Old wine, new bottle.
The Bush administration is over (for the most part), right? Well, not so fast. Yes, they started two disastrous wars, killing enough people to make Milosevic and Suharto blush. Yes, they shook the empire to its foundations, so much so that they spent the last two years of their tenure under the watchful eye of an imperial overseer (Robert Gates). Yes, their ludicrously ham-fisted foreign policy - coupled with monumental domestic blunders - resulted in the near-total collapse of the American economy, bringing on the first proper depression since the 1930s. But none of that means they shouldn't be put back in charge again, right?
I think I felt the earth tremble just then. Yeah, nobody wants that ... really. And yet there is a very real possibility that many of the same people who ran Bush's foreign policy - including the most extreme of the neoconservative cadre - could have their sweaty, blood-stained hands back on the levers of imperial power this coming January. The cabal advising Mitt Romney is basically a reunion tour of the nasty little group that started the Iraq war. Ari Berman ticked through their ranks in The Nation this past week. Heading up that group is John Bolton, who could very well end up Secretary of State, but he also has an ear cocked towards Dan Senor (Bush's former coalition provisional authority spokesperson), Eric Edelman, Cofer Black, Robert Kagan, and many other once and continuing fans of the horrendous Iraq enterprise.
Did they learn anything from their disasters? Not really. The Iraq war is still a good thing, in their estimation. But more than that - it's important to bear one thing in mind about this crew. They are basically successors to the Reagan team on foreign policy, like Reagan: the next generation (or de-generation). They've been back in power once since then, and it was, if anything, worse than Reagan. Every time they come back, they are worse than before. If you thought W's eight years were hellish, just wait.
Don't say you're only concerned with economics. My friend, this is economics. The Afghan and Iraq wars blew massive holes in the federal budget and are still bleeding us dry ten years later. Romney wants to keep the Afghan deployment going and would undoubtedly get us stuck somewhere else as well. Moreover, he is planning something like a 20% increase in Pentagon spending. That will mean bleeding domestic programs even further, which will take the air out of the U.S. economy (as austerity always does - see last week.)
Elections have consequences. 1980, 2000, and 2004 showed us that. Keep that in mind as you ponder the value of your franchise (and I don't mean the fast-food restaurants you own).
luv u,
jp
I think I felt the earth tremble just then. Yeah, nobody wants that ... really. And yet there is a very real possibility that many of the same people who ran Bush's foreign policy - including the most extreme of the neoconservative cadre - could have their sweaty, blood-stained hands back on the levers of imperial power this coming January. The cabal advising Mitt Romney is basically a reunion tour of the nasty little group that started the Iraq war. Ari Berman ticked through their ranks in The Nation this past week. Heading up that group is John Bolton, who could very well end up Secretary of State, but he also has an ear cocked towards Dan Senor (Bush's former coalition provisional authority spokesperson), Eric Edelman, Cofer Black, Robert Kagan, and many other once and continuing fans of the horrendous Iraq enterprise. Did they learn anything from their disasters? Not really. The Iraq war is still a good thing, in their estimation. But more than that - it's important to bear one thing in mind about this crew. They are basically successors to the Reagan team on foreign policy, like Reagan: the next generation (or de-generation). They've been back in power once since then, and it was, if anything, worse than Reagan. Every time they come back, they are worse than before. If you thought W's eight years were hellish, just wait.
Don't say you're only concerned with economics. My friend, this is economics. The Afghan and Iraq wars blew massive holes in the federal budget and are still bleeding us dry ten years later. Romney wants to keep the Afghan deployment going and would undoubtedly get us stuck somewhere else as well. Moreover, he is planning something like a 20% increase in Pentagon spending. That will mean bleeding domestic programs even further, which will take the air out of the U.S. economy (as austerity always does - see last week.)
Elections have consequences. 1980, 2000, and 2004 showed us that. Keep that in mind as you ponder the value of your franchise (and I don't mean the fast-food restaurants you own).
luv u,
jp
Comments