Letters to the Editor
-
Evil Sunni / Good Sunni
Any government or group that takes money from and is allied with the U.S. is inherently good.
The Sunni of El Anbar Province one of the most hilarious examples of this. They were horrible murdering bastards until they agreed to start taking our money. Then they instantly became the brave and nobly-sacrificing "Concerned citizens of Iraq".
-
that's why we can't have nice things
"But that self-delusion is the core principle of our establishment's foreign policy discussions."
indeed. you can't function effectively, when your model of the world is so badly flawed.
-
All this is is the Cold War all over again
It almost made sense back when we faced a near-superpower with whom we could not engage in a shooting war. Because of that, we had to play chess with the Soviets. Or at least we thought we did.
But how do you play chess when your opponent never comes to the board, and doesn't have any pieces? Apparently, by changing the rules and playing checkers instead. That way, we can acquire as many kings as we want. Especially if we play it solitaire.
And that's how you know the whole game is a sham.
-
Obama linked to FARC! I needed a laugh...
But it takes total self-delusion to advocate the former while self-lovingly convincing yourself that you're a beacon of the latter.
This is a bit off-topic and relates more to your previous post, but speaking of self-delusion: the nuttiest faction of Greater Wingnuttia is now attempting to link Obama to FARC because his name was found on a computer saying that he’d be the candidate most likely to become president – that’s his link to the terrorists.
In her typical hyperbolic and dishonest style, Pamela-the-Insane writes:
FARC COMPUTERS NAME BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA!
Terrorists across the globe want their man to win. Obama is the choice of America's worst enemies
Much of the world thinks Obama will be the next president, but only the most self-deluded would try to make that opinion a link to terrorists.
For those needing a bit of comic relief today, links to this laughable lunacy can be found here:
http://www.memeorandum.com/080305/p64#a080305p64
-
Hiatt's tooliocity
Absolutely correct Glen but Chomsky beat you to this point by several decades.
-
Dark Ages America
I am about finished with the book having the title of this post. The subtitle is - The Final Phases of Empire, and it is by Morris Berman.
The book covers recounts our shameful foreign policy which has been covered over by people like Hiatt. We are surprised when the blow back occurs, but the rest of the world knows about who we are and what we have done.
A consistent theme is our denial. If you are Danish and you criticize the government, you are not called un-Danish. Only in America do we use this kind of conformity to keep us in line. This lack of honesty is a piece of the end of our empire. The author sees the empire going down with nothing to stop it.
When he first heard about "freedom fries" he thought it was a high school prank. When he realized that it was a congressman, his response is that our Republic is dead. At the end he blames the American public. The information is out there, but we are two complacient to find out what is going on.
-
sustaining the contradiction
Glen Greenwald writes: "There's no way to sustain that level of self-righteous moralizing without genuinely succumbing to the delusion."
I disagree. The other way to sustain that level is if it contributes to being paid large sums of money. Now, it may be that he's also delusional, I just don't agree that he necessarily is. Does he really buy both sides of this, or is it just part of the gig?
-
Joe McCarthy
must be having a great laugh at all this and Murrow must be turning in his grave.
This is definitely similar to the 50's in the regard to 'if you aren't with us, you're against us.' Any dissent, disagreement or even an attempt to illuminate the dark corners where malfeasance occurs is seen by the flag waving, self proclaimed 'patriots' as being disloyal or the new term abiding and abetting the 'terrorists.'
And where are the MSM journalists besides waiting in bathrooms for their meals like compliant puppies? Where is objective news?
Oh, we are told time and time again that it is a 'liberal' media with a liberal bias but we know that is crap, complete and utter crap. The MSM is ostensibly independent of the manufacture of government but in reality is nothing but a propaganda tool for disseminating the lies of a government that cares not for it's people, nor for the Constitution on which its foundation once was built, nor for the longtime future be it economic, through the application of fair justice or the providing of real security of its citizens.
Instead we have a government and a press only concerned with the acquisition of wealth and power by any means, even if in the long or short run it leads to social ruin. (See FISA)
Is every generation doomed to repeat the mistakes of the previous? It would seem sadly so.
Thanks Glenn for keeping the flashlight on.
-
Could be worse
[Glenn, channelling Hiatt]: "Anyone who doesn't like me and resists what I say is a Terrorist that is always in the wrong."
But if you ask Dubya, they're not "Terrorist[s]". They're certified "al Qaeda in <x>™'....
;-)
Cheers,
-
Indeed...
[Glenn, from the post]: Hiatt isn't unique but rather is entirely typical of how our political establishment discusses America's role in the world.
"America ... good" If you don't say that; if you question the goodness in the heart (or in effect) of any American misadventure overseas, why, you're defeating American interests and objectively hurting America and are either filled with self-loathing and want to hurt yourself and others ... or, on a more sinister bent, are one of those enemies actively working to overthrow the Amur'kun System™....
Cheers,
-
It is the unspoken assumption
Implicit in neo-conservativism. I remember reading the original PNAC manifesto, and being struck by the aggrieved tone of self-entitlement they had about what they saw as the glaring deficiencies in America's military capacities.
I don't remember their specific complaints per se, but it was a list of potentially useful force projection weapons that are basically only useful once you have concluded the world is your rightful playground.
There is simply no where that should be beyond the reach of US forces by air, sea or land (or space). Utter strategic dominance is their goal.
Once you make that decision, then suddenly not having an 8th or 9th aircraft carrier in some faraway sea becomes a "hole" in your nation's defenses. Suddenly the inability to deploy attack helicopters in central africa in 48 hours or less is a "problem" to be solved.