Friday Afternoon Roundup - The Enemy is Revolting
Posted: 14 Aug 2009 03:53 PM PDT
 Was the best of the Bush admin really Cheney? The
Washington Post story
on Cheney's upcoming memoirs raise that question. Few close observers
could have failed to notice the transition away from the dream team of the
likes of Rumsfeld, Cheney and Ashcroft... to a White House that seemed to
be run by Condoleeza Rice and a handful of minor weak figures like
Gonzalez. This transition also saw marked changes in the administration's
approach to the War on Terror and domestically.
Cheney's memoirs
can only give us a snapshot of what really went wrong, and the internal
conflicts that turned the Bush Administration from the most promising
administration since the Reagan era into a neo-liberal weak-kneed
government, which almost made McCain's candidacy look good by comparison.
The internal conflicts that sabotaged the Iraqi reconstruction, beginning
with the FBI and State Department taking over from the Pentagon are part
of a larger puzzle, and will likely form the recurring story of how
government infighting by a tenured bureaucracy sabotaged an
administration.
The Post story is naturally heavily biased, but a
Cheney emerges there who showed more loyalty and integrity than Bush
did.
"In the second term, he felt Bush was moving away from
him," said a participant in the recent gathering, describing Cheney's
reply. "He said Bush was shackled by the public reaction and the
criticism he took. Bush was more malleable to that. The implication was
that Bush had gone soft on him, or rather Bush had hardened against
Cheney's advice. He'd showed an independence that Cheney didn't see
coming. It was clear that Cheney's doctrine was cast-iron strength at
all times -- never apologize, never explain -- and Bush moved toward the
conciliatory."
The two men maintain respectful ties, speaking on
the telephone now and then, though aides to both said they were never
quite friends. But there is a sting in Cheney's critique, because he
views concessions to public sentiment as moral weakness. After years of
praising Bush as a man of resolve, Cheney now intimates that the former
president turned out to be more like an ordinary politician in the end.
Cheney's post-White House career is as singular as his vice
presidency, a position he transformed into the hub of power. Drained of
direct authority and cast aside by much of the public, he is no less
urgently focused, friends and family members said, on shaping
events.
The former vice president remains convinced of mortal
dangers that few other leaders, in his view, face squarely. That fixed
belief does much to explain the conduct that so many critics find
baffling. He gives no weight, close associates said, to his low approval
ratings, to the tradition of statesmanlike White House exits or to the
grumbling of Republicans about his effect on the party
brand.
John P. Hannah, Cheney's second-term national security
adviser, said the former vice president is driven, now as before, by the
nightmare of a hostile state acquiring nuclear weapons and passing them
to terrorists. Aaron Friedberg, another of Cheney's foreign policy
advisers, said Cheney believes "that many people find it very difficult
to hold that idea in their head, really, and conjure with it, and see
what it implies."
What is new, Hannah said, is Cheney's readiness
to acknowledge "doubts about the main channels of American policy during
the last few years," a period encompassing most of Bush's second term.
"These are not small issues," Hannah said. "They cut to the very core of
who Cheney is," and "he really feels he has an obligation" to save the
country from danger.
Cheney's imprint on law and policy, achieved
during the first term at the peak of his influence, had faded
considerably by the time he and Bush left office. Bush halted the
waterboarding of accused terrorists, closed secret CIA prisons, sought
congressional blessing for domestic surveillance, and reached out
diplomatically to Iran and North Korea, which Cheney believed to be ripe
for "regime change."
Some of the disputes between the president
and his Number Two were more personal. Shortly after Bush fired Donald
H. Rumsfeld, Cheney called his old mentor history's "finest secretary of
defense" and invited direct comparison to Bush by saying he had "never
learned more" from a boss than he had as Rumsfeld's deputy in the Ford
administration.
The depths of Cheney's distress about another
close friend, his former chief of staff and alter ego I. Lewis "Scooter"
Libby, have only recently become clear. Bush refused a pardon after
Libby's felony convictions in 2007 for perjury and obstruction of an
investigation of the leak of a clandestine CIA officer's identity.
Cheney tried mightily to prevent Libby's fall, scrawling in a note made
public at trial that he would not let anyone "sacrifice the guy that was
asked to stick his neck in the meat grinder." Cheney never explained the
allusion, but grand jury transcripts -- and independent counsel Patrick
J. Fitzgerald -- suggested that Libby's false statements aimed above all
to protect the vice president.
Last month, an account in Time
magazine, based on close access to Bush's personal lawyer and White
House counsel, described Cheney's desperate end-of-term efforts to
change Bush's mind about a pardon. Cheney, who has spent a professional
lifetime ignoring unflattering stories, issued a quietly furious reply.
In the most explicit terms, he accused Bush of abandoning "an innocent
man" who had served the president with honor and then become the "victim
of a severe miscarriage of justice." Cheney now says privately that his
memoir, expected to be published in spring 2011, will describe their
heated arguments in full.
It would appear perhaps, that the best of the Bush
Administration was really Dick Cheney. When Bush traded in Cheney for
Condoleeza Rice, the Bush Administration and America lost.
Bush's
support for Obama and Cheney's willingness to challenge Obama-- only make
that all too painfully clear. Unfortunately America has long since
abandoned serious leadership, for telegenic leadership. And that is how we
ended up where we are now.
Speaking of telegenic, the Diversity
Czar (isn't it funny how Obama's Czars seem to have a habit of functioning
like real life Czars) has a great plan to
basically crack what's left of the media and turn it into a wholly owned
government corporation.
Mark Lloyd, newly appointed Chief Diversity Officer of
the Federal Communications Commission, has called for making private
broadcasting companies pay licensing fees equal to their total operating
costs to allow public broadcasting outlets to spend the same on their
operations as the private companies do.
Lloyd’s hope is to
dramatically upgrade and revamp the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
through new funding drawn from private broadcasters.
Along with
this money, Lloyd would regulate much of the programming on these
stations to make sure they focused on “diverse views” and government
activities.
Of course taxing companies at the rate of their operating
costs, means that private broadcasters would have to spend twice as much
to stay in business as they do now. With a bad economy, poor advertising
and a declining market-- this is a formula for driving many stations and
companies out of business entirely. Which is the point.
The primary
target would of course be "right wing enemies" like the Sinclair Group or
Clear Channel, but overall it would help drive companies out of business,
making way for NPR and liberal talk stations funded by government money.
Essentially imagine PBS and NPR with the kind of power and influence
wielded by the BBC. That's the aim and the target here.
The
Jerusalem Post meanwhile uncovers some of the other "J Street" donors
besides George Soros. J Street if you will remember is a left wing
anti-Israel lobby masquerading as a Pro-Israel lobby, in the same way that
the Klan claimed to be a friend of the black man. Since the Jpost article
seems to be down, go to IsraPundit
to read the whole story
The J Street political action committee has received
tens of thousands of dollars in donations from dozens of Arab and Muslim
Americans, as well as from several individuals connected to
organizations doing Palestinian and Iranian issues advocacy, according
to Federal Election Commission filings.
Additionally, at least
two State Department officials connected to Middle East issues have
donated to the PAC, which gives money to candidates for US Congress
supported by J Street . The organization describes itself as a
“pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby pushing for more American involvement and
diplomacy in resolving the Middle East conflict.
Arab and Muslim
donors are extremely rare for other organizations that describe
themselves as supporters of Israel as J Street does, Jewish leaders at
organizations across the political spectrum told The Jerusalem Post.
Because most of these other organizations are not PACs, however, US law
does not require them to release their donor lists. J Street ’s non-PAC
arm also does not release a complete list of contributors.
But
some of the contributors play key roles in the organization. The finance
committee’s 50 members - with a $10,000 contribution threshold - include
Lebanese-American businessman Richard Abdoo, a current board member of
Amideast and a former board member of the Arab American Institute, and
Genevieve Lynch, who is also a member of the National Iranian American
Council board. The group has also received several contributions from
Nancy Dutton, an attorney who once represented the Saudi Embassy in
Washington .
Smaller donors include several leaders of Muslim
student groups, Saudi- and Iranian-born Americans, and Palestinian- and
Arab-American businessmen who also give to Arab-oriented
PACs.
In other words, J Street is actually funded at least in
part by the Arab Lobby. This can be no real surprise, as left wing
anti-Israel groups typically stock up on funds from the Muslim world and
European governments. Peace Now is a living example of that. But it does
help tear some of the rest of the mask off J Street's ugly face.
For all the howling about AIPAC and the Israel Lobby, it's rather
clear that the other side, including George Soros and the Iranian and
Saudi governments prefer to hide their lobbies behind other fronts--
including behind the J Street front. And there can be less argument now
that J Street employees, are employees of groups and nations that want to
wipe Israel off the face of the earth. The J Street agenda is to help them
do it.
As the poet said, you gets what you pays for.
From
another perspective on Israel, the Spectator has a book review of George
Gilder's The Israel
Test. I have not read the book, but based on the review, there is an
overstatement of how socialist Israel was and how free market Israel is
today. Israel is very European in many ways, and its economic pathways
resemble what has happened in some European nations, as the struggle
between a socialist and a free market economy has led to chaos and
compromises.
Israel has become more visible as a high tech market,
but that is because of changes in the technology market as a whole, have
made it easier for Israelis to participate. The consumer oriented gadget
culture and the internet have made Israeli companies into bigger players,
and Israeli advances, including instant messaging have played more of a
role abroad. The result has been a mixed blessing, because paradoxically
that same boom has also brought greater emphasis on materialism and
subverted a lot of Israeli politics, as the likes of the Bronfmans or
various Russian ogilarchs throw their weight around and begin pushing
their own political agenda on Israelis. Paradoxically this has made Israel
more politically vulnerable, which has helped kick off the European
boycotts as a pressure tool.
Meanwhile at Tundra Tabloids, Chavez
admits that the Iranians are using Venezuela as their
playground.
Chavez and Iran are both in the tyranny business, as
well as in the terrorist business, and they have major religious
differences, as Chavez worships at the altar of socialism, and Iran at the
altar of Islamic capitalism, but both agree on the need to destroy America
and American allies such as Columbia and Israel.
Meanwhile Aish has
a piece on one of the hidden
Converso Jewish families in Venezuela.
Jack Kemp at the
American Thinker proposes
a Great Bubbie Rebellion
To remedy this situation, I propose the senior
bubbies/grandparents in Florida start a Great Bubbie Rebellion of 2010
and 2012. This would consist of telephoning their grandchildren who
hectored them last November to inform the youngsters that if they don't
vote against the Democrats and their exclusionary health care plans in
2010 and 2012, that the grandparents will disinherit them and stop
sending them money for their car insurance or perhaps the grandmotherly
supplement to their unemployment insurance like they now do.
If
this met with laughter by the callow youth, they should be further told
that if and when an Obama healthcare plan comes into effect - and the
seniors are denied coverage for a hip replacement or a pacemaker, the
grandparents, if well enough, will fly to Costa Rica or India or South
Africa for the operation they might need and stay a while on vacation,
eating up the inheritance their grandchildren were counting on to
finance their grad school education where they would learn to better
express disdain for those "greedy Republican yuppies."
To
emphasize the limited choices and desperation of what ObamaCare could
create for these grandparents - and to get through to the youngsters -
the grandparents could quote a line from Bob Dylan's "Like a Rolling
Stone," saying, "When you ain't got nothing, you've got nothing to
lose." For if no hospital in the US would pay for a needed pacemaker,
the grandparents would, indeed, have nothing to lose.
So I am
calling on all Republicans that have at least as much testosterone as
Gov. Sarah Palin (all women have a bit) to stand up to the Death Panels
and the Great Schlep emotional blackmailing youths of 2008 and show them
that it's payback time. If you aren't into revenge, consider it Warsaw
Ghetto Uprising Time, so to speak. If you are going to die soon or
sooner, you might as well do it fighting for your dignity.
Zei
Gezint, Bubbie. You should be well, Grandma and
Grandpa.
Last week, while traveling to Chicago on business, I
noticed a Marine sergeant traveling with a folded flag, but did not put
two and two together.
After we boarded our flight, I turned to
the sergeant, who’d been invited to sit in First Class (across from me),
and inquired if he was heading home.
No, he responded. Heading
out I asked?
No. I’m escorting a soldier home.
Going to
pick him up?
No. He is with me right now. He was killed in Iraq,
I’m taking him home to his family.
The realization of what he had
been asked to do hit me like a punch to the gut. It was an honor for
him. He told me that, although he didn’t know the soldier, he had
delivered the news of his passing to the soldier’s family and felt as if
he knew them after many conversations in so few days.
I turned
back to him, extended my hand, and said, Thank you.. Thank you for doing
what you do so my family and I can do what we do.
Finally and in conclusion, Lemon Lime Moon has two timely
posts on the uses of propaganda, first with Propaganda
Reform
Words are powerful things and can change your
perspective on any subject if you don't look carefully at things. It's
important to realize propaganda and then read around it. I thought it
might be good to list the techniques of propaganda because they are
being used today more than at most other times. Socialists and
communists are pro's at propaganda.
1. Bandwagon: make people
feel they are alone if they don't jump on the bandwagon and support what
you say.
2. Assertion:Presenting something as an absolute fact by
the energetic and enthusiastic and repeated way you say it...even if its
a bald faced lie.
3.Pinpointing your enemy: enemies lists.
Turning one group into the full on enemy. Using language and terms that
vilify . Repeatedly using terms for someone or a group that pinpoints
them as the target enemy.
4.Stacking the Cards: Presenting only
the pro's about a subject even when there are more con's than
pro's.
5. Just us Plain Folk: Presenting yourself as one of the
people, just a plain common fellow, nothing special so that you can "fit
in" with everyman.
6. Transferring: In this you link a subject
you wish to promote with something else that has a good reputation or
conotation or is respected. This covers over the evils of the
subject.
7.Call Them Names: call your opponents evil names. Said
loud enough and long enough they will stick and everyone will come to
have a bad feeling about them just based on the common perception you
create.
8.Least Offensive Idea: You present two ideas , both not
good and then present the one you really wish to push forward as the
lesser of the two evils. You make it look as if it's the only option
people can choose, the only way out of a (perceived) bad
situation.
9.Glittering Generalities: This is using buzz words
and statements to make people think the best of things.
Like,
"you want to fight for the United States, don't you?" Here US is the
glittering generality. How can anyone say no?? "You aren't against
motherhood and apple pie are you?"
10. Testimony: Call up eye
witnesses to the success and/or failure of what you are putting forward.
You want real sob stories for these, even if you have to make them up or
twist the truth to get them to sound real.
11. Stereotyping:
Reduce everything to good vs evil.
For instance.. Nancy Pelosi's
saying that all tea parties are really just nazi
rallies.
The headline reads: Obama says health care critics use
'scare tactics' .
And, true to how propaganda operates that
statement is itself a "scare tactic". Indeed the whole idea of health
care "REFORM" is a scare tactic. The entire idea of trotting out
supposed "victims" of the US health care system is a scare tactic based
on half truths, innuendo and outright lies.
The article goes on
to tell us that Obama urged people "not to listen to those who seek to
"scare and mislead the American people." "For all the scare tactics out
there, what is truly scary is if we do nothing,".
It further goes
on to describe the audience as "friendly". This ensures lots of applause
and the false view that everyone except the weirdos supports him.
Everyone but those whom Pelosi and friends call Nazi agitators and who
decry dissension as "Un-American". Dissension and opposition are as
American as apple pie.
Again both articles are worth reading. As are all those
linked above. Sell you all Saturday Night.
|
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment