As the Cold War was prolonged by the CIA/MIC for their own profit, the foreign policy pundits existed to justify the party line of the evil Soviet intentions. Many of the pundits were funded by the CIA/MIC. Now that the Cold War is officially over, these folks are still harping the party line, one that involves lots of expensive hardware and can be potentially profitable to their benefactors.

With the major media either owned directly by GE or beholing to it through advertising (including NPR). That is why Chomsky will never be heard from, because he is dogmatically opposed to solutions involving more fighter jets, the engines of which are made by GE.

Who does fund the AEI, or Hudson, or Manhattan, or Brookings? At a time when the NYT is cutting news jobs to save money, who pays for Tommy Friedman to fly first class all over the world? He's given a venue like no other. Who thinks what he writes is of so much value?

...one has to wonder about applying the "public financing" notion for election campaigns to producing war munitions & equipment, too, but with the added twist of only for "cost," i.e., labor, materials, etc., but no profit. I.e., not cost plus. After all, why should there be profit in producing something as "patriotic" as weaponry that will by its very use require deep sacrifices of men and women overseas. Such a plan would, unlike the current system, spread the burden of sacrifice.

Would that scenario be enough to shrink the "military industrial complex" down to a size small enough to drown it in... say, an Olympic sized swimming pool? (A bathtub is awfully small.) And return us to pre-WWII war spending?

What about the loss of defense jobs? Well, Nancy Pelosi is already working on that Green Jobs idea, and I'm sure there are plenty more of those ideas where that one came from. Perhaps even some kind of retraining program for the war mongers themselves...

Okay, ondelette, so there are probably more motives imaginable than I had dreamt about today. But this one isn't any better...

Is anyone else starting to go into withdrawal not having a new Greenwald post to read and comment about?

I'm feeling all shaky and anxious inside, hitting so often on the Salon.com homepage Firefox is crashing.

Cripes, I need a drink ...

that's why this thread is still rolling along.

What, you didn't like my idea of a non-profit scenario to replace the military-industrial complex? ;~)

"US Promotes Free Elections, Only to See Allies Lose"

This story by Hassan Fattah fits so well with what Glenn has been saying. Here's my favorite from the story:

In part, regional analysts say, candidates are tainted by the baggage of American foreign policy — from its backing of Israel to the violence in Iraq. But more important, they say, American support is often applied to one faction instead of to institutions, causing further division rather than bringing stability.

Yup, analysts in Dubai can see very clearly that Bush's "policy" of supporting factions only serves to cause more resentment and violence. No "serious" analyst here could say that, of course, even though it is the truth. Kind of surprising it made it into the Times.

Does Bush really want free and fair elections in Pakistan?

Dear Senator Feinstein,

It has come to my attention that Jane Mayer has published a piece in the most recent New Yorker, which I have just read, which asserts that the ICRC has sent the U.S. government communications which assert that the conduct of people at the CIA secret prisons was "tantamount to torture" and discussed whether "grave breaches" of the Geneva Conventions occurred. The rest of the article goes on to describe very systematic and calculated techniques used, the participation of psychologists in design and execution, and frequent calls to Washington for permission to proceed on some tactics. The tactics reduce a person's will to nothing, using techniques like sensory deprivation, long vertical positioning to the extent of causing edemas and renal failure problems, sleep deprivation, privations including nudity in the presence of the opposite sex, threats of death and waterboarding. Some of the assertions amount to months worth of sensory deprivation, a technique that can cause psychotic breaks within hours.

The article mentions that the ICRC document has been seen by certain members of the administration, and select members of the Senate and House, but has been "classified top secret" as have been methods.

As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee of rank, and due to what we heard during the FISA debates, it is not too hard to connect the dots and surmise that you would have been one of those select few.

I do understand the necessity of keeping secrets in today's world. There are secrets kept by the government for National Security, and secrets kept by the Press for confidentiality, and secrets kept by corporations for IP reasons. But keeping such a document secret from the American people is a grave violation of the trust we place in our government. If there were grave breaches tantamount to torture of Geneva, in a systematic fashion, then I believe that the public has a right to know whether the Bush administration is guilty of crimes against humanity, as Geneva specifies.

All legitimate governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed. So says the U.N. Charter. Our own country asserts a government of, for, and by the People.

Richard Nixon once famously said, "People want to know whether their president is a crook. Well, I am not a crook." In this case, People have a right to know whether their government has committed grave offenses in their name. I believe that transcends any duties you have to keep top secret documents that attest that secret. You have a duty and an obligation to the people of this country to come forward, and state what you know.

I am also sending a version of this letter to other people in Congress, and a version to the Press, who must transcend their confidentiality of sources for the same reason you must transcend your security clearance. We have a right to know.

Sincerely, your constituent,