Saturday, April 15, 2006

Will "the Jews made us do it" be US excuse for Mideast fiasco?

I really don't know at which point is it permissible
in academic-speak to use the term "imbecilic." But it
seems clear to me that America has set itself on a
past-practice clause of allowing itself to take out
its manufactured political anxieties on nations that
it could find precedence or neo-reasons for deeming
complicit in the generation of the anxiety.

Our Iran policy is a case in point. The recent article
by Seymour Hersh-- a journalist I loved to hate but
came to hate to love but can't help it because he's
been so good-- wrote in NEWYORKER an article, the
second, that intimates prospects for US attack of
Iran.

http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact

Before commenting on the above article, let me recall
a previous article in NEWYORKER in which Hersh was
used by the Pentagon to scare Tehran: he predicted an
attack, based on "inside" sources, but it never
happened. In both articles Hersh-- whom I hated since
Vietnam War days but came to totally respect, even
love, since 9/11-- is a leftist who became Wash. DC's
most respected journalist. Keep in mind that a Hersh
journalist is like an FBI agent: all he can do is ask
and ask and ask.... But Hersh had this way of coming
back at you, of double checking and then returning,
etc-- he was not just a detective but an intelligence
genius. And, he had a feel for what American democracy
is all about (something we East Euros obsessed with
Commies kept forgetting about). Sure he was a scoop
hound, very competitive, but he had a mission and
TRUTH was to be his weapon for the press, for America,
for the world and for freedom.

Now he despairs over how the press has capitulated in
fear of "access" cut-off since the 2004 re-election of
Mr. Bush. And so, he has widened his net inevitably
sacrificing the depth through revisiting and
double-checking of sources that made him so famous.
Now he is a known entity and people who talk to him
talk to him more deliberately to transmit a message
and/or work a cause. Also, Hersh cannot believe that
the larceny of this regime is as shallow and
"imbecilic" as it really is. So here he is putting
together dozens of one-pad interviews into a cogent
picture. So to him it looks like we have to go after
Iran but he misses what's driving us there.

Anyone who knew Cheney and Rumsfeld over the last
several decades knew that they thought leadership
depended more on what you seem to have below the
umbilicus more than what you seem to have above it
(ie. balls matter more than brains!). And so, many
deemed them both the Fix-it Keystone Cops of
Republican Administrations in that they took total
control and totally screwed up. Just look *carefully*
at their accomplishments. As for the presidency, I can
only avoid being bleeped by quoting EJ Dionne who
expressed it better than anyone: this Administration
is on a long holiday from complexity. What has this
wrought?

First of all, it has made real admission of error
impossible since the errors have been so massive and
so devoid of any rationale that no one can admit to
them for fear of the consequences. Bush was honest at
least when he said that he always follows his gut. As
a result, we are up against foreign policy by
speechwriters trying to make gut-reaction seem cogent.
So Bush is stuck with the speechwriters' words; it is
reminiscent of how the Soviet speechwriters, editors
at Pravda all, described the "Brezhnev Doctrine":
What's this "doctrine," with my name on it comrades?--
asked Brezhnev. Well, O.K., comrades, since you wrote
it, I hope it goes over well because I just don't
understand it. And so, when next faced with a
decision, Brezhnev was stuck with the "Brezhnev
Doctrine" because, after all, he himself enunciated
it!

The Bush doctrine is much the same. But rather than
explain and debate it with newsmen, as is expected in
a democracy, Bush protects himself by expressing
himself as only acting from his gut. And, the only
explanation his gut can offer is an odoriferous thing
most would rather skip.

Hersh's problem is that he got exclusive access to a
lot of bureaucratic ladder "climbers" or off the
ladder retired "fallers." They are Pentagon
practitioners of the art of sycophancy who are being
rewarded by Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld (Mr. Cheney only
appears as the "terminator" to those who fail to
comply) or victims of mis-steps who had been visited
by what Bush calls the "Vice," hence recently retired.
Then, Hersh tries to give all these little vignettes a
cogent string of beads arty necklace-like unity,
spiced by the "juicy" quotes in order to make it
appealing to the editor of NEWYORKER.

In truth, there is no Iran policy, just a "Bush
Doctrine" derivative that insists on: when in doubt
hit and hit and hit again. It's called "preemption";
but most miss the second part of its definition: "from
the gut." This means that a careful reading of Bush's
last 20 speeches will give you a clear picture of what
the precedent created by the words-smiths will cause
him to do (as he said). However, don't forget that
there's also Rove who speaks for what's "politically"
good for the Republican Party and Cheneny who tries to
force on Bush the promises he made to the Israeli
lobby, AIPAC.

My fear is that when the Republicans are swept from
power in Congress this Fall 2006, the Christian Right
will look for someone to blame. Because of the
neocons' obsession with their geriatric surge of
testosterone through their incestuous "think-tank" and
publication outlets, "the Jews" will be a very
convenient outlet for blame. After all, didn't they
crucify Jesus? Sounds dumb, but be ready to hear it a
lot!

Don't ask for too much reason or realism in this
reaction. It is only a cover-up by the leaders to
cover their incompetence. After all, the Bush
phenomenon is a phenomenal lowering of the bar for
smarts. This is what is reminiscent of Germany circa
1930s: "Triumph of the Will" and the 2004 Scripted
Republican Convention are similar cases of showmanship
(purple band-aids and all that) showcasing homogeneity
for the Fatherland under attack-- substituting, not
light, but glitz and blinding glare for brains. Since
then, our government has known little serious debate,
just the "imbecility" of polarized screeching. But
with an AIPAC front supporting an anti-Arab blare from
Congress, the neocons managed to make Likudnik and
Republican seem synonymous, according to the JERUSALEM
POST. In fact, the MASS MAJORITY of Jews are as
frightened of this phenomenon as any one else in
America. But they kept quiet for fear of making things
worse, according to the FORWARD, the Jewish newspaper
I always read for its sheer genius and prescience. For
insight, I offer the following Meirsheimer and Wald
academic paper on the AIPAC LOBBY:

http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-011

For those not so much into academic reading with
endnotes, I offer the shorter version from the LONDON
REVIEW OF BOOKS:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/print/mear01_.html

Below is an attempted retort from David Gergen, a
White House aide for several presidents:

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/articles/060403/3edit.htm

The Likud perspective goes so far as to shadow US
polices with a suggestion that America adopt Israeli
ones. In that way, how can the US complain about
Israel doing the same thing that America is doing?

I offer two examples:

(1) Daniel Byman's collaborative argumentation with
ex-Mossad (Israeli Secret Service) Chief, Dichter, on
"TARGETED KILLINGS":

http://www.brookings.edu/printme.wbs?page=/fp/saban/analysis/byman20060324.htm

(2)The Center for Immigration Studies argued in a
Congressional "hearing" it set up that the problems in
Paris are attributable to Islamic "false loyalty" to
West as immigrants:

http://www.cis.org/articles/2005/frenchriotstranscript.html

As Anne Norton in her study of the Neocons suggests,
there is an "anti-Semitic" campaign by A FEW Jews--
the neocons-- directed at Arabs and their access to
political influence in the US for fear that they might
balance off AIPAC. Somehow it is "kosher" to make that
an issue but not to discuss Zionist-right influence.

In the end, the mix of "imbecility" at the top and
censorship at the bottom suggests a possible repeat of
the worst-- anti-Semitism-- of the 20th Century as
backlash to the testosterone surge of a few
irresponsible advocates of "WW IV." That all this is a
testosterone geriatrics (prostatitis, if you will) of
a few old guys who, contrary to their claim, speak
only for their belated hormonal surge has been more
that documented by the famous words quoted in the
media from a leading neocon, Norman Podhoretz, upon
the start of the Iraq War: Now I no longer feel like
the scrawny Jewish kid in the schoolyard always beat
up by the black kids. Whatever he may feel, he speaks
only for himself, not as the Jewish leader he pretends
to be; but as a self-avowed leader he has the
obligation to responsibly consider the backlash from
the Fundamentalist Christians when they lose power and
the Mideast goes from bad to worse for the US thanks
to neocon influence through Cheney and Rumsfeld on
Bush. The so-called "Christian Zionist Coalition"
should have been seen for what it is: a momentary tool
of political convenience that could easily backfire on
the innocent Jewish population in America, all at the
hands of the Christian Right leadership looking for a
scapegoat for their bad predictions.

Daniel E. Teodoru

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home