Bush, aka Gee Dumbya, ca. 2007-08
It ought to go without saying that instead of bad mouthing or threatening Vladimir Putin, Obama and his White House ought to be glad-handing him for running interference the past two years - and keeping the U.S. out of two more unnecessary occupations - and thousands more deaths. That refers to Mr. Putin stepping in with the Iran crisis, and then the Syrian crisis. While neocons had boners to bomb Iranian nuclear sites, and later firing thousands of cruise missiles into Damascus - likely triggering a massive war in either case, Putin's solutions helped put those on the back burner and avert calamity.
In any case, it was incredible to me that a nation that still had 44 million uninsured, and 27 million under -employed or unemployed, with 15.6 million kids who go to bed hungry every night, and a massively crumbling infrastructure, could remotely contemplate getting involved in two more "wars"-occupations. Had we not had enough, what with 12 year (going on 13) in Afghanistan and ten years in Iraq? No, not by a long shot, not according to the Bushite Neocons. Not according to "National Endowment of Democracy" weasels and their honchos like Robert Kagan.
They and their cheerleaders have incessantly demanded "regime change" in assorted nations as part of national policy, never mind the costs in blood and treasure. They started with Iraq, and have wanted Syria and Iran to be included too. Putin's "interference" upended their ambitions and they got pissed, then concocted a way to get even - inciting instability right on Putin's doorstep - in the Ukraine. Kagan's wife Victoria Nuland, along with other 'cons, egged on Ukrainian nationalists who took matters into their own hands, to arouse public anger and even fueled it further by using snipers to shoot over two dozen of the protestors themselves. See e.g.
Other commentators (e.g. Patrick Smith on salon.com, Robert Parry on smirkingchimp.com) have noted Obama’s weakness in his willingness to assemble a “team of rivals” but who are mainly neocons who’ve taken over his foreign policy. But there is more to it than that.
Robert Parry in a recent blog (‘How Looking Forward Tripped Up Obama’ ) observed:
Nuland’s husband, former Reagan administration official Robert Kagan, was a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century, which in 1998 called for the first step in this “regime change” strategy by seeking a
Going back through files the past two years some answers appear to emerge. It seems that in fact - incredible as it sounds - Kagan and his neocon cohort had Obama's ear almost from the time he entered office.
As long as two years ago, salon.com sources observed that “as a living embodiment of
In other words, as long as two years ago, Kagan and his neocon poison were infiltrating the administration like earlier with the Bushies. Did Obama not know of Kagan's history? Did he not really mean "hope and change" as delivered in his '08 campaign rhetoric, which surely millions of people took as his solemn word? And that meant NO new Bushite, para-Nazi invasions or occupations or starting coups in other places.
BUT why was support high? Could the American people - at least so many as suggested to be 'high' in support of wars- be THAT fucking stupid? Do they not tie in the decline of the nation to the waste of its resources in futile wars and occupations? Do they not connect the dots between the ongoing wars, occupations and military expansion (including the volunteer army) with a side "jobs program" that implies a decline in the private job market? And why are they not looking deeper at exactly who are enriching themselves - as on Wall Street- as a result of this regular interference? Are they afraid those interests may somehow turn up in their 401ks?
"So even as the American people tire of one war, they’re getting ready for the next one, If this system is warlike, it’s the tendency that flows from the public.”
So, in other words, the blame is on us, according to Kagan! We are the war mongers! If we'd only cease supporting them our noble, saintly leaders wouldn't hurl us into them. TO which I call out HORSE shit and Bull Pockey! It is the leaders in congress who are supposed to be able to discern circumstances to justify entry into conflicts that will cost blood and treasure. That is precisely why the DECLARATION of WAR was invested in congress! But what our leaders, namely the executive branch, have done - is arrogated to themselves the right to start conflicts - damned the congress and separation of powers! What were those infamous words of Nazi honcho Hermann Goering, rendered at Nuremberg in 1946 before the Nuremberg Tribunal?
" Why of course the people don’t want war...But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship ... Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they’re being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” -
Take that and shove it up your ass, Kagan!
And then this disgusting tool has the nerve to add this, in a PNAC article co-authored with neocon nut William Kristol (check out his recent appearance on Real Time):
“It is precisely because American foreign policy is infused with an unusually high degree of morality that other nations find they have less to fear from its otherwise daunting power,”
But I skewered this notion of a unique "American morality" in a blog post last year:
In Robert Kagan’s reading of U.S. foreign policy, the anti-interventionist tradition is, by definition, outside of the “mainstream” even when, as is the case of Iraq, the mainstream itself came to repudiate the war.