Mar 21, 2023Liked by Bill Astore

One glaring difference between the time of Eisenhower's speeches and today is the percentage of the population who had experience with the military and war. In 1945, almost 9% of the US population was in serving in the military; today that number is 0.5%. So when Eisenhower spoke of war, those veterans and their families and neighbors knew the costs of which he spoke. They were also cynical enough to know what the differences were between what they were told and what they saw.

Today, most people believe that Top Gun: Maverick (or the next Michael Bay movie) and the propaganda fairy tales of the MSM and entertainment industry both depict the reality of the military and war.

Perhaps if civilians would stop spouting "thank you for your service" to every veteran they meet, and start asking those veterans about their experiences and what they think about them - that would be a start to being to confront the situation we face.

Expand full comment

I would note, as I've mentioned before (too many times, probably), that the only openly professed "peace" candidate for President in recent history was Dennis Kucinich. He was immensely popular in the early stages of the 2004 election. Same in 2008. Until his own party---Dems---squelched his candidacy (via, among other tactics, a rumored press black-out).

Then, in 2020, Marianne Williamson announced her candidacy, espousing peace as one of her policies; Kucinich backed her. She, too, was torpedoed by her own party, also the Dems. The same thing will happen to her 2024 candidacy, guaranteed. "Peace" just doesn't square with either party's platform, underwritten by wealthy donors and big corporations.

Expand full comment

In Eisenhower's own words: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on3KFBXQI2E

Expand full comment

with the reference to 9/11,

Essay November/December 1998 Issue United States Intelligence

Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger

By Ashton B. Carter, John Deutch, and Philip Zelikow


In December 1998, Former US Defence Secretary Ash Carter, US Undersecretary of Defence John Deutch and Philip Zelikow, Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, colluded to write this in Foreign Affairs Journal,

A successful attack with weapons of mass destruction could certainly take thousands, or tens of thousands, of lives. If the device that exploded in 1993 under the World Trade Center had been nuclear, or had effectively dispersed a deadly pathogen, the resulting horror and chaos would have exceeded our ability to describe it.

Such an act of catastrophic terrorism would be a watershed event in American history. It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented in peacetime and undermine America’s fundamental sense of security, as did the Soviet atomic bomb test in 1949.

Like Pearl Harbor, this event would divide our past and future into a before and after. The United States might respond with draconian measures, scaling back civil liberties, allowing wider surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and use of deadly force. More violence could follow, either further terrorist attacks or U.S. counterattacks.

I find it curious it happened just like that 3 years later, and one of the Authors was able to control what information the 9/11 Commission was able to see?


Expand full comment

Congress uses public resources to fund special interests. How much it steals from private economy and how much tax is collected.

"The National Defense Authorization Act is the name for each of a series of United States federal laws specifying the annual budget and expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense. The first NDAA was passed in 1961. Wikipedia

Originally published: 1961. This is an unconstitutional act that Congress uses to serve the military industrial complex, with intended destruction of the young boy and girls, their sacrifice to the beast of destruction. Also destruction of the people here at home, and their resources.

Expand full comment

AMY GOODMAN: There’s a lot to talk about today, from what happened 20 years ago, the U.S. invasion to Iraq, to the Ukraine war. But let’s begin in the present, this latest news of the Xi-Putin summit, the Chinese peace plan that was offered, and Zelensky’s response to it. Do you see a path right now? Start off by talking about the significance of the summit.

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, first of all, you know, we should not take at face value anything the parties say, whether we’re talking about Russia, China, Ukraine or the United States.

I think what impresses me is the evidence of Chinese diplomatic activism. And I say that also with reference to their role in bringing about the restoration of diplomatic relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Our diplomacy, American diplomacy, strikes me as reactive and unimaginative and ineffective. But I think Chinese diplomacy appears to be more imaginative and potentially more effective. What that says is — guess what — the world is changing in important and dramatic ways with regard to the distribution of power and influence worldwide. And this simply confirms, in a sense, what we’ve always known, or known for a long time, which is that, yes, indeed, China is emerging as a global superpower on a par with the United States of America.....................................................


Expand full comment

You have devoted a number of recent postings, Bill, to extoling the “virtue” of Eisenhower for his rants as President about and against America’s so-called “Cross of Iron” and its “Military-Industrial Complex”; lamenting the fact that very few ~ if any ~ Americans paid the slightest bit of attention to what he was saying then. Let alone comprehended and acted upon it then. Or today.

And that Americans today are totally ignorant of what he said then, even tho his words are more applicable to America today than they were at that time, almost 70 years ago.

Eisenhower was inaugurated on 20jan53, seven months before the Korean War ended in the stalemate that exists to this day. He delivered his “Cross of Iron” speech on 16apr54, one month after Dien Bien Phu fell, and America’s bankrolling France’s doomed attempt to reclaim its colonial empire in Southeast Asia ended in total and complete failure. At least for everybody not making all kinds of money from that obscenity started by Truman shortly after Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Japan’s surrender, and dutifully carried on by Ike.

It has been noted a couple of times on recent BV Comments that Ike’s “M-I-C” speech could have only happened in the last 3 or so days of his presidency. That had it happened any sooner, Nixon would have become President long before 1969, much like LBJ assumed the throne in 1963.

In terms of its immediate impact on the Real World, the most important speech Eisenhower gave was neither his “Cross of Iron” nor “M-I-C” orations. Rather, it was his “Domino Theory” speech of 07apr54, nine days before his “CoI” rant.

That was when ~ referring to the spread of Communism specifically in Indochina ~ he declared: “Finally, you have broader considerations that might follow what you would call the ‘falling domino’ principle. You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences.”

[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domino_theory ]

And within one year of him proclaiming that bullshit, the US had installed Diem in Saigon, totally ignored the Geneva Accords that officially ended what the Vietnamese People term “The French [as opposed to “The American] War,” boycotted the national election on the leadership of a unified Vietnam, and laid the foundation for what ultimately kicked in after the US government’s and its media’s Lies about an incident in the Tonkin Gulf in August of 1964.

And the rest, as one wag put it, “is history.”

Given that America’s M-I-C desperately needed and wanted a War someplace, anyplace after Korea concluded, a valid hypothesis is that had Eisenhower not bought into and then sold his “domino theory” as it related specifically to Southeast Asia, Nixon would have again become President back in the 50s; again just like LBJ after Dallas.

Whatever potential for GOOD Ike’s Cross of Iron and M-I-C speeches might have had back then or still have, the EVIL propagated, perpetrated, and perpetuated by his “Domino Theory” rant renders those other two chats as totally irrelevant and meaningless then and now. Particularly for the Vietnamese People, their Land, Country, and Nation.

Expand full comment

I've watched "Uncommon Knowledge" on Youtube quite a bit. This is a fascinating discussion Peter Robinson (the host) has with William Inboden, author of "The Peacemaker: Ronald Reagan, the Cold War, and the World on the Brink". Reagan was for military strength but by no means did he think war was a solution to anything. For instance, he pushed for the strategic defense initiative (nicknamed starwars), the ultimate ICBM defense, and mused about sharing it with the Soviets. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JBk7Uvzih0

Expand full comment