Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiA Whole School of Trout in the Milk: What We Already Know About Iraq From the People Who Launched the War
Now that Scott McClellan -- a member of the Bush inner circle dating back to Texas days -- has come out of the closet, it becomes increasingly unimaginable how any of the true-believers can continue to truly believe. But they do.
One wonders what it would take to dissuade these folks from their faith-based politics and the belief that the war in Iraq was justified. Will they need Laura Bush to actually turn on her husband? What if George's pastor came out and divulged that the president had broken down and confessed all, begging the lord's forgiveness?
It's unlikely even those would be sufficient. And anyhow, the White House would go into its standard defensive posture that it employs whenever this happens, describing the truth-teller as "sad," lamenting his obvious psychological pathology without of course coming out and saying quite that, wondering aloud why he's never spoken out before. Indeed, it's a wonder that McClellan wasn't better prepared for this completely scripted response to his revelations, especially as he had used it himself against Richard Clarke, Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame.
Anyhow, all the true believers watching Fox will continue to truly believe. As the mayhem of the Bush years dwindles into numbed, robotic destruction and the tragedy of once noble national aspirations not only ruined but now also forgotten, it becomes ever more painfully obvious why these folks cannot let go, no matter how compelling nor how broad the growing mountain of evidence.
They are simply frightened to death. Frightened of bad people, frightened of brown people, frightened of terrorist threats blown ridiculously out of proportion, frightened of existential meaningless, frightened of cosmic insignificance. And now, to that weighty pile, must be added this: They are so frightened of their own complicity in bringing death, disaster, destruction and ungodly sorrow to Iraq that they can now only resort to astonishing levels of self-delusion to maintain their sanity. At this point, I almost don't blame them anymore. They were so lazy, so stupid, so callow, so mean-spirited, so prejudiced that they bought into a crime of epic (and epochal) proportions and can no longer imaginably bear taking responsibility for the damage they've produced. And yet, people continue to suffer and die. Every day spent still supporting the war out of fear or laziness or stupidity or any of the rest is another day's additional responsibility, another oil tanker of blood poured on hands long ago soaked to the bone.
And that responsibility is grave indeed. We don't know (because the White House doesn't want us to know) how many Iraqis have perished for Mr. Bush's Folly, but the best estimates are over one million. We know that almost five million have been turned into refugees. Combined, that is over one-fifth of this country's population. We know that over 4,000 Americans have been sacrificed, with tens of thousands gravely wounded and uncounted more tens of thousands psychologically traumatized. We know that our country's reputation has been shattered, and that we've spent our children's future livelihoods to pay for it by borrowing from them, without even asking for the money. That is a very large load to bear, so now people are compounding their original sin with additional ones, because they are so frightened of what they've caused that they'd rather continue causing more of the same than confront their responsibility, even when a Scott McClellan comes along and sticks it in their face.
The truth is, though, we never needed McClellan's revelations to begin with. Just a bit of simple logic, combined with even a small, half-filled pail of basic factual information would have rendered the war rationale absurd from the beginning, well before an invasion morphed into an occupation, which morphed then into a debacle. Saddam's Iraq was no threat to anybody in 2003. I mean, how threatening can a guy be who has already lost control of two-thirds of his own airspace, while his citizens are dying of malnutrition by the hundreds of thousands from internationally-imposed sanctions? How scary can a country be, when it has neither attacked yours, nor threatened to? Whatever happened to the logic of deterrence, a mechanism that prevented an infinitely more powerful Soviet Union from attacking the US through forty years of cold war? Why was Saddam bad when he attacked his neighbors in Kuwait, but not when he did the same thing to Iran, with American support and encouragement? Why was he considered evil for using chemical weapons when we wanted to go to war against him, but not when he actually was doing it, during which time the very same people in the US government protected him from international rebuke? If we knew where the WMD were, why didn't we just tell the inspectors where to look? Why was Iraq such a threat that the inspectors couldn't be allowed to finish their work, which would have required only a month or two more time? If Saddam was already so threatening, wouldn't invading his country be just the thing to trigger an attack by him, using his WMD? Weren't we supposed to be fighting the people who did 9/11, not a country that had nothing whatever to do with that? Why was Iraq all of a sudden such an immediate and urgent threat in March of 2003, when it hadn't been less than a year earlier? Why did nearly the whole rest of the world condemn this war of choice?
We could go on and on from there. But there isn't really much point. Anyone who wanted to think through the implications of the Bush administration's line on Iraq could have instantly realized that it was a load of crap, even before the subsequent revelations. Now, of course, we know even more about what happened, making the war an even more sadly ridiculous proposition. There are many examples of these post-hoc logical absurdities to add to the pre-war ones just described, but my favorite is the juxtaposition of the incredible urgency to attack Iraq (and Iran) over WMD development, while the administration continues to yawn over North Korea, the one country on their own embarrassingly juvenile "Axis of Evil" list (hey, which super-hero cartoon series did they pull that nonsense out of?) that actually did go nuclear on their watch.
To the logic and the facts, however, we also now have a large raft of testimony. Laura Bush may not yet have weighed in, though in many ways we've got even better than that. We have the voices of the architects themselves. We actually have Bush and Cheney and their PNAC cronies previewing the war and giving its real rationale. We have Wolfowitz and Card and Zelikow and Rove explaining the lies. We have Richard Clarke and Paul O'Neill witnessing them. We have Rumsfeld incriminating himself. We have the Downing Street Memos memorializing the process of deceit. And now we have McClellan confirming all of the above from within the inner circle.
I'm reminded, looking at the totality of this information, of Thoreau's line about evidence. Remarking on the difficulty of definitively proving an allegation in many cases, he nevertheless noted that it can sometimes be done, notwithstanding even the fervent denials of the culprits. Suspecting his milkman of watering down the delivered product, Thoreau said, "Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk."
When it comes to Iraq, there is a whole school of trout in the milk. And, yet, we're not talking about circumstantial evidence here. We're talking about confessions and direct witnessings of the crime. A forthright examination of this litany of evidence gives lie to the war from well before the invasion began, and does so merely by using the words of those who were there.
We can begin with the Project for a New American Century, which is such a who's who of Bush administration officials that it became pretty much a euphemism for the administration itself, and its policies. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Libby, Bolton, Armitage, Abrams, Perle, Khalilzad, Zoellick -- all of these and lots more were either members of PNAC or signatories to its most important documents.
The organization had agitated since its founding in 1998 for an invasion of Iraq, sending an open letter to Bill Clinton demanding just that in the name of American security, and calling for -- as its name makes clear -- a world dominated by American military power. Their real agenda is revealed in their own words: "While the unresolved conflict with Iraq [the no-fly zones following the Gulf War] provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." There's a word for all that. It's called empire. When they didn't get their war in 1998, PNAC issued a report in 2000 under the guise of Rebuilding America's Defenses, which sounded the same tune, calling again for the ouster of Saddam, and noting ominously that the "process of transformation" they were calling for in arming the country and making its foreign policy more belligerent, "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor".
When they got their new Pearl Harbor on September 11, 2001, they jumped immediately into action. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered his staff that very afternoon to get the "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit S.H. [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only OBL [Osama bin Laden]. Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not." At Camp David a few days later, Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke would find himself astonished to hear Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz arguing to attack Iraq -- even though it had had nothing to do with 9/11 -- because there were good bombing targets there, but few in Afghanistan. Clarke -- a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000, and worked for the three previous presidents as well -- also reported that during that same weekend, Bush pulled him aside and jabbed his chest, ordering him to find a link between 9/11 and Saddam. When he checked for a second time and could not produce one, Condoleeza Rice tossed his report back to him unread, telling him he wasn't understanding what the boss wanted.
Outside the administration (but not really, since these were all essentially the same people), PNAC was arguing this same preposterous linkage: "Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism."
Meanwhile, Bush and Cheney themselves had long already been thinking about the benefits of a nice war in Iraq. Russ Baker reported what Bush had told his would-be autobiography ghostwriter (until they removed him from the job for being too forthright, showing up early one morning and demanding all the tapes and files from candid interviews done with Bush in 1999), family friend Mickey Herskowitz: "One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief. My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it. If I have a chance to invade. if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency."
Herskowitz also relates how the people around Bush viewed the lessons of contemporary history, including Reagan's Grenada adventure, Thatcher's Falklands War, and Carter's mistake in not having one: "They were just absolutely blown away, just enthralled by the scenes of the troops coming back, of the boats, people throwing flowers at [Thatcher] and her getting these standing ovations in Parliament and making these magnificent speeches." Indeed, Herskowitz quotes Cheney as offering this formula for a successful presidency: "Start a small war. Pick a country where there is justification you can jump on, go ahead and invade." Leaving aside the minor operational technicality that he forgot about actually winning the war, I cannot think of a single more cynically debased statement or concept I've encountered in my entire life. There are now over a million people dead because of the Iraq invasion. How does someone like Dick Cheney sleep at night knowing he has caused so much grief to so many innocent people? Are there really batteries strong enough to power the pacemaker needed to keep a heart like that beating? Or did he have a secret transplant at some point, and the surgeon's assistant unknowingly grabbed the jar with the criminal sociopath's heart in it for the operation?
We have further confirmation of the administration's intentions from Paul O'Neill, another witness to history, who served as Bush's first Treasury Secretary. O'Neill reports that "From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go", and that this was true from the very first day, well before 9/11. "From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime. Day one, these things were laid and sealed." O'Neill was surprised that no one in the administration ever questioned 'why?' or 'why now?' when considering this policy. "It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying 'Go find me a way to do this'." Ron Suskind, the author to whom O'Neill revealed all this, also obtained a Pentagon document from March 5, 2001, titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts" (including a map of potential areas for exploration), which he said "talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30 - 40 countries. And which ones have what intentions on oil in Iraq."
Then there's this, from Philip Zelikow, who served on Bush's transition team, drafted the administration's in-your-face national security policy built around preemptive war, was called in to shill as executive director of the 9/11 Commission, and was sitting on the more-secret-than-top-secret President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board when he made these remarks at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002: "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990 -- it's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."
No doubt, Phil. Actually, it has long appeared that Israel was only one of multiple reasons neoconservatives had for invading Iraq. Of course, Alan Greenspan wrote that the war was transparently for oil, but he wasn't inside the administration, and provided no evidence fo that conclusion. However, the very architect of the war himself, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, explained to Vanity Fair, only two months into the war that, "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction, as the core reason." Of course that also means that, whatever they actually believed about the quantity of WMD possessed by Iraq, they didn't really care that much about it. It was simply the agreed-upon mutual talking point for marketing purposes.
And marketing was certainly the game. Sorry, Dick Cheney, that you found the notion that the war was being politicized "reprehensible". Cheney somehow forgets to mention that the war resolution suddenly became so urgent that it had to be voted on the month before the election of 2002, putting Democrats in an acute bind just one year after 9/11. No wonder they did that. People forget that the Bush administration was already tanking in its eight months in office before that day. And even after. Dick Morris wrote, as the 2002 election approached, "Polls show that only one issue works in Bush's favor: terrorism." Of course, we accidentally found out that this had long been part of Karl Rove's agenda, as he briefed Republicans in Congress on the coming election, back in January 2002: "We can also go to the country on this issue because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military and thereby protecting America."
When Chief of Staff Andrew Card was asked why Iraq had all of a sudden become such an urgent issue out of the blue, he famously said, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August." That horrified a lot of people, and for good reason. But the real truth is far more cynical than the notion that they made strategic decisions about how to market their war. All presidents will do that, and should as well, if they're selling a genuinely beneficial policy. The far deeper sin here was that this war was (meant to be) genuinely beneficial to Bush's political career, his fragile ego, to oil companies, Israel, neoconservatives, Halliburton and Blackwater. Thus the whole marketing campaign was not about convincing people of the wisdom of a wise idea, but rather selling them on an abhorrent lie.
Then of course there are the Downing Street Memos and related revelations from the other side of the Pond, which expose emphatically -- and have never been repudiated by either government -- that the Bush administration had already decided on war by the time of the meetings the memos describe in July 2002, and indeed, had already even begun secret attacks by that moment. This is, of course, well before the Congressional resolution, well before the UN Security Council resolution that failed (despite, the memos reveal, Bush administration use of threats to Council member-states), and well before Bush was telling the American public how much he hoped to avoid war, if only the evil Saddam would just cooperate. The memos also reveal, crucially, that once the war policy was in place, "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy". Why doctor the facts? Because the architects of the war knew that "the case was thin". Further, the documents show that Bush was contemplating schemes by which he could create a false pretext for war, since no WMD had been found by the weapons inspectors. These included painting a US surveillance plane in UN colors and hoping it would be attacked, or assassinating Saddam.
So now comes ol' Scott McClellan, Bush's former press secretary, telling us that the president employed a "political propaganda campaign" instead of telling the truth, in order to sell his "unnecessary war", which he describes as a "serious strategic blunder" and a "grave mistake" sold on lies, "manipulating sources of public opinion" and "downplaying the major reason for going to war".- According to McClellan, "Over that summer of 2002, top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war", "in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option". He also tells us that Bush admitted to him that he had personally authorized the leak of Valerie Plame's secret CIA identity, a clear act of treason intended to silence critics of the war.
Further, McClellan explains one of the reasons for the invasion: "The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term in office. And that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned."
Never mind that McClellan apparently thinks that "never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating" somehow has a 'more justifiable' rationale if you're a president going to war for the purposes of convincing yourself that you're better than your father. And never mind that McClellan did so much to help sell this war. And never mind that his explanation for his change of heart rings completely bogus, or that, as press secretary, he savaged people like Richard Clarke who did what he himself did, only four years earlier, using almost exactly the same smear language that the White House and its marionettes trained on him. What ultimately matters is that he finally got it right and told the truth. Sure, many of us have been saying all these things for a long time, while people like Scott McClellan dismissed us as radical, America-hating, French-loving, treasonous underminers of the brave troops in Iraq. What matters now is that Scott McClellan was there, and adds proof positive of what happened.
So, imagine you're a member of a jury. You can never know for sure about anything -- only what the evidence tells you -- but you have to make a decision one way or the other. We now have confirming evidence, all saying the same thing, in one form or another, from the president's own Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense, Terrorism Czar, Press Secretary, Treasury Secretary, all the PNAC crowd, a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, his chief political strategist, along with documentary evidence from inside the administration. And then, of course, there are the President and the Vice President themselves, speaking candidly about their plans and the reasons for them.
Against that mountain of evidence we have Bush and Cheney, who have everything to lose by admitting these crimes, offering their fervent denials (at least when Mickey Herskowitz is not around) that they did anything untoward in invading Iraq. (Whew. For a minute there it looked like this might have been an overwhelmingly clear case.)
So what else, Dear Juror, could you possibly need to convict? A confession, perhaps? Actually, those were already given to Herskowitz prospectively, but if you need one after the fact, we can thank the Bush administration for teaching us how to obtain those. I would imagine that about a half-hour with those nice folks at Guantánamo would be quite sufficient to produce any statement you require from these chickenhawks.
And what should be the appropriate penalty, upon conviction, for this man who built his political career on the backs of indigent convicts on Texas' busy death row, as a passionate practitioner of capital punishment?
What does it take, Dear Juror -- Dear Ms. Pelosi, Dear Mr. Conyers, Dear Mr. Reid -- for you to do what is necessary and what is right, even at this late date?
And, having failed so dramatically in doing your duty, with so much evidence on the table, how do you possibly get to sleep at night?
David Michael Green is a professor of political science at Hofstra University in New York. He is delighted to receive readers' reactions to his articles (dmg@regressiveantidote.net), but regrets that time constraints do not always allow him to respond. More of his work can be found at his website, www.regressiveantidote.net.
52 Comments so far
Show AllYes - the people running our country now are either sociopaths or psychopaths or narcissists. They have no empathy, a great sense of entitlement and are just fine with lying. They enjoy their material existence and sleep very well. They do not understand self-control and have no conscience or shame. They have no internal monitoring or sense of inter-connection with others. They do not waste any time thinking about us unless we are a threat to their initiatives. They have to be restrained by external forces.
PS - Why are we talking about illegal immigrants here? From what I know of history and pre-history, people have been moving around and mixing languages, culture, genes ever since they made boats from straw mats. Just that nobody labeled them "illegal".
From the late 90's the figure used for Latinos has been 12 million. We can be pretty sure there are at least around 20 million Latino's now. There are at least 2 million in Texas alone that we know of, its probably closer to 2.5, so 20 million is more than likely about right nationwide.
According to Chomsky there are 30 million illegal immigrants and 1/3 are Latino. I have no idea whether that's a valid figure.
I forgot to mention that most folks talk about Latinos because they are the majority of the illegals, but there is a fair share of Irish, eastern eurpopeans, Indians, chinese, etc. Its not just Latinos.
This fact gets lost sometimes because they speak English well for the most part.
Vox
"Europe has accepted more Iraqi refugees than the entire United States. Wouldn't you think the most generous country on earth would do better than that?"
I would. These are people we are responsible for.Bush/Cheney made us responsible for them.
As to labels, its nort that hard to label the guys that cut Nick Bergs head off on video "terroists" and anyone that supports them.
Its not at all difficult to label someone like Wright "racist", its very, very clear. Or That Black Liberation Theology is a racist philosophy. Its quite plain.
But I take your point about labeling opponents, as all our opponents are not wrong.
Any figures you use you'll find that Americans privately are the most generous people in the world, not just with money but with their time. You'll find American volunteerrs all over the world all the time. If someone wants to find a way to screw the figures around to prove how bad we are, they can, but real data has always shown this to be true.
"Much good may be said about a people by the laws they choose to ignore."
Quite a true statement. And you'll find few people that would condemn your "law breaking." As far as I'm concerned this is your private business and should be. Unless you drive stoned...different "law breaking" because you endanger others and ask them to pay for your "breaking of the law".
Many laws are honored in the breach rather than the letter for many reasons. But the real measure is the result of the behavior and what the consequences are. (my opinion of course)
Illegal immigration that we mentioned, why should I be asked to support foreighn nationals that come here illegally? Why should I have to provide an education for their children or to provide medical services for akll of them? Just because they choose to come here? Because they are poor in their home country? Half the world would come here under those criteria.
I understand it, but I refuse to pay for someone else's decision anymore. So when someone comes here illegally, they are stealing money and education from Americans....thats why I believe that this law is one that must be honored, because it does say something about us if we ignore it and its not good. My opinion of course, you may differ, but I hope we find our civic courage before its too late.
lpenek June 8th, 2008 7:38 pm
"damage they do to our children"
Actually I was speaking about the damage done in education. The reduction in education that American children suffer because of the cost of educating illegals and the problem for our less skilled children when the graduate and a job they might have gotten is filled by an illegal. (I need to be more careful in expressing myself, but I have trouble expressing thoughts in writing.)
"criminals" is hard hearted in a way voxclamantis just outlined"
It may be hardhearted, but its the actual truth. If you come here uninvited, you are a criminal. Frankly though I've always found the correct terminology to be better when discussing something. All I can say is I have every empathy for illegals, I've known many over the years, but we simply cannot accomodate 20 million people, most of whom are uneducated, unskilled and can't speak English. And more importantly refuse to assimilate. Nor can we afford to subsidize business anymore.
The phrase "they take jobs that Americans won't do" is about 15-20 true, or at least for the level of wages paid. The other 80% is pure Horse Feathers. A complete lie. To my own certain knowledge I'll stake my money on 75% of the jobs as a figure that they take from American workers.
One other thing Vox mentioned earlier, "gentle people" Most are just that, they are no different than most Americans, but a large percentage are criminals, violent, real criminals, gang types, etc.
And if you were the victim of identity theft by an illegal as two people imn my town are, you might feel a bit less generous.
"They Take Our Jobs! and 20 other myths about immigration" by Aviva Chomsky."
I have read it, but I believe her figures are out of date and did not take into account the waterfall of effects/costs.
Its the big picture that needs to be addressed and I'm sure we are going to deal with this issue very soon.
( I do see the Netherlands in slot 7)
I missed that!
This has become an economic issue, a detrimental one for us. The social aspects and emotional appeals to avoid our laws not withstanding, I have to say, I obey our laws and should't everyone else? Extrapolate the impact of selective compliance......
But,,,,the big picture? Boy, is it complicated. I am certain of my facts and figures, they come from the Comptrollers office, Feds, etc.
Youi do have to be very careful to follow the figures out though. Example, those opposed to immigrastion per se and some opposed to illegal immigration are fond of quoting the Latino drop out rate of close to 60%. True, sort of. A lot of the schools count an illegal alien or a legal immigrant a drop out even if they never registered for school. Its still a horrendous drop out rate, but its closer to 48%.
But even though I'm sure of my facts, facts are not always the only factor. If they were I'd be sure of the solution tio this problem, I'd know exactly what to do and how to do it.
But I sure don't. Some things I'm sure of, most are still up in the air. But I believe this subject will come up some more and we will eventually reach the right conclusion. We usually do. But we will not repeat 1986, that I'm certain of.
You guys are making me think.For me, a real chore.
Pax
"Interesting list. Note the economic systems that are on the list and note you won't find France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, etc."
I do see the Netherlands in slot 7.
You all might be interested in the (fairly left-leaning) book "They Take Our Jobs! and 20 other myths about immigration" by Aviva Chomsky. Her figure is that illegal 1st gen immigrant pay back through taxes 75-80% of social services administered and 2nd generation rapidly corrects even that. Another point she makes is that Mexican immigrants come here in prime adult working years, and then often leave in middle age, sparing the US both reproductive and education costs and old age care. In essence, we get prime workers without the expense of caring for them. True, many remain and have children here. Also, realize that that 75-80% number holds because they're earning a pitance and hence paying little tax while here.
"Economically speaking they are a net loss, but more importantly is the damage they do to our children and the fact that they are criminals."
Technically you may be right, but "damage they do to our children" sounds like pure rhetoric and "criminals" is hard hearted in a way voxclamantis just outlined. That "they break our laws" is often a slam dunk in anti-immigration arguments, but it also shuts out any greater understanding of this problem. Let's look at the big picture and leave the law enforcement zealotry to the uniforms.
I have not heard anyone dispute the strange fact that some town in northern Europe has accepted more Iraqi refugees than the entire United States. Wouldn't you think the most generous country on earth would do better than that?
As I said, I get confused by the stats, which are wildly diverse. Here is a footnote I used in the Fall of 2001, which I had seen in several respectable places. These are not even in the ballpark with Ipenek's MSNBC figures. The key phrase might be "according to...."
"Measured against our ability to give (according the the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) we are in fact the least generous among industrialized countries. The US gives 1/10th of 1 percent of its GNP to alleviate global poverty and disease. This percentage is 2 1/2 times higher for Canada,, Japan, Austria, Australia and Germany and 8 - 10 times higher for many others."
It is a matter of which figures you use and how you spin them. I am much more interested in the use to which these tilted numbers and selected facts and arguments are put. What are we advocating? What is in our heart? Sometimes it is synonymous to "I gave at the office" or "after all the foreign aid we give them, they owe us more respect" or "screw them, let them take care of their own people" or "why is this my problem?" which really translates: "I am an uncaring human being."
I'll grant that there is room for nuance. We should be careful about labeling our opponents as bad people (this also applies to the names "terrorist," "racist" and "criminal.")
Speaking for myself I would lie and pervert logic ( as it is it is unnecessary) if that would effect a lifting of the Israeli blockade of Gaza or stop the Sudanese from killing people in Darfur. Facts are not unassailable argument stoppers. They are mere ammo for our partisan causes. These agendas, not their apologia, are what shape the future of the world.
As for enforcing the law: If we enforced every law that is on the books I would have long ago been thrown into prison for habitual violation of marijuana and cohabitation laws, and so would almost everybody here except for Daniel David. Much good may be said about a people by the laws they choose to ignore.
lpenek June 8th, 2008 3:59 am
I forgot to say thanks for your research and for your thoughts. Interesting. You and Vox ( and some others) give me hope.
Grappa June 7th, 2008 9:39 pm
The rule of law has no wing at all. Its simply the foundation of our country.
lpenek June 8th, 2008 4:06 am
This wave of immigration is far different than the earlier ones in every respect.
There was no bi-lingualism earlier, you learned English, a need that still seperates people from poverty. Without it, you will be poor.
Multicuulturalism as policy was an invention by the Dutch this century to avoid culture shock for guest workers when they went back home. But historical fact is no society can survive it. And history validates it. Bi-lingualism itself is very harmful to a society.
We simply can't afford them. But I'd be glad to send as many as anyone wants to support. The numbers vary, but it costs Texan's approximately a billion dollars plus each year, after all the taxes they pay.
Economically speaking they are a net loss, but more importantly is the damage they do to our children and the fact that they are criminals.
To those that want no borders I can only say change the law and till its changed we must abide by it. 1986 will not be tolerated again.
Interesting list. Note the economic systems that are on the list and note you won't find France, Germany, Sweden, Denmark, etc.
"We are not fragile, but yes, no country in history has been able to sustain a multicultural society. If bilingualism is permitted to continue, if allowing people to live here without assimilating, we will indeed, in my opinion go down under the burden."
People have been railing against multiculturalism and bilingualism since the huge immigrant migration of the late 19th/early 20th century. It didn't seem to stop us from becomming a superpower. I think there is no validity there at all.
According to an MSNBC article I found you're correct though, the US is most charitable, even adjusted for GNP. I don't know how they came to their charity figures, but here they are:
"A country's social and political cultures influence how much money citizens give to charity, according to a November 2006 study by England's Charities Aid Foundation that ranks philanthropic donation as a percentage of gross domestic product. Among nations surveyed, these 10 are the most generous. "
• 1. United States, 1.67 percent of GDP
• 2. United Kingdom, 0.73
• 3. Canada, 0.72
• 4. Australia, 0.69
• 5. South Africa, 0.64
• 6. Ireland, 0.47
• 7. Netherlands, 0.45
• 8. Singapore, 0.29
• 9. New Zealand, 0.29
• 10. Turkey, 0.23
This still doesn't account for our militaristic border policy with Mexico. I tend to side with voxclamantis, going the Arab/Israeli route is pure stupidity. Better to address the disparity of richest country/3rd world country adjacency. How much money do we waste patrolling the border when it's really only, and only ever will be, a bandaide.
US GNP $13.13 tril
UK GNP $1.93 tril
US $129.8 billion charity
UK $20.7 billion charity
To meet UK charity spending US should be spending (13.13/1.93) * 20.7 = 140.8 bil
I don't know, Thomas, it's not looking good...
The right wing can have its rule of law , as for me I'd settle for just a little justice. Try the war criminals for crimes against human rights.
lpenek June 7th, 2008 7:05 pm
So 25% more isn't enough? The point was that the Horse Feathers about the US as not generous is just that.
Still, you have a good point about the UK. But they are the only ones close to us. I'll look at the figures more closely though.
Adjusted per capita, UK 60Meg, US 300Meg, that means we give 25% more than the UK, which kind of deflates your figure. This doesn't even figure the gross size disparity of our economies, which I'm sure would look even worse, if not reverse the ratio.
VOXCLAMANTIS: I am assuming (?) your question was rhetorical, as per why the fear. Well, as you know our nation is essentially making war its chief export and domestic surveillance a pretty good domestic "industry." Add that to the prison complex, our ridiculous incarceration rate and these agendas MAKE for a lot of fear. Should there not be "enough" to support the agendas these "institutions" stand for, you have hate radio pumping out jingoistic sloganaram(s), while making prejudice fashionable. And you have plenty of churches screaming about END TIMES or otherwise applauding our "Christian" president for policies that Christ would have had to "die" again on the cross for!
History has generally shown that when the ruling class provides less and less for the peasants/proletariat/workers, the latter tend to fight among themselves. This is where the hatred of other who ostensibly LOOKS different becomes the easiest of targets.
Why do poor Latin countries have the phenomena of machismo? If the nation is under the thumb of another land that's made it their own imperialist haven, the men feel displaced, dis-empowered, etc. And then they MUST feel superior to someone, so they take their frustration out on WOMEN.
When there's less to go around the RICH of heart can still share, knowing there's some benign magnificence in sharing the little one has. Most just horde what little they have and fear that another (particularly a DIFFERENT/ethnic) other will take it away.
voxclamantis June 7th, 2008 4:54 pm
Ah-ha.....no argument, just different opinions here and there!
"Why are we not also very generous?"
Statistically we are the most generous people in the world.
"In 2006, the latest year for which data is available, its reported that Americans contributed privately and voluntarily $34.8 billion to individuals and organizations in developing countries.
Philanthropy is distinct from government aid in that it originates with private citizens and is voluntary, but also the recipients are private individuals and organizations, as opposed to governments.
That total exceeded the $23.5 billion in official U.S. government aid abroad by $11.3 billion, or 48 percent.
This private philanthropy is comes from foundations, corporations, private and voluntary organizations, universities and colleges, and religious organizations.
Of particular interest in this year's index is the $8.8 billion reported from religious organizations. According to Carol Adelman, who directs this work, the data was produced by commissioning "the first national survey of congregational giving to the developing world" ever done.
The average contribution of congregations was $10,700.
When consolidating all assistance funds flowing from the United States to developing countries, the total is $129.8 billion. This is the total of government aid, philanthropy and remittances – funds sent directly by private individuals to other private parties in developing countries, often family members. A far second in total giving behind the United States is the United Kingdom, at $20.7 billion."
"I question the assertion that every illegal is an economic net deficit"
The reason you hear open border types say they don't cost us anything is they quote Federal taxes vs. Federal services. They are correct, if you use those two numbers illegals are a wash. Unfortunately out here in the real world its not that simple. First you have the cost of Federal services used by all the illegals that don't pay federal Income tax.
Next you have all the services they use at the state, county and city level. Its a tremendous burden here in Texas and the other border states. The illegals cost Texans over a billion dollars over and above all taxes paid or any other benefits they paid. This is from 2006 Comptrollers report, you can guess how much more it is now. I'll let you do the math.
Then we have the services that aren't counted as to illegals like CHIPS Peri-natal. Childrens health ins. money diverted to pay for the pre natal expenses and birth costs of pregnant illegal aliens. There are many like this. Food Stamps drawn for U.S. citizen children of illegals are not counted as a cost of illegals.
Next,if business is allowed to hire the cheap labor of illegals...I'd count the cost of the people they displaced. The Horse Feathers about "they only take jobs Americans don't want" is just that. Horse Feathers. These guys can't find another job and usually end up on benefits along with their family. Its a very large expense.
In Texas illegals have come here to work for years, to shop, to visit.....its been no problem. When business started to be a real problem.
By the way, I've never heard anyone but open border types, racist organizations and business groups mention deportation or rounding up 20 million people. Attrition will take care of most of the problem, going after business solves the rest. There will always be a certain level of illegal people here, but not at our expense.
"And why this fear that our country is so fragile that we will be destroyed economically and culturally by immigrant workers"
We are not fragile, but yes, no country in history has been able to sustain a multicultural society. If bilingualism is permitted to continue, if allowing people to live here without assimilating, we will indeed, in my opinion go down under the burden. We have always been a multiracial society, the most successful in history and succeeding at a rapid pace. I don't know if Obama can win or not, but just his gaining the nomination tells all of us how far we have come.
The drop out rate for Latinos is well over 50%, the illegitimate birth rate is over that. Ask yourself as I have, what do we intend to do with all these people when they can't do manual labor anymore?
What do we do with the last wave as they are replaced with the next wave? Exploitation is the weapon of choice in this problem. Reality is setting in here and I suspect that if Long Island and Oregon had our cost, they wouldn't be smiling. And they will if we don't do our duty.
The only fear is generated by the exploiters of these people. Most Texans you will find don't have any fear of Latinos, they share our heritage....or as a good friend of mine says we share theirs. His family has been here since 1723 and he loves to greet me with "Hola immigrant!"
If you could for a moment consider the possibility that the folks that are exploiting these people, that spread lies, bad statistics and use diverting language like xenophobes or bigots for anyone that opposes them....consider them the same as Bush and his boys trying to justify attacking Iraq....you'll have a pretty good idea of whats really going on.
Its all about money and political power and for the racist organizations, their existence.
Its a pleasure to read your posts and sometimes exchange ideas with you and some others at CD. I really enjoy seeing different viewpoints, though some mistake their opinion for facts sometimes. Guilty at times myself, but I try to watch it closely.
Pax (just one of my hero's)
"... if I were in their boots I'd be doing exactly the same."
The ability to do that, to put yourselves in someone else's place, is the keystone of morality to me. It is the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative and the first principle of fairness and peace. So that makes you a good guy, as also evidenced by your afterthought that we should maybe be doing something about conditions in Mexico, especially destructive things that are our own doing such as NAFTA and the maquiladore factories.
For some reason for the past six years or so I've found myself drinking Guinness with a crazy Roman Catholic priest from Nigeria. Fadda Joe. He's very smart, having just finished a doctoral degree in philosophy from Duquesne. He's also a reconstructed savage from the village of Garkawa deep in the West African bush. He takes a special interest in our border issues, advocating to his predominantly hispanic parishioners (who tend also to favor border security) for the gospel doctrine of "welcoming the stranger." His arguments are more practical than scriptural however. In Africa, a continent prone to regional calamities, uprisings, famines, civil wars and tribal feuds, countries would be crazy to close their borders to people fleeing hardships in neighboring lands. Next year it could be your own people fleeing across the border in the other direction.
Fadda Joe has seen a lot of the world, and the ubiquitous interface between islands of affluence and wealth and areas of unbelievable poverty. He sees our border with Mexico as one such interface, and he sees the problem more as an inevitability of hydraulics or chemistry than a moral issue. Put a poor neighborhood across the street from a rich neighborhood and you'll get crime, laws or no laws, cops or no cops. Put an impoverished third world country across the fence from the richest country on earth and people will find a way across, fence or no fence. An emphasis on enforcing our immigration laws or securing our borders without an equal and prior and successful effort to address the economic cause of border traffic is like trying to prevent water from running downhill. I know illegals who cross our militarized border to visit their families for the holidays and come back again with the greatest of ease. Perhaps with massive expenditures of money and draconian levels of brutality we might achieve an airtight seal (the East Germans did a fair job of it). But it is better to solve the problem than put a concrete and razor wire bandage on it.
I question the assertion that every illegal is an economic net deficit, for I have heard this both ways. Do you have reasons for thinking this? I profess statistical ignorance here, but somebody's figures must be wrong. Not that this would make me reverse my opinion. I find it embarrassing that Americans would begrudge a few social services to people who need them. I could go out to dinner twice a month for what I spend on wild bird seed. Relatively speaking we are very rich. Why are we not also very generous?
And why this fear that our country is so fragile that we will be destroyed economically and culturally by immigrant workers? Is our society so nondescript and puny that we would simply become Mexico if the border were erased? If that is the case, we'd better disappear and get it over with. Our legal deeds and border surveys and identity anxieties notwithstanding, the natural array of jobs and workers, food and mouths, tends toward a natural and organic solution. "Illegal entry" has been a reality, here and everywhere else, for a long time. There are Guatamalans working in Long Island, Chihuahuans working in Oregon, and look: we're still okay.
There is a lot of fear in this country lately, and it tends to be accompanied by intolerance and armor and fortification. I'd hate to see us become like the Israelis, bottled up in a self fulfilling and counterproductive ghetto of insecurity. Problem solving is better accomplished without such handicaps. For example, instead of rounding up and deporting 1500 illegal Mexicans every day, we could round them up and send them to law school. In five short years we'd be up to our noses in $8.50/hour lawyers, solving two or three problems at one coup.
Always a pleasure arguing with you Mr. More (if that is indeed your real name.)
"Their economy is a basket case, their families are hungry, they are without viable choices"
I left out the fact that we should be doing something about that. Dumping NAFTA that has killed the poor in Mexico would be a great start.
And how about forcing the manufactuing plants that transfer to Mexico to pay a living wage and invest in mexico. Put a tariff on thier products coming in and put it directly into infrastructure in Mexico....etc...etc
Vox
As usual a very thoughtful answer and comment. I completely agree with you up to this point and then again after it after it.
"regardless of whether a bunch of pasty Johnny-come-lately Europeans have drawn lines on the earth with barbed wire and got themselves all possessive about their proprietary turf."
Our borders define our country and believe me I don't want to remove them and become Mexico.
"Of Rush Limbaugh he said "I'd like to see him get his fat ass under that fence."
Thais is classic! What a picture for the mind!! Love it!!!!!
Not an over simplification, it was just a side comment that you made.
I was just saying that there are the two camps you mention, but there are also the vast majority of people, especially in border states that feel great empathy for illegals but realize we simply can't afford to support them (and make no mkistake every illegal is a net deficit economically, they cost more than they produce) That our laws must be obeyed and that selective compliance will destroy the country.
The reality is that over 80% of the US is fully aware we can't allow criminal activity as it simply generates more and it worsens.
We have a crisis on the border with Mexico right now, you wouldn't believe whats going on and its beginning to seep into our country.
My real point is that unlike the portrait painted by racist organizations like LaRaza most people don't blame the immigrants themselves. Shoot, if I were in their boots I'd be doing exactly the same. There is not one shred of doubt in my mind about this. At the same time, I have the same surety of mind that illegal entry into our country cannot continue and we cannot repeat what we did in 86.
The human toll of our civic cowardice is horrible. They pay for it and in worse ways than death many times.
Put on your Savonarola hat, but watch out for those Medici.
Siouxrose June 6th, 2008 11:28 pm
I'm surprised you agree with Obama about the people that aren't on the nutty coasts!
Pax
voxclamantis June 6th, 2008 9:32 pm
_______________________________________
Eloquent, trenchant, profound!
Longingforsanity,
As to the issues of going after politicians AFTER they are out of office to avoid the issue of pardons. Well, actually that is precisely what impeachment was all about. Let's say that Chaney had been impeached last year (ah, one can dream). W would NOT have been able to pardon him. Constitution does not allow it. Ford did pardon Nixon, but remember that Nixon actually resigned (before a likely impeachment).
Better example in current times would be if Mukasey choses not to enforce a Conyer subpoena. Congress could impeach Mukasey and there would be nothing that W could do about it. In fact, our forefathers foresaw exactly this type of scenario - where underlings either protect each other and/or their superiors. Federalist paper # 69 gives an example of why impeachment is needed, in that case supposing that the attorney general of New York derails an investigation into the governor of New York - who then returns the favor and can pardon that loyal AG. Impeachment can override this scenario and remove either the AG and/or the executive. link: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed69.htm
Of course, all this supposes that impeachment was back "on the table" and that our congress had the gumption to do anything either than wag fingers or issue sternly worded letters.
Years from now, historians will look back on W's term with a sense of shame for what our government (both parties) had become. At least I hope that's the case.
It's all laid out right here:
http://www.zcommunications.org/blog/view/1589
Enjoy!
Thankyou David Michael Green. You have said so well, that which has infuriated me for years. I only wish the perpetrators could be brought to justice.
Dang it, if it could only be that simple. Mr. Green is correct in that he says that troo believers believe because of fear. Unfortunately, that is not true only of neocons; we all suffer from that dementia. It is much deeper than all the reasons he gives, though he touches upon it when he says they are "frightened of existential meaningless, frightened of cosmic insignificance." We all want meaning, want it to make sense. We cling to any rock that can lift us above the maelstrom that threatens to engulf us. It is unfortunate, from the "progressive" point of view, that the more rigid, dogmatic and oppressive belief systems create the most stable-appearing "rocks." It is only the wisdom of introspection, and all the education, practice or even "religion" that brings it, that can convince us to let go and see where the currents carry us.
How many times in the past seven and a half years have we seen Laura Bush. She probably is the most ineffective First Lady ever. They pull her out of her box to parade around the obscene decorations in the White House and use her for photo opts, but other than that she is stuffed back into her box. I especially loved the photo of her behind the Pope in her puritan. lily white outfit. How smug. As much as GW loves to dress up and play the part I was amazed that he wasn't wearing a cossack. The evidence is all confirmed and all someone has to do now is bite the bullet and proceed with the necessary means to bring the guilty to trial. Any President giving out pardons for war crimes should be given the full extent that the law provides. Without justice for the guilty our entire country and way of a democratic self government is doomed.
Cheney had Laura Bush replaced by a Stepford wife long ago. I'm just waiting to see her face fall off.
Just in case he missed any of the informant's pieces of the big heist puzzle, anyone know how to get this article to Bugliosi? What a good back-up to his call to get some attorney team to take on the impeachment... seems more than enough data & evidence is already laid out.
Jack Mccoy, paging Jack Mccoy?
Dang, Vox! You're good! LOVE the metaphor... mitosis, indeed... I used to say "Growth tends to happen at the fringes, ask a paramecium." (You know, like the coasts of the US tend to have more progressive people living on them, close to the edge, and then in the middle you get, well, Kansas... sometimes I think those tornadoes rip through just to mess with lives that try to hold to a status quo that is itself against nature.)
Hey Arvy, nice to see you're still around.
I happened to catch some of Obama's & Clinton's speeches to AIPAC, VERY chilling.
Since when is a threat against Israel a
threat against USA?This is a case of the parasite (Izrael) consuming it's host to death - they (Iz)probably have a plan for every letter of the alphabet on what to do when the US can no longer affort this cumbersome, expensive & moronic addiction to the "chosen".
overkill June 6th, 2008 7:36 pm -- "Israeli minister: Israel prepared to attack Iran"
Not just prepared. They've already decided according to a statement by Olmert's deputy. And the U.S. long ago decided that Israel's enemies are automatically its own enemies, which is quite amazing when you consider the fact that the U.S actually has no constitutionlly recognized defence treaty with Isreal as it does with NATO allies, for example.
In any case, your so-called "allies" have apparently made the decision that an attack on Iran is "unavoidable". So good luck with your hopes for all the good stuff that the next election is going to bring your way according to the Obama fans.
Thomas More -
Yes, illegal Mexican immigrants. Their economy is a basket case, their families are hungry, they are without viable choices, so they come North across 100 miles of terrible desert just south of here, a no man's land of drug smugglers, vigilantes, border patrol, and 110 degree heat, to find jobs picking fruit, making cooler pads and changing motel sheets. They are in a state of extreme necessity, so that they continue to cross the border even though they know that 300-400 of them will die of thirst every year in the attempt, and that they will live and work in constant and imminent danger of deportation. In my experience they are predominantly honest and gentle people attempting to fulfill their Christian obligation to keep their children alive and the human imperative to seek a better life, and although they are automatically criminals as our immigration laws are written, their actions are not, for them, a matter of abstract choice. I feel worse for them than they feel for themselves. They are quite resourceful, having accommodated themselves to hostile conditions on the ground for many generations. Their reality, like coyotes and other native species is to make their way in a harsh world regardless of whether a bunch of pasty Johnny-come-lately Europeans have drawn lines on the earth with barbed wire and got themselves all possessive about their proprietary turf. I agree with the pundit who said that they should throw everybody out of this country every four years, and only let those of us back in who are willing to go through the ordeal of the average illegal immigrant. Of Rush Limbaugh he said "I'd like to see him get his fat ass under that fence."
But as usual you get a person thinking. Maybe it is us who are in a plight. Also pardon my medieval oversimplification of the human condition. Sometimes I have to put on my Savonarola hat and see things in terms of plain old good and evil.
Best
"Israeli minister: Israel prepared to attack Iran"
With this in mind, now America's mothers can send both sons off to AIPAC's wars, one for the Zionists Aggressors and one for the Blue Helmeted U.N. Peacekeepers. (Mc)Cane kills brother Able? Fratricide! Have we not murdered far, far too many people over the melinia in the name of that ancient Arab Volcano God, Wahweh? Bring back the Goddess!
"Left wingers are optimists, mostly confident in themselves and fearless. They see win-win, and are fascinated by the possibilities, they believe in utopia."
I suppose I must count myself a left-winger, because I am certainly not what passes for a right-winger nowadays but, apart from being fascinated by possibilities, I am none of the above.
And don't be expecting an appearance from any of the current administration in the ICC (unless they go overseas), because the US is not a signatory to that piece of international law, so they could not be extradited.
The article says that Cheney has a pacemaker. Can we sue his medicos for malpractice? -- they should have let him die. Or even helped.
Right wingers are fatalist, with no confidence in themselves to choose right over wrong. They must kill or be killed, rape or be raped, dominate or be dominated. They see everything as zero-sum, it's part of their paranoia.
Left wingers are optimists, mostly confident in themselves and fearless. They see win-win, and are fascinated by the possibilities, they believe in utopia.
Mr. Green, will you please be quiet? If we liberals judge the conservatives they will judge us back.
Pursue them all once Bush is out of office. Anything done before then would, no doubt, trigger a pardon.
Bush, however, cannot pardon himself. He needs to be indicted for treason and murder. If this Congress won't do it, Vincent Bugliosi has the right idea by lobbying the Attorney Generals of every state to arrest him for conspiracy and murder.
You guys still don't get it. You just don't understand the way a damaged mind works - or how it became so damaged in the first place.
Strauss suffered from a sort of 'Stockholm Syndrome' - as did the Nazified fascist Jews (few had any 'religious' indulgence at all). They are paranoid - they can never be normal without psychiatric treatment. They seek power and wealth because they live in fear of their fellow man - mainly because they KNOW they are inferior. And you can't convince them otherwise with reason or logic - those don't apply to mental aberrations. This is where progressives miss the boat completely - and always will, as long as they perceive this problem as one of accurate intelligence instead of faulty brain mechanisms. You may not like this ugly truth - but eventually you will have to accept it or they will indeed destroy you. In their minds, YOU are the ultimate enemy - after all, YOU are NOT afraid of the big bad world that exists in their fantasies.
As well, IF Obama wins the presidency, and IF Obama has any sense of morals and humanity, one of his first proclamations as president would be to order his attorney general to write up arrest warrants for Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and all the other war criminals. This would go a LONG way to reconciling the United States to the rest of the world. But of course this is just wishful thinking.
One day perhaps, we'll see this criminal government charged for their war crimes. Alas though, the US has the rest of the world intimidated like any good bully does and therefore, I doubt we'll be seeing Cheney in the dock at the ICC anytime soon. It's because of this hesitance on the part of the world to confront the Bush Administration on it's crimes, that Cheney et al feel like they can act with impunity.
I recently watched John Pilger's documentary on Venezuela called "The War on Democracy" and you see the power of the people when 100's of thousands of common folk take to the streets to demand the reinstatement of Chavez after the 2002 coup. THAT is what needs to happen in the United States. The people in Latin America have the right idea when it comes to taking back their power and those of you in the US need to take a lesson from them.
They and their ideas are a product of, or at least reinforced by Leo Strauss. When freedom is defined as not being subjected to negative consequences for your actions or man made laws. Then a monster may be created that cannot be stopped other than by example. The following was taken from wikipedia.og on Leo Straus;
Critics of Strauss accuse him of mendacious populism (while actually being elitist), radical illiberalism and anti-democratic sentiment. Shadia Drury, in Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999), argues that Strauss taught different things to different students and inculcated an elitist strain in American political leaders that is linked to imperialist militarism and Christian fundamentalism. Drury accuses Strauss of teaching that "perpetual deception of the citizens by those in power is critical because they need to be led, and they need strong rulers to tell them what's good for them." Nicholas Xenos similarly argues that Strauss "was not an anti-liberal in the sense in which we commonly mean 'anti-liberal' today, but an anti-democrat in a fundamental sense, a true reactionary. Strauss was somebody who wanted to go back to a previous, pre-liberal, pre-bourgeois era of blood and guts, of imperial domination, of authoritarian rule, of pure fascism."
Leo Strauss (September 20, 1899 – October 18, 1973), was a German-born Jewish-American political philosopher who specialized in the study of classical political philosophy. He spent most of his career as a Political Science Professor at the University of Chicago, where he taught several generations of students and published fifteen books. Since his death, he has come to be regarded as one of the intellectual fathers of neoconservatism in the United States.
The "true believers" believe that Bush and Cheney are the only real Republicans. All ohters are rinoes. And any media that does anything other than quote "today's truth" in the exact words of Bush and Cheney is that "liberal" media.
d. m. green...thx for another powerful piece. just amazing that people can be so wilfull and so insenitive to the needless suffering they cause. the thought of "how do they sleep at night" first came to my mind in the 80's when the reagan crew caused a lotta bloodshed in central america. but, alas, sleep at night they do. we've got to find away to break this political duopoly. if not, things are going to get even uglier.
D.M. Green, great article, spelling it out to our so-called leaders. However, I have the feeling that the whole darn crew has been compromised. I fall for every conspiricy theory because this crew is entirely capable of anything, however destructive it may be. There is Power and Money behind every decision made, from both sides of the aisle.
From the articles that I have read it appears that every department in this government is totally corrupt. I assume that the only way to hold on to your prestigous job is to play the game their way. Whistle blowers are not treated well, i.e. Scott McClellan
Voxclematis...thank your for your analogy. It fits perfectly!
DMG,
It is strange indeed. The deeper you peer into hell, the brighter your mind and heart shine.
You are truly a valiant warrior of Satyagraha = (Truth-Force - Gandhi) --- (Soul-Force - M.L. King)
vox;
Actually they're worse than non-empathic, they will claim that the victims of their aggression deserve what they got. From their point of view, it seems that the Iraqi people are solely to blame for their current situation. Had they only done what bush told them to do they'd be living in peace and harmony with their fellows.
It's all bushit of course. These people who still support bush are the ones who tell rape victims that they dressed 'provocativly' or tell the victims of violent crime that had they been armed they would have been able to defend themselves. They'll argue that it's better for all teachers and students to be armed and prepared to open fire on any threat.
The true barbarian was civilized in comparison to those louts.
voxclamantis June 6th, 2008 1:58 pm
"the plight of Mexican immigrants"
I assume you are speaking of illegal immigrants since I don't know of any "plight" of legal Mexican immigrants? And if so, what plight are they in?
I'd also suggest to you that there are far more camps than two.
Regards
I think they get to sleep because they have all they need ... power. Exercising that for the common good or in the name of such a concept of justice is completely unnecessary to a satisfying life for corporate democrats.
"They are so frightened of their own complicity in bringing death, disaster, destruction and ungodly sorrow to Iraq that they can now only resort to astonishing levels of self-delusion to maintain their sanity."
America, and likely the human race, is undergoing a polarization today that looks suspiciously like the way cellular material gathers at both ends of its capsular playground just prior to mitosis. One camp is making the evolutionary bet that a cooperative enterprise, based on a recognition of universal rights and collective effort, is the way to go. Such beings display qualities of conscience: altruism, responsibility, even guilt. The other camp remains committed to the law of fang and claw, betting that their survival is best vested in dominance and destruction of their competitors i.e. everybody not themselves. We are in an ongoing process of speciation, which is to say that given time, we will evolve into two distinct animals unless one of us proves unviable. It will be easier to tell us apart when we become morphologically distinct and unable to exchange genetic material.
My point is that the belligerents of group 2 are congenitally without conscience or remorse for the sorrow and destruction they cause. It just isn't in them. When you talk to them about these things - the plight of Mexican immigrants, the suffering of Palestinians, the victims of the Iraq occupation - you may get some boilerplate arguments and justifications, though these are oddly unaccompanied by even a hint of empathy or concern for their fellow man. Such concern is mere poetry to them. Hippie nonsense. They do not struggle with this, or repress their complicity or sandbag themselves behind delusional ideation. They sleep like babies. This is the sign of true monstrosity, that you do not know you are a monster. You go down to the mead hall, eat a half dozen vikings, then go back to your cave for a nice nap.
If they didn't listen to or believe Bush's first Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neil when he escaped from Bush's house of horrors and revealed the neocons' flawed economic policies in 2002, they are not going to listen to or believe anybody.
Throughout history, people who follow radical idealogues, whether they be Hitler (Nazis), Osama (suicide bombers), or Bush (neocons) have consistently stayed loyal to the end.
Could it be better to wait until the Bushites are all out of office and not subject to presidential pardons, congressional republican lobbying and Supreme Court exemptions for sitting presidents?
Here's what the true believers are afraid of, once you understand that they are indeed true believers. They are quite frightened that they will burn in hell for eternity; and they have all the graphic imagery from years of designing hell houses for Baptist teenagers on Halloween; with a stronger adult conception of "eternity". They may not have read Dante, but Dante read them. For those of us who merely love irony, it's kind of sweet.