[Peace-discuss] Pander-Bear...Ack!

[C. G. Estabrook]

I think you're right.

David Green wrote:
> I think it is possible both that George Bush is stupid at the analytical 
> level to which Vidal refers, but smart and consciously 
> self-interested in pursuing the narrow ends of the permanent government 
> at the extreme end of the spectrum, while still needing the help of some 
> smarter people who use their intelligence to scare the public by lying 
> to it.
>  
> I more disagree with Vidal in his view that the public is also stupid, 
> and in fact he contradicts himself in his reference to "amnesia." That 
> word should apply to something that is known and then not remembered. 
> But as Vidal comments, the public has never been taught the truth about 
> our history in the first place, due to our educational system.
>  
> DG
> 
> */"John W." <jbw292002 at gmail.com>/* wrote:
> 
> 
>     On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu
>     <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
> 
>         The Financial Times, to my mind the best general
>         English-language newspaper today, points out that -- despite
>         rhetorical divergences -- there are no major differences in
>         general Mideast war policy among Obama, McCain, Clinton and
>         Bush.  From the article cited above,
> 
>         "...For all the difference in temperament and outlook between
>         them, many analysts and insiders say there are important points
>         of continuity between the three main presidential campaigns'
>         policies on the Middle East, despite the many controversies in
>         the region.
> 
>         "...Even on Iraq, the great divisive issue in US politics, some
>         observers caution that, in the end, there might be less
>         difference between the candidates' approach than first meets the
>         eye."
> 
>         Two points seem clear:
> 
>         [1] In the US, policy -- particularly foreign policy -- is
>         largely insulated from politics.  The permanent government
>         follows a consistent policy, however nefarious, and regularly
>         scheduled elections function more as a distraction from it than
>         as a process of decision about it: we think we're making public
>         decisions (as in the elections of of 2006 and 2008), but in fact
>         the possibilities are so carefully constructed that they will
>         make no difference in the general policy.  But it gives the
>         electorate something to do.
> 
>         [2] The current wars in the Middle East, far from reflecting he
>         peculiar ignorance or stupidity of George Bush (as Gore Vidal
>         seemed to argue on Democracy Now! this morning) are well within
>         the (narrow) policy spectrum discussed within the American
>         government for generations, if at one end of that spectrum.  And
>         -- as the House Democrats admit by funding the war well into the
>         next administration -- the new president will intend no real
>         change, whoever s/he is.  On war, the election of 2008 is like
>         the election of 1968 -- regardless of its outcome, the new
>         president will continue the war, with at best tactical changes.
>          --CGE
> 
> 
>     So why aren't we still fighting in Viet Nam?  What exactly caused
>     the change in policy that resulted in Nixon pulling the troops out,
>     rather precipitously, citing "peace with honor"?
>     _______________________________________________
>     Peace-discuss mailing list
>     Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>     http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss