Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
wlegro
Published Letters: 98
These people don't seem to exist in the real world, although they fancy themselves as realists in the mode of Henry Kissinger. The damage Kissinger did is still with us, and with people like Robert and Fred Kagan and the rest of the foreign policy community running things, it's not likely we'll ever get started repairing the damage.
The problem is that they listen only to each other. It's incestuous. A closed loop. They emerge from their high castle to patiently educate us morons about the true nature of human civilization and the resulting absolute requirement that we be hard-nosed, pre-emptive, and aggressive. "We know what's best for the world," they say. "We have Ph.D.s! So just sit back and let us handle this mess."
Robert is one of the founders of Project for the New American Century. Just that name alone should give one pause: So now we're taking ownership of centuries? He deigned to share his vision of America's role in the world recently in the L.A. Times. It's chilling.
The singular personal aspect about the Kagans and their ilk is that they cannot be reached with any other vision of reality and geopolitics. They're impervious. There is something seriously wrong - psychologically - with people who cannot seriously consider alternatives to their points of view.
But the worst thing is not their self-imposed isolation, founded on an unwarranted sense of superiority. No. The worst thing is that they have power. Power in the hands of such people is a fearsome thing, and always has catastrophic consequences.
Glenn, you wrote: Ignatius did exactly the same in his column last week where he warned Democrats that they would pay a steep price unless they capitulated on FISA.
Well, Ignatius speaks and Pelosi and Reid listen, and fall into line. The New York Times headlines late Monday online: Democrats Seem Ready to Extend Wiretap Powers.
Oh, but we're assured by a Pelosi hack that it'll be a better bill this time, even if it's good for another five years or so: "We are giving the N.S.A. what it legitimately needs for national security but with far more limitations and protections than are in the Protect America Act,” said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Speaker Nancy Pelosi...
And why are the Democrats rolling over to expose their soft underbelly to the Top Dog? Says the article: Although willing to oppose the White House on the Iraq war, they remain nervous that they will be called soft on terrorism if they insist on strict curbs on gathering intelligence.
You know, pundidiots like Ignatius and Broder may be mere stenographers grateful to be on the White House "A" list for access, but Pelosi and Reid are even greater dumbasses. They're too stupid to realize how powerful they actually are, and where this power comes from, and so, slack-jawed and witless, they read pundidiots and believe everything they read.
It's ironic: They're so afraid of being called soft on terrorism that they surrender the enormous power they have to challenge such baseless epithets. In other words, they fear being labeled "weak" so much that they fear using their strength.
The Democrats' abysmal behavior is not only traitorous to the voters who put their faith in them but is beginning to reveal a chilling truth: Pelosi and Reid actually don't fear being perceived as weak; rather, they actually do subscribe to the methods the Bush administration employs to subvert the Constitution and make America the enemy of the world. They actually believe in domestic spying, the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and all the other Bush programs designed to neuter Congress and castrate the Constitution.
Actions speak louder than words, and Pelosi and Reid are little lambs being led to slaughter. In the eyes of history, they will be regarded as weak not on terrorism but on their constitutional duties, and their weakness will be seen as having enabled an authoritarian president to weaken the Constitution and the nation beyond repair.
and I told him to refund my money so I can give it to Glenn Greenwald's campaign against Democrats who either don't understand or care about the Constitution. The Constitution is infinitely more important than Obama or any president or person in this country, because without it we don't have the country we think we have.
I don't think I'm being petulant, or perfectionist. I can see, as Glenn says, that this is just one of many such actions we'll see from Obama. Well, I don't like being lied to, and from my perspective that's what he's done (if he indeed filibusters the bill, I'll eat my words). "New kind of politics" my ass. I was just beginning to have a little bit of hope for this guy, first time in decades, so it feels much worse to be betrayed so quickly. Again. I don't have anybody to vote for. Again.
The impelling reason for my decision to not vote for Obama, though, is not just idealism; it's practicality coming to the rescue of my principles. I live in California. He doesn't need my vote. Frankly, I don't think he gives a damn one way or another. He knows most people who want to kick the Republicans out of the White House have no choice but to vote for him, and he can do without the rest of us in safe states - and so he can safely vote for such egregiously unconstitutional, corrupting bills like the FISA bill.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
