrently was exposed to and educated on civil rights, anti-war, and feminist figures and thoughts. Also during her formative years, the GOP wasn’t seen as the party of war. Three wars, three Democratic Presidents.
Don’t know whether she worked at sorting out all the various influences to define herself or went with what seemed more fashionable though most of the 1970s, but appears to me that it was more of the latter as publicly she has continuously drifted to the right. Now fully mature as a neo-liberal (anti-socialist/pro-capitalist) war-hawk.
Yes, I remember Republicans calling the Democrats the war party when I was young. Also recall Nixon running on his “secret plan” to end the war.
It was a neat formulation for sixty odd years. Republicans=recession/depression. Democrats=war. Pick your poison.
If we exclude the GOP covert wars in the second half the the twentieth century and Reagan’s teeny-tiny short lived wars, Bush I was the first Republican that presided over a recession and took the country to war twice. But the hot portion of his wars were done in less than a year. So, baby-Bush gets the honor significant, decades long wars, and a big-ass recession. As shame Democratic Presidents since LBJ have followed the GOP on economic issues and only somewhat lessened the war making actions of them.
Ike actually spoke about the evils and ultimate futility of militarism from the very beginning of his Presidency. His “Cross of Iron” speech was less than three months after his first Inauguration.
And, yes, during Eisenhower’s Administration we now know that actions by his CIA, and the Eisenhower Doctrine itself, violated many of the precepts he laid out in this speech. I still claim as a victory for morality the battle that Eisenhower laid down right away: we’re shouldn’t solve all our disagreements through military wars, and it’s immoral to pour massive amounts of Federal funds into weaponry. He really did want to restrain overall military spending, and he was unable to persuade the Soviet Union or his Congresses to do so.
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.” This is a moral victory, to have a President who is willing to say such a thing in public.
Wow!!! You do know that he was a Republican, right? You mean you are not a kneejerk Dem? Wow!!! You coulda fooled me!!!
AG
Not discounting the value of speech, but when actions are 180 degrees away from the speech, those words aren’t even worth two cents.
And when Ike got stuck with a DEM Congress, he used his mighty veto pen like a sword. Flourished it regularly and often. Oh, and let’s not forget that he was responsible for elevating Nixon to the national stage. As loathsome and dangerous a creature in his time as Dick Cheney.
Ike’s actions were not 180 degrees removed from the Cross of Iron speech. He ended our major military actions in Korea and kept us out of major military actions for the entirety of his Presidency. Yes, we escalated the buildup of our nuclear arsenal and the CIA was used covertly to control governance in many nations. I’d agree that his actions were significantly removed from Cross of Iron, but not entirely. And, if the Soviet Union had been willing to move away from the Cold War arms race in 1953 and ’54, I believe Eisenhower would have met them, to the degree that the politics of the era could have been responsive to his leadership in that area.
Ike also expressed regret for his choice of elevating Nixon. In that way, he at least showed a better sense than McCain does to this day, with his unretracted approval of Palin. While Nixon was a much more viable and determined politician than Palin, the choice of Palin as VP did “weaponize the stupid” in ways which continue to damage our political discourse. Not as bad as W. Bush’s VP choice, but awful all the same.
To equal McCain’s VP decision, Ike would have had to choose Joe McCarthy as his running mate. He went for a younger and less publicly strident version of an armchair Cold War warrior. And sort of never bothered to speak out against the crazy communist witch hunters of those days.
As Ike let the MIC/CIA run the Cold War that was ratcheted up during those years and did directly lead to the warm and hot conflicts in the decade that followed, does it matter that he didn’t preside over a large and hot conflict? We could say the same about Reagan, and I’m not giving him any FP kudos either.
What gets overlooked in evaluating Ike compared to others is that he was primarily a military man and not a politician. As a general, he had staff to handle operational details. But US generals don’t set policy; so, others did that for him as well. Ike played a lot of golf.
The Army under the Eisenhower Administration defended itself forcefully and publicly against McCarthy’s wild attacks. It’s safe to assume the President had something to do with making sure the Army/McCarthy Congressional hearings were mounted which allowed the public to see Tailgunner Joe crash on the rocks. While HUAC and other government and business associations continued other counterproductive witch hunts, the hearings and other events helped discredit McCarthy’s Peak Crazy form of anti-Communism.
Eisenhower can be seen consistently as wanting to reduce the vast armature buildup, and wanting to have both soft and hard power which could help the Soviet Union see that it was in our mutual interest to de-escalate. Again, I believe he would have signed a treaty if the politics had allowed it. Neither the USSR or Congress were inclined to support de-escalation, though, and the American public wasn’t pushing Congress to do so.
Reagan’s attitude in these areas was significantly different. His interest in increasing military spending was a centerpiece of his foreign policy. That differs with your claim that there was no real difference between the two. Eisenhower supported Labor, the New Deal, and government funding for infrastructure, and saw vast Defense spending as destructive to those; Reagan was much the opposite on each of these particulars. Ronnie’s budget priorities suggest he wanted DoD spending to swamp the Federal budget, making it easier to cut the Great Society/New Deal programs.
You mean it really started against Kennedy.
Precisely what I have been saying here since Obama proved to be a PermaGov team player.
Thus the question must be asked, Booman…how in good conscience can you remain a mainstream Democrat?
AG
BooMan could be forgiven for deciding not to accept your bait, Arthur. I’m feeling the desire to express to you why I’m not only a member of the Democratic Party despite Obama’s failings in some areas, but I’ve taken on leadership roles in my Party at the County and State level.
It’s because the Party needs to get better, as do the leaders we help elect, support, scold, lobby, and occasionally take out, and I’m just as inspired to do my part when the Party and its representatives in government fail us as when they honor us.
I’m a citizen of the United States before I’m a member of the Democratic Party. Many things my tax dollars have supported and our leaders have voted for are things I am furious about and ashamed of. But I WILL BE DAMNED if I’m abandoning this country. Abandoning the only national political party which is currently responsive to my governmental policy priorities at all is also something I will not do.
What, you think I’m going to abandon my Party so that a goddamn clown like Rand Paul has a better chance to get elected President, like you want, Arthur?
You think I’m going to abandon my Party when our leaders are just about the only ones who care to restore the Voting Rights Act? What, you think that I’m going to sit by and fail to support politicians who are fighting these evil Voter ID laws, evil laws that you support, Arthur?
You think that liberals should listen to you about how they can most effectively use their political power when your “avoid consuming any mainstream news” strategy is far, far from an effective plan to deliver us to a more sane foreign policy, particularly since your belief that Rand would be anything else other than a MIC-loving warmonger when the chips were down has been shown to be a delusion?
You think we should abandon the Democratic Party when we just saw our party’s leaders save us from another Great Depression? You think we should listen to you when you can’t bother your beautiful mind with a single solitary acknowledgement of any of the dozens of big policy wins that Obama’s Administration and his first Congress delivered to us?
No. To quote the writing of David Mamet, possessor of another good mind which has gone soft from Obama hatred, just like yours, “You’re a bad pony, and I’m not gonna bet on you.”
Step by step:
A noble sentiment, centerfielddj. But what about 16 years of “abandonment”? Clinton->Obama, with another 8 years of essentially supporting (w/much face=saving bullshit included) another War President? 24 years is a long time to be loyal to failure.
If your “governmental policy priorities” include a totally invasive surveillance state, severe failure at the federal governing infrastructure level and a permanent war foreign policy footing…why then I guess that statement makes sense.
I actually do not “want” Rand Paul to win. Whether he is a clown or not remains to be seen. Whether he would be able to follow though on his various policies also remains to be seen. Another thing that remains to be seen is a single other national-level politician who even dares to speak about the awful financial problems of the country or their connection with the bloated military budget. Elizabeth Warren talks a good game, but she is not…yet…in the game. Not the real life, nuts-and-bolts presidential game. So, i am paying attention to Rand Paul. Deal wid it.
Those Voter ID laws are not by themselves “evil”, centerfielddj. In their execution? Probably. Reform the system so that equal protection under the law is truly enforced and they would just be proof of citizenship.
We are not “saved” yet. However, the Governmental Media Complex is presently sending out that message in an extremely loud manne,r so I understand why you might think so. Our national debt situation is appalling. It cannot last. it cannot be ameliorated by printing money and talking trash forever. Then what? Crash is what, possibly on a world-wide level. I don’t know if the process can be stopped…it may have already past the point of no return…but if it is to be stopped the very first thing that must be done is to restructure the way the U.S. handles it monies.
First of all…fuck David Mamet. He’s just another fiction writer. And…I do not “hate” Barack Obama. I actually feel sorry for him. He got in way over his head with some rea,l behind the scenes power players and he failed. I think he initially had good intentions. Of course, you are aware of where that good intention road most often leads, right? Straight to hell. So it goes. I think that he will probably retire on his earnings and try to provide a good life for his descendants. Ok by me. Who’s up next? Biden? HRC? Bush III? One of the other RatPub locksteppers? Or Paul. Hmmmm….
I know which way I’m leaning.
You?
Later…
AG
Arthur, these points of yours are particularly representative of your world view:
“Another thing that remains to be seen is a single other national-level politician who even dares to speak about the awful financial problems of the country or their connection with the bloated military budget.”
I recall Kucinich made these the centerpiece of his POTUS campaign. What’s amusing about this is that you would surely find fault with Democratic Party leaders and the MSM for “non-personing” Dennis for his apostasy, and that if Kucinich had merely been given the Dem nomination, his moral clarity would have won the day. No, that would not have happened. Instead, we would have a President McCain who would be running a foreign policy which would dwarf Obama’s in its depravity and wasteful spending, with a President Palin waiting in the wings.
If you’re truly concerned about military spending, it’s interesting that you give Obama no credit for the fact that, at a momemt of GOP-manufactured crisis, he got the Republican budget hostage-takers to accept significant defense cuts equal in percentage and much greater in real dollars as part of the sequester budget cuts. Funny that you can’t recognize things like this at all, or even as keenly as you recognize the portions of our President’s foreign policy which appear to be moral and practical failures.
“Those Voter ID laws are not by themselves “evil”, centerfielddj. In their execution? Probably. Reform the system so that equal protection under the law is truly enforced and they would just be proof of citizenship.”
Love your passive voice here on an issue on which rests the ultimate survival of our Republic. You support the concept of Voter ID, with a shrug of the shoulders as you acknowledge that the purpose of the recent Voter ID laws passed by dozens of Republican-led States is to disenfranchise voters in ways that favor Republicans. And then your last sentence is the biggest confirmation of right-wing talking points imaginable. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE that voter fraud thru registered voter impersonations taking place anywhere in the U.S. in ways that deny voters equal protection.
So, please bag your advice to BooMan and other liberals. Or, as you will probably choose, continue to insult us while whistling into the wind some more.
No, the evidence of major voter fraud via fake voters is not there. But requiring a photo ID seems a minor inconvenience to stop that. The only valid argument against it is that some people cannot afford the ID. That is simply solved by free ID’s for the indigent or even everyone who does not have a driver’s license. By balking at the very concept of voter ID, Democrats lend credence to the fraud charges.
How about a lawsuit claiming an ID that you must pay for is a poll tax? I’d lend support (i.e. contribute money) to that.
“No, the evidence of major voter fraud via fake voters is not there. But requiring a photo ID seems a minor inconvenience to stop that.”
This is remarkable. Requiring a photo ID seems a minor inconvenience to “stop something” that DOES NOT EXIST in ways that can be confirmed through actual evidence. Yes, I’d say this captures the conservative movement’s argument, all right. Interesting that you’ve internalized such an illogical argument for laws which almost universally disenfranchise more liberal voters than conservative voters.
“…minor inconvenience…”. I believe that our Constitution and its amendments, and the best moral sensibilities in the United States, look pretty poorly at ANY inconvenience, minor or major, which blocks a person’s right to vote. The offense to the citizenry is maximized when the “minor inconvenience” is meant to stop fraudulent voter activity for which evidence of its existence “is not there.”
“That is simply solved by free ID’s for the indigent or even everyone who does not have a driver’s license.” No, this is incorrect. Wealthier people have a much easier time, and have much better access to, institutions which can be used to confirm identity AND address of residence. Many people with low incomes do not drive at all, so they are automatically disadvantaged in gaining the most frequent documentation necessary to vote. And their problems do not end at this inherently unequal starting point. Poorer people as a group also lack equal financial, physical and time resources to access government services in the ways required by almost all Voter ID laws.
For example, most voter ID laws require a person who does not have a driver’s license to provide their birth certificate. This creates scenarios like the ones which we have seen in these last, horrible years, where hundreds of thousands of voters in some States have seen the right to vote that they have exercised for decades could be and has been taken away in order to address an “issue” for which evidence of its existence “is not there.”
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/01/voter-id-laws
“Not even government-issued welfare cards and military identification cards were acceptable. Plenty of older Philadelphians, many of them black, do not even have a birth certificate.”
So, it’s not just the money. It’s the time, it’s the personal and financial resources that exist outside the poll tax aspect, it’s the fact that those most likely to vote for liberal policies are the same ones who are most likely to be disenfranchised by ANY form of a voter ID law, and it’s the intense, searing immorality of blocking a chosen group from exercising their equal voting rights in order to “solve” a specific problem exists not in the United States, but only in the imaginations of the evil rich and those they have deluded.
“Not even government-issued welfare cards and military identification cards were acceptable.” Well they should be. That’s why I say with fixes it could work. The more Democrats insist on no documentation at all, the more the suspicion rises that Democrats want voter fraud. So, why are you so insistent about no photo? You’re practically frothing at the mouth.
It’s the time? Really? Democrats are hot to register people who can’t be bothered to make any effort to vote?
Just sad. No wonder Republicans keep getting more votes.
Please resolve the cognitive dissonance between these two statements:
“No, the evidence of major voter fraud via fake voters is not there.”
and
“The more Democrats insist on no documentation at all, the more the suspicion rises that Democrats want voter fraud.”
How can Democrats “want voter fraud” if “evidence of major voter fraud via fake voters is not there”?
Violence is done to the sacred right to vote when we allow ourselves to bargain how much we will restrict that right in order to solve a NONEXISTENT problem.
I’d add that violence is also done to the concept of a fact-based discussion of policy issues.
On the 50th anniversary of the brutal police beatings of peaceful marchers in Selma who were fighting for equal access to the ballot box, yes, you have correctly identified that my emotion rises when someone wants to insult the memories of those who were beaten, murdered, oppressed and intimidated in the long fight for the Voting Rights Act by taking away that right from anyone.
It is particularly infuriating that you appear to ENDORSE taking the right to vote away from those you judge as making insufficient effort to deal with voter suppression efforts which are designed to target them.
Kucinich was the equivalent of a vanity publishing act. He had no operation, no organization and no real funding. Ergo, he was not really a “national-level politician.” Rand Paul is a whole ‘nother thing. Bet on it.
He…and/or his handlers… simply found cheaper, more efficient ways to continue the ongoing Blood For Oil slaughter. Or at least he thought he did. ISIS is the direct result of his 7 years of effort in that direction. A win? I think not.
As far as “voter registration” is concerned…I repeat:
I stand by that statement.
You support a fixed, Permanent Government/PermaWar/Uniparty system.
I do not.
End of story.
WTFU.
AG
There are significant differences between the political parties on most major policy areas. Failing to admit that is failing to be honest. To begin a list that could stretch on for dozens of paragraphs:
Republicans want tens of millions of Americans to lose their health insurance, which would certainly increase pain, suffering, death and financial ruin. Democrats do not.
Republicans not only want to force pregnant women to give birth even when that is against their will or risks their health, they want to deny the right for some women to have real access to contraceptives so they can avoid unwanted pregnancies. Democrats do not want to do those things.
Republicans want to fully enable financial institutions and major employers to stomp on average citizens, and want to enable them to refuse to provide necessary funds so the government, infrastructure and individuals who support their businesses suffer. Democrats have taken action to prevent these outcomes.
You will issue selective denials in order to assert that these are untrue. Your denials will do nothing to change the fact that they are true.
The whole so-]called “health” industry is a pack of lies. So is the insurance industry. All of it. Give Americans access to a healthy diet and freedom from the lies of Big Pharma and our health would skyrocket. As it stands now it is nothing but a a bipartisan scam fueled by monstrous amounts of lobbyist money.
Both sides of the same UniParty counterfeit coin support the decayed media system that encourages both men and women to fuck indiscriminately without any thought of the consequences. A shame in the eyes of the universe.
Democrats have taken action to prevent these outcomes!!!??? Effective action? Oh. My error. Then how come “these outcomes” are still both continuing and demonstrably growing worse with time? I call bullshit.
You are correct in one thing. I will indeed “issue selective denials in order to assert that these are untrue.” Your mistake is in thinking that you have a clue about what is happening here. We are in the last days of empire, centerfielddj. If we do not take action now, soon will come our own Nero, fiddling and diddling while Rome burns.
Watch.
AG
Arthur,
Please proceed.
You are no Barack Obama, centerfielddj. And I am no Mitt Romney. Get a life.
AG
Hey, Arthur, are you supportive of Rand Paul’s very principled libertarian position on this issue?
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2015/03/libertarian-theocrat.html
Will Rand succeed in growing that bipartisan, multigenerational coalition you dream of with positions like this?
We shall see, won’t we centerfielddj. To the winners go the laurels; to the losers go the blame. I have no preferences, myself. I don’t care who you wish to fuck nor do I care what you call it. It will all work out as it must. Will Paul’s positions prevail? Maybe, maybe not. Will the U.S.’s economic imperialist, .01%-dominated surveillance state win the competition? Could be, but my life-long observation is that karma’s effects are inevitable. Good and bad.
We shall see, soon enough.
Won’t we.
Meanwhile…wake the fuck up. Your Dems are no better than the Rats.
Bet on it.
Ask the corpses.
AG
Are you speaking of the corpses needlessly and recklessly created in the Republican-controlled States which refuse to expand Medicaid eligibility, blocking expansions of health services which would have been fully funded by the Affordable Care Act?
http://healthaffairs.org/blog/2014/01/30/opting-out-of-medicaid-expansion-the-health-and-financial-i
mpacts/
Between 7,115 and 17,104 corpses in a single year. Yeah, that’s a lot of needless dead that would have been prevented if the Republicans truly were a UniParty with the Democrats.
Or DemonRats, led by Not-my-President Obummer. Or so I’ve been told by my UniParty partners.
A drop in the bucket of blood that the PermaWar system has created worldwide since the early 1950s. Can you really continue to ignore what Osama bin Laden wrote in 2004?
Have you no conscience whatsoever? Are you that deep into American exceptionalism that you count the losses…caused by an entirely crooked political system in the first place…of thousands of American lives more important than the losses of tens of thousands of non-American lives in any given year? As Joseph Welch said to Joe McCarthy during the 1954 Army-McCarthy Hearings that really announced the launch of the right wing into prominence in our national government:
The same question could be asked of the entire federal government no matter what parties have supposedly controlled it since JFK’s assassination.
Have we left no sense of decency?
On the evidence, it appears not
Karma exists.
Bet on it.
What goes around comes around.
Bet on that as well.
It’s only a matter of time unless we change our course.
Only a matter of time.
How long?
Any day now.
Aaaany day now…or maybe a little longer. Whenever.
So it goes and wake the fuck up.
AG
We should all care to fight for policies which prevents needless suffering and death of all people on Earth. Your hatred of our foreign policy appears to have caused a derangement which has you demanding here that we ignore the needless suffering and death of Americans. Keep digging, buster. Suffice to say your policy concerns are more than a little cloistered.
I’d also quarrel with your concept of karma. Judging by your posts, you appear to view karma as the way the people you hate will be punished. Whatever gets you through the night, I guess.
Let’s chill, shall we?
I don’t “hate” anybody, centerfielddj. What goes around comes around, as the simplest neighborhood teenager knows until media-misedumacted out of it. The criminals who are running the USA (The United Scam of America) will all get their due eventually, just as happens to everyone who stands in the way of the evolution of the life of Life. Millions will go down with them, most likely. So it goes. I’ll go down as honest and strong as I can be. Dassit. That’s all she wrote. No hatred, just understanding of what happens. If I think I can do a little bit to somewhat ameliorate the results of this process I take a shot at it. Otherwise…? I remain fairly detached from the whole circus. Bet on it. Wasting my energies on hate wouldn’t do a damned thing to stop what’s going down. Bet on that as well.
Have a nice day.
AG
Let me give you a round of extended applause for making the coherent arguments and having the patience to argue with AG. Less rewarding than arguing with a brick wall that.
Yes, indeed he could. But he cannot be forgiven for continuing to support the (so-called) left wing of the PermaWar party.
As can be plainly seen by the events in the Middle East and most of the rest of the Musilm world, the awful toll of American involvement in the region since Poppy Bush invaded (with the support of most people in power in both parties here in the U.S.) has not been forgiven.
Neither can supporting the very entities that produced those wars.
End of story.
AG
Kind of the same thinking behind all those frantic daily emails from DNC, MoveOn etc. Fundraising based upon the outrage du jour.
And what has MoveOn done, exactly? They can’t claim Net Neutrality as a whole host of groups were involved.
My latest political group:
Move Away.
AG
That’s the same argument that, in the wake of Citizens United, Democrats act no different than Republicans. Or, that opposition to Keystone XL go after for funding just as vigorously as its supporters do. Or, that LA is the same as New York because you need gas to drive to either one.
Partisans may squabble over the relative culpability of the Bush and Obama administrations …
That’s the framing that I was searching for when discussing how tiresome national politics have become (always been?). Endless squabbling by partisans over relative culpability or shortcomings on every issue.
All the “X did it too; so, it doesn’t matter that Y did it.” Followed by, “But when Y did it, it was worse.” Always avoiding the big elephant — it’s not acceptable regardless of who did it. So, Petraeus and the banksters get off with slaps on the wrist, and some penny-ante thief and Chelsea Manning are locked up for decades.
Outstanding review of an outstanding book. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.