Cheney and Rumsfeld: The Same Con - The Same Con Men
If you read one blog this year, it should be this link. I once saw a document with the various GNPs of the world, and this was before Reagan came into power. The GNP of Japan was in the process of passing the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was collapsing economically. Why? Because Communism is a lousy idea. Of course, we were given the spin that Ronald Reagan won the Cold War, and, as with most spin, we paid a tremendous price for it. There's an element of humor here: All these Right Wing blowhards actually had to give Communism more credit than it deserved. Why? Because they needed a Cold War, the way the current group needs a War on Terror. That's why we have Islamofascism. Because we need something to fear. The incredible thing is that at the center of both stories is that wonderful song and dance team: Cheney and Rumsfeld. Long before they were hyping non-existent WMDs in Iraq, they were hyping non-existent new super-secret weapons in the Soviet Union.
Why? To keep the fear alive. To keep the Defense Budget going strong, and to keep the power in their hands. These guys would rather create a War on Terror and turn it into a reality, than actually win it.
If you think this is a new phenomenon with these two, you need to read this. Cheney and Rumsfeld will go down as two of the arch-villains in American History. As long as anyone is still alive to write that history.
'The Power of Nightmares': Hyping Terror For Fun, Profit - And Power
posted by Bill McDonald @ 9:43 AM
4 comments
4 Comments:
All I can say is, "Thom Hartman"....consider the source. I find it fascinating the revisionist history some on the left are willing to accept. Interesting premise that we simply 'manufacture' fear. I guess there was nothing to fear from the Soviets after all? Just as there was nothing really to fear from Islamofascists on September 10, 2001? As for Reagan and whether he won the cold war, history paints a different picture than the one 'fair and balanced' Thom Hartman would have you believe. But then again, Mikhail Gorbechev didn't know as much about the situation in Russia as the real expert, Thom Hartman:
"Here was Gorbachev speaking at a session of the Politburo in October 1986, days before he traveled to Reykjavik, Iceland to offer Reagan a groundbreaking disarmament plan, including a 50 percent reduction in nuclear arsenals. If he didn't propose these cuts, Gorbachev told his colleagues:
[W]e will be pulled into an arms race that is beyond our capabilities, and we will lose it because we are at the limit of our capabilities. … If the new round [of an arms race] begins, the pressures on our economy will be unbelievable."
I would say that Fred Kaplan is a more formidible source on how the cold war was won:
http://www.slate.com/id/2102081
Fred Kaplan writes the "War Stories" column for Slate. He was the Boston Globe's military reporter from 1982-91 and its Moscow bureau chief from 1992-95.
History paints a different picture? What does that mean? History is written by people, and Ronald Reagan has been depicted as winning the Cold War. That is spin. It's time you people stop being soft on communism. The Soviet Union failed because their economic model was terrible. They imploded. The United States spends more on its "defense" than all other countries of the world combined. At the vanguard of this charge, has been Cheney and Rumsfeld. If we're not careful they will bankrupt our country as well as manufacture World War 3.
Our defense spending as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product is not excessive in the least. When measured as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product, the United States does not make the top-39 list. North Korea is first, Israel is tenth, and Singapore is nineteenth. Most Arab countries are on the list, and many rank near the top. For example, Saudi Arabia is fifth, Kuwait is sixth, and Jordan is eleventh.
The Soviets economic model was terrible - I agree. But they had survived 'on the brink' for 40 years. There model was terrible given who they were competing against. Gorbachev himself said that the escalation of the arms race was detrimental to the stability of the Soviet Union. Would they have collapsed on their own anyway? Maybe, maybe not. But no serious historian disputes that Reagan's policies hastened their demise.
I can see that model and it makes sense. Two drag racers and we run them into the ground by running hot for awhile. Is that what happened? I've heard it both ways. I tend to believe the Eisenhower warning about the military-industrial complex. By the way have we got to that peace dividend yet?
Post a Comment
<< Home