Dick Cheney The Ol’ Neocon Bastard

Leave a comment

Compare the philosophic differences in the following quotes:

She has abstained from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings, as to the last vital drop that visits the heart….Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not go abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause, by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example.

John Quincy Adams, 4 July 1821

As quoted recently by Dick Cheney:

In 1983, President Ronald Reagan said, “If history teaches anything, it teaches that simple-minded appeasement or wishful thinking about our adversaries is folly. It means the betrayal of our past, the squandering of our freedom.”

One knows he is on the right track when neo-cons start up with their tired tirades. The two good things Obama has done in the last six years is to “end” our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq and draw down the size of the Armed Forces. Regarding the latter, America has done so after every war before World War II. Yet after that war, we actually grew our military, to combat an imagined threat in the Cold War, thanks in part to Truman’s missteps and Ike’s missed opportunities to open up talks with the Soviets in the early-mid 1950’s.

Cheney seems to have forgotten that putting Iran into the Axis of Evil in the 2000’s nixed a reformist Iranian governmnet and brought Ahmadinejad to power. Does he also forget that Kuwait was carved out of Iraq by the British? Or that modern Near East states were created by the Allies post-World War I? How our loans to Saddam during the Iraq-Iran War collapsed an Iraqi economy that had been on the rebound before the war? That both reasons led Saddam to invade Kuwait? Does he remember we fed supplies and money into the Iraq-Iran war? Or what of Afghanistan – that we did the same to the Mujahideen and Taliban fighters to spite the Soviets?

Does Cheney, who views the surge with warm feelings because of its “success” understand it was necessary because Rumsfeld refused to understand the concept of invading with overpowering numbers? Would Cheney be able to honestly tell us he believes the American Way is not a cookie-cutter experience for all peoples in all places in all times? If not, I would suggest he read Orestes A. Brownson.

No, the clear evidence Dick Cheney sees he wrongly interprets. The world has not spoken any clearer in telling America to return to its Enlightenment principles. The world does not need another Imperal parent. Spurn Churchill’s desire and lay the British Empire to rest.

In Cheney’s view:

Tragically, [Obama] is quickly proving…that without American pre-eminence, there can be no world order.

As Marcus Aurelius tells Maximus in Gladiator, empire does not mean the end of war for there will always be someone left to fight. We should care to recall that the world was so ordered before America and will be so after America. What is world order other than individuals [nations] acting in their own best interests? Obama cannot be any more right in saying “[a]ny world order that elevates one nation above others cannot long survive.” As Brownson argues, America or any other nation, does not exist in and of itself, it exists as so Divinely created. Exclude the Divine to one’s own peril. What is peril other than to view one’s country as the benefactor of civilization and order?

I hope Dick Cheney’s march takes him straight to the insane asylum.

Richard Lugar Gets It Right

Leave a comment

From the National Journal:

Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Richard Lugar, R-Ind., says Congress should have had the opportunity to weigh in on what he said will be “a very expensive operation, even in a limited way.”

Speaking on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Lugar said, “It’s a strange time in which almost all of our congressional days are spent talking about budget deficits, outrageous problems. And yet [at the] same time, all of this passes.”

The fact that Ghaddafi is sitting on a large pot of gold should be quite worrisome to the supposed U.S.-led International Coalition bombing Libya through its weaponry bought with paper money. Worrisome because this never-ending manufactured Recession is causing the price of gold to skyrocket, thereby increasing Ghaddafi’s wealth. Secondly, if the Libyan leader does use guerrilla tactics to repel International Imperialism, we could very well find ourselves in a New Vietnam.

The only positive to a possible Vietnam type conflict is it would be relatively short-lived in comparison. The U.S. certainly doesn’t have the economic might to fund such a conflict and assuming all things stay as they are, our military doesn’t have the capability of escalating its presence in Libya as we are overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In any case, let’s hope the folks elected via alignment with the Tea Party movement begin showing some chutzpah in Congress. The biggest fight to date since they’ve taken office is over the reading of the Constitution in session.

Unjust Allied Intervention and U.S. Policy

6 Comments

I read this article a few days ago and it has been bugging me ever since. It is no secret here that I strongly dislike anything Palin has to do with politically – she’s been nothing more than a disaster for the Republican cause since McCain picked her as his VP running mate.

On the Libya crisis, she proposed a no-fly-zone to protect the armed and un-armed opposition to the Qaddafi regime. Mrs. Palin’s formulation had been blogged about for nearly a week

The issue is not whether there is a crisis in Libya. No one can doubt there is and it is nothing more than a continuation of the popular uprising throughout the Middle East. The issue is that no “Allied Force” has the right, justification, or morality to interfere. These are civil issues to be solved between the people and their respective governments – and when it comes to Libya, it appears to have escalated into civil war. Do Libyans have the right to revolt? Yes. Does Ghaddafi have the right to vow no mercy? Yes. Either way, it is Libya’s problem to solve and no other nation need involve themselves unless Ghaddafi channels Milosevic-esque mass murder. In fact, I would go so far as to say intervening in a political civil war, as seems to be the case in Libya, is unjust in that it deters resolution, continuing atrocities and hatred simply by preventing them outright.

In a critique of Mr. Obama’s energy policies published yesterday at about the same time the Arab League was adopting her prescription for a Libya no-fly-zone, Mrs. Palin laid out how the president’s “war on domestic oil and gas exploration and production has caused us pain at the pump, endangered our already sluggish economic recovery, and threatened our national security.”

True, but misleading. There are greater threats. One being the percentage of the U.S. budget consumed by accumulated and continued debt and, what no one seems to be talking about, the increasing chance of the U.S. dollar losing its status as the international reserve currency. The other being U.S. foreign policy in exporting democracy and freedom world round. Such exportation is hollow and empty, serving only to whitewash our imperialism. Our way of life is so addicted to the ease of access to cheap oil that our foreign policy must automatically defer to “exporting freedom”. This means no more than propping up autocracies or deposing them at will, always in the Middle East, in order to assure continued access to cheap oil. It also means fat government contracts to private industry to make weapons – planes, bombs, guns, etc. Neo-cons might trump how we have an all-volunteer army, but it is a continued “standing army”, deployed all over the world, again to assure our access to cheap oil.

So what does this type of foreign policy buy us – peace with all nations as Washington advised over two centuries ago? On the contrary, it develops enmity amongst nations we choose to oppress, higher taxes to support our volunteer standing army which Jefferson and Madison so warned against, and ultimately less freedom and security domestically.

Whether or not Obama comments on international crises is a moot point – there is no need for any President to do so. However, his decision to become involved within the Libyan civil war has done nothing but extend our military into a third war front, raise gasoline prices at home, and eventually raise taxes to cover military expenses.

Let’s Finally End Our Participation In The U.N.

3 Comments

Enlightening, intriguing and ultimately maddening.

If any doubt was left, that article exposes one more dirty secret of the United Nations. Congress was right to deny U.S. participation in the League of Nations and it should have done the same towards the U.N. Power corrupts absolutely – there is no sadder thing to see than an organization which trumpeted the loftiest of then-modern Westernized idealism dishevel itself into a morass of human filth, disparity and tyrannical treatment of people by its participating members. But what should we have expected when we let in non-Western cultures?

While U.S. dues as of 2005 were in arrears, I propose simply quitting the U.N. Rid NYC, NYS and the rest of the country of the organization and use the money instead to begin paying down the national debt.; cutting earmarks and token spending isn’t going to absolve our debt single-handedly.

I’d rather Congress, after axing the U.N, move to break the backbone of the Military-Industrial complex, cut the Armed Forces in half – necessitating ending our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, recall all [unnecessary] foreign diplomats, immediately halt the purchasing of oil from OPEC and open the Strategic Reserve while drilling our own oil and building new refineries. That would be a good start in cutting the deficit.

War, Ineptitude and Post-Constitutionalism

Leave a comment

For Emperor Giggles having been a past supporter of withdrawing U.S. forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan, his current action is highly suspect.

U.S. generals in past wars and skirmishes have been replaced when showing ineptitude in the art of war. General George B. McClellan may be the most un-famous general with this honor. But it appears in our age, we have generals who know the ins and outs of war, largely due to the constant American need to pick a fight with anyone who won’t let us get our way.  Since the manner in which war is waged changed* with Vietnam, protocol must somehow involve the ability to engage Guerilla tactics. And since Gen. Stanley McChrystal is calling for additional forces to engage and defeat the U.S.’s so-called enemy** in Afghanistan, Emperor Giggles should oblige him. Except, Giggles has yet to make a decision more than a month and a half after McChrystal requested additional troops.

The obvious question is: Why?

Giggles is an Emperor riddled with distractions on his dinner plate. He’s prioritized preempting the private sector through government take-over programs: the $787 billion Stimulus Farce, including the government’s final stab to the banking system; the GM/Chrysler buyout; and of course, the could-be-humorous-if-it-wasn’t-so-serious attempt at Health Care reform. He has a preoccupation in seeking international adoration through taxpayer-funded fanciful-yet-narcissistic trips overseas: seeking the riddled-with-fraud IOC’s affirmation of Chicago for the 2016 games, as well as other minor trips to the Middle East and Europe giving speeches about the heavenly wonders of internationalism. Finally, due to his narcissistic need to be loved and adored by US citizens, those both legal and those borrowed from Mexico, he is on a constant media blitz – television, newspapers, magazines. Michael Savage doesn’t call him Chairman Mao-bama for no reason.

He is also an Emperor who has not learned the art of decision-making. It was scary enough when Hillary Clinton was a serious contender last year for the DNC’s presidential nomination. Yet at least we all would have had a candidate who can make decisions, no matter how much we agree or disagree. The opposite is true with Giggles. He has had no experience in true leadership. He’s been a community organizer, State Senator and less-than-one-term U.S. Senator. His record is riddled with cowardly *present* votes.

His indecisiveness in the case of Afghanistan is relevant to what I believe is his desire for losing the war there. It correlates to how best he can align himself with his Marxist, anti-American Liberal support base without the entire country turning on him. Yet in the case of Afghanistan, should he choose not to send in the needed troops, he may come out as the personification of Francisco d’Anconia – losing face, but not as much as those depending upon him (in this case the Armed Forces, Gen. McChrystal et al should the war be lost).

All of this to say Giggles is inept in every sense of the word. It boils down to two points. First, he has no real concern for the security of the nation or the reputation of the Armed Forces. He doesn’t care. The argument of our global reputation can go back and forth till the cows come home but the simple fact is that when a leader denigrates his own, foreigners are given implied permission to do as they will. Look at any past U.S. president who tore down the Armed Forces and observe how the international community reacted. In fact, we need not even look at past presidents. Observe how Iran, China and North Korea have been militarily taunting the U.S. since Giggles took office. Therefore, secondly, Giggles should be replaced. Theoretically, I don’t think it would do any good since the rule of law is no longer followed at any level of government, and adherence to any resemblance of law and justice is only skin-deep.

Post-Constitutional America is being primed for one of two occurrences, either of which will lead to the same result – some form of a Dictatorship. America will either socially tear itself apart, which it  obviously already is along the lines of gay rights, abortion, political faction, open borders and foreign influence, ad infinitum. Or, and I am quite surprised this has never happened, a military coup (save the whole War of Aggression debacle). America’s founding fathers warned against large, standing armies for this reason. How long will it be till we see a General marching on Washington? It could be closer than we think should Emperor Giggles continue his ineptitude. I for one, am shocked McChrystal has not taken matters into his own hands over in Afghanistan. For the good of our forces over there, should Giggles continue stuttering, I hope McChrystal does what needs to be done.

*One could argue that war has never really changed. George Washington was the guerilla fighter of his day. The guerilla method is the story of war itself. When faced by insurmountable odds, David will attack Goliath by whatever means possible to achieve victory. The reason for most being unable to see this is due in large part to the World Wars of the 20th century. The return to guerilla tactics ensued with the advent of the Cold War and the U.S. skirmishing in Asia. While the U.S.’s Armed Forces realize that war tactics, globally, have gone guerilla, politicians shielded by wealth and political power have not caught on or are simply refusing.

** Bush detractors fault the Bush Doctrine along its very premise – that the U.S. does not have the authority to pre-emptive war. But their foul cries miss the entire point, one the U.S. has missed the majority of the time in its history: What exactly is an enemy? In any war, there must be an end-game, a reason war is being waged in the first place. The Bush Doctrine argues the defeat of Terrorism is the end-game and that the U.S. has a right to pre-emptive war to achieve this goal. Yet the Bush Doctrine is mired down by its very philosophy because Terrorism is an international problem, one which involves fighting within a sovereign nation, the whole of which may very well be peace-oriented. Yes, the U.S. has a right to defend itself, but to what extent – are the Armed Forces nation-builders? Is Washington responsible for repairing decades-old social and political strife in nations with non-democratic political histories? Has the U.S. ever successfully built a nation outside of itself? No.

The question would then re-ask itself. How should terrorism be defeated? The international community would proffer bilateralism. That the U.S. should stop meddling in the affairs of sovereign nations. They have a point and we can look at the Middle East as a perfect example. Our involvement there to secure oil has led U.S. policy to nominate and depose leaders, leading ultimately to political and social unrest, and resulting in terrorism against the U.S. George Washington advised against this in his Farewell Address – to trade with all nations and be respectful of them. To leave foreign affairs in foreign lands. To stay out of foreign entanglements caused by treaty. So then, if the faction we are fighting against in Afghanistan is our defined enemy, why is that so?