American Liberalism ~ like the NYT and most of America's MSM ~ has long been a bloodthirsty cheerleader for war, Bill. As far back as LBJ, FDR, and Woodrow "Making the world safe for Wall Street" Wilson.
There are no "liberals" in DC, there are Red Team and Blue Team members, all of whom are very conservative. The entire "liberal news" fantasy that we hear about in the "news" is just misdirection. You don't get to hear anti-war, or anti-capitalism points of view in DC. You just hear from the two organized crime families (Red and Blue). In fact, the entire history of the US has been about crushing anything that looked or smelled like "the left" throughout the world, especially in Central and South America. Notice how the US only funds and arms "right-wing death squads". When was the last time that the US armed "Left-wing death squads" (if there even is such a thing).
During the recent kayfabe debt-ceiling crisis, I saw media reports praising the fact that the one area where bipartisan unity was easy to find is “defense” spending. This was meant to be inspiring and encouraging.
Yes. They use the artificial debt crisis to force through cuts in social spending. Then they applaud themselves for being "fiscally responsible" as they throw even more money at the Pentagon.
The NYT has been a bloodthirsty cheerleader for every US war during my lifetime--Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and now Ukraine. In fact, all mainstream media (both print and TV) in the US, including so-called "liberal" cable channels MSNBC and CNN, are bloodthirsty supporters. All of them are much better described as shameless regurgitators, just spewing out the latest claptrap from the US National Security State. These media outlets may be liberal when it comes to social and cultural issues, but when it concerns anything remotely related to "national security," they just parrot what they have told by the US government. And who are the politicians who run the US government? It is a complete fiction that there are 2 parties in the US. There is only one party, and based on recent US history the best name for it would be the War Party. This singular party has 2 wings, one called Democratic and one called Republican. On matters of "national security" there is unanimity of thought, with each wing vying to see which can be more hawkish and more slavish to the military-industrial complex. Only on matters of social and cultural issues can one discern any distinction between the 2 wings of the War Party. And so, for all the above reasons, Ray McGovern's acronym is the perfect description for our times--Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think Tank, or MICIMATT.
As always, thanks for telling it like many of us see it. 'Liberal' only with respect to the culture wars, NYT has now long been, indeed, a 'bloodthirsty cheerleader'. It has become, along with Washington Post (whose owner Bezos has, through Amazon, massive financial ties to the CIA), the go-to publisher for the security state.
I don't know when it actually began - I've only been over the years an occasional reader. But I recall well its unquestioning promotion of the Iraq invasion as the Washington neocons began selling their fiction about Iraqi WMD and the existential threat to the U.S. that these weapons presented to the U.S. Those lies had been rather compellingly debunked, well before Powell made the infamous televised speeches. My wife will recall how loudly I yelled at the TV screen, "That's a Lie!!! ", in response to his claims. But the NYT ate it all up; Colin Powell's speeches were CONFIRMATION of what they'd already been printing (always attributed to 'intelligence sources').
Later, of course, when the truth came out and all the claims were 'found to be invalid', they scapegoated Judith Miller (who certainly deserved the firing)- thus making everything ok. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis paid the price with their lives, while the country itself was devastated.
So what they've been doing w/r/t the Ukraine tragedy is just part of a long pattern. They haven't backtracked yet on Ukraine, but it will happen soon enough. Already they've begun their pivot to China. Just look at the headlines in every edition. Russia - this, China that. And Iran and Venezuela for good measure. Whoever resists the petro-dollar hegemony is The Empire's enemy; and therefore the bogeymen that NYT and 'WaPo' gladly use to keep everyone in line.
This seems to be so obvious; yet self-described 'liberals' still talk and act as if these papers (and NPR, MSDNC, etc.) represent a priori truth and sanity. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Well, there is no need to wonder anymore about the closed ecosystem of the MICMATT complex. A recent study shows that the sources for the NYT, Washington Post, etc. are all spokespeople from think tanks funded by weapons contractors who make obscene profits from war, up to and including the proxy war in Ukraine. No wonder the mainstream media is giddy about war!! Does this look like a conspiracy to you? Beware next time you dare to consider the NYT as an authoritative source concerning any war anywhere across the globe.
"....the New York Times is gushing about Ukraine using the element of surprise...."
I would suggest that if word of this attack is appearing in the NYT, it will hardly be a surprise. Never ceases to amaze me what appears in print and is supposedly "secret" or "a surprise."
For what it's worth, Denise, the NYT said the offensive itself won't be a surprise, but the direction/timing could be. And they used D-Day 1944 as an example, because, I don't know, the only war we've ever fought is World War II. I guess.
Even so, why publicize the offensive at all in the "paper of record?" Seems kinda....dumb. Are the Russians supposed to be intimidated?
I know you were being rhetorical, but if I had to guess, I'd say that the use of D-Day was because a) it's convenient, requiring no research; and b) it's a "safe" reference, as opposed to, say, the Surge(s), or any escalation in Vietnam. Bringing up phony wars that the NYT supported would be rather awkward, doncha know?
Agreed! D-Day is "safe." With respect to mentioning the offensive, they've been talking about it for months, so I guess the "surprise" is that it hasn't happened yet. :-)
Oh....so this is still the "spring offensive"? I honestly thought it had already happened. I'll admit I don't follow that segment of the news all that closely. Shame on me, but it just seems like the same war from 20 years ago. I realize that sounds completely callous, but I can't bear to read the horrendous stories. I know what's going on: unspeakable carnage for the sake of political domination.
"Combined arms warfare", using tanks followed by infantry? How original. Sounds a whole lot like what's laid out in Guderian's "Panzer Leader." It was probably suggested by the "nazi" element this war is or was supposed to be all about, way back when.
AMERICA’S ADDICTION TO WAR COMES WITH A 15 TRILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG by Jeffrey D. Sachs / Information Clearing House 060123
June 01, 2023: Information Clearing House -- In the year 2000, the U.S. government debt was $3.5 trillion, equal to 35% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2022, the debt was $24 trillion, equal to 95% of GDP. The U.S. debt is soaring, hence America’s current debt crisis. Yet both Republicans and Democrats are missing the solution: stopping America’s wars of choice and slashing military outlays.
Suppose the government’s debt had remained at a modest 35% of GDP, as in 2000. Today’s debt would be $9 trillion, as opposed to $24 trillion. Why did the U.S. government incur the excess $15 trillion in debt?
The single biggest answer is the U.S. government’s addiction to war and military spending. According to the Watson Institute at Brown University, the cost of U.S. wars from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2022 amounted to a whopping $8 trillion, more than half of the extra $15 trillion in debt. The other $7 trillion arose roughly equally from budget deficits caused by the 2008 financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic.
To surmount the debt crisis, America needs to stop feeding the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC), the most powerful lobby in Washington. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned on January 17, 1961, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Since 2000, the MIC led the U.S. into disastrous wars of choice in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and now Ukraine.
The Military-Industrial Complex long ago adopted a winning political strategy by ensuring that the military budget reaches into every Congressional district. The Congressional Research Service recently reminded Congress that, “Defense spending touches every Member of Congress’s district through pay and benefits for military servicemembers and retirees, economic and environmental impact of installations, and procurement of weapons systems and parts from local industry, among other activities.” Only a brave member of Congress would vote against the military-industry lobby, yet bravery is certainly no hallmark of Congress.
America’s annual military spending is now around $900 billion, roughly 40% of the world’s total, and greater than the next 10 countries combined. U.S. military spending in 2022 was triple that of China. According to Congressional Budget Office, the military outlays for 2024-2033 will be a staggering $10.3 trillion on current baseline. A quarter or more of that could be avoided by ending America’s wars of choice, closing down many of America’s 800 or so military bases around the world, and negotiating new arms control agreements with China and Russia.
Yet instead of peace through diplomacy, and fiscal responsibility, the MIC regularly scares the American people with a comic-book style depictions of villains whom the U.S. must stop at all costs. The post-2000 list has included Afghanistan’s Taliban, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and recently, China’s Xi Jinping. War, we are repeatedly told, is necessary for America’s survival.
"Combined-arms". AKA Blitzkrieg (German). AKA Deep Battle (Russian). Although I think it only works if you have control of the skies. Or at least if the enemy doesn't.
The Future of Freedom Foundation's Jacob G. Hornberger begins his June 1 article WHAT DEBT CEILING? as follows:
“Statists all across the United States, especially those within the mainstream press, are uncorking their champagne bottles today and celebrating the newest deal that lifts the debt ceiling. Predictably, the political strategy of crying “Default! Default! Default!” succeeded spectacularly, just as it does every time. In fact, it worked so well that THIS TIME CONGRESS DECIDED TO NOT EVEN SET A NEW CEILING. INSTEAD, THE DEAL AUTHORIZES FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO SPEND AND BORROW TO THEIR HEART’S CONTENT FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS — BEYOND ELECTION DAY 2024, OF COURSE.
“The people who will pay the price for this deal will be American taxpayers. If you happen to die before the day of reckoning arrives, you’ll escape having to bear the consequences of what these people have done. But if you’re alive when that day of reckoning comes, you will be one of the ones reaping the whirlwind.
“Right now, each taxpayer’s share of the federal government’s $31 trillion in debt is around $275,000. It will be increasing over the next couple of years. How many people list that liability on their financial statements? I’ll bet not very many. And yet, there it is — and growing.”
And concludes it as follows:
“FDR’s nationalization of gold along with his conversion of the federal government to a welfare state, set the stage for a century of out-of-control federal spending, debt, and monetary debauchery. Once President Truman converted the federal government to a national-security state in 1947, so much paper money was printed to cover federal welfare-warfare state expenditures that silver coins, which FDR had not made illegal to own, were driven out of circulation. [Note: That nationalization happened 90 years ago this past May 1, and required all Americans to turn in the gold they owned to the federal government under the threat of 10-year jail sentences.]
“CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION, THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE FREEDOM AND WELL-BEING OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS NOT RUSSIA, CHINA, SYRIA, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, CUBA, NORTH KOREA, VIETNAM, THE TERRORISTS, THE MUSLIMS, THE DRUG DEALERS, OR THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR FREEDOM AND WELL-BEING LIES IN WASHINGTON, D.C. IT IS THE WELFARE-WARFARE STATE THAT IS TAKING US DOWN FROM WITHIN. IT IS JUST A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL PUT A STOP TO IT BEFORE IT TAKES US DOWN COMPLETELY.”
SENATORS EYE UKRAINE AID BILLS AS AVENUE TO INCREASE DOD BUDGET: Defense hawks, unhappy with the limits on the Defense Department's budget in the debt ceiling bill, are seeking ways to add more funding to the Pentagon by Caroline Coudriet / Roll Call 060123
Senators on Wednesday signaled interest in using Ukraine-focused supplemental spending bills as a mechanism to secure defense spending outside of strict caps that would be imposed by a debt limit compromise deal.
The caps would restrain defense spending in fiscal 2024 to $886 billion, the level proposed by President Joe Biden — a roughly 3 percent increase from current levels. In fiscal 2025, the cap would be $895 billion, a 1 percent increase from fiscal 2024.
But BUT UKRAINE AID, IF CLASSIFIED AS EMERGENCY FUNDING, COULD NOT COUNT TOWARD THOSE LIMITS, PROVIDING LAWMAKERS WITH AN OUTSIDE AVENUE FOR MILITARY SPENDING. CONGRESS HAS APPROPRIATED SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS FOR UKRAINE BEFORE, INCLUDING A MEASURE BIDEN SIGNED INTO LAW IN MAY 2022.
“When you have a supplemental for Ukraine, I’m hoping we’ll use that as an opportunity to repair the damage done by this budget deal,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “I don’t see how we help the Ukrainian military and not help our own.”
The compromise deal, which would stave off a catastrophic debt ceiling breach and impose across-the-board spending limits, passed the House by a vote of 314-177 on Wednesday. The Senate is aiming to pass the bill before the default deadline of June 5, though consideration could drag longer if an individual senator uses procedural tactics to force a delay.
Graham said he planned to offer amendments that would remove the defense spending caps and state U.S. support for Ukraine.
Republican senators for months have slammed the Biden administration’s Defense Department budget proposal, arguing it does not do enough to build up the U.S. military in the face of Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific. Many are wary of a debt limit deal that would lock in those spending levels.
WHEN ANTI-GOVERNMENT SPEECH BECOMES SEDITION by John and Nisha Whitehead / The Rutherford Institute 060123
June 01, 2023: Information Clearing House -- Let’s be clear about one thing: seditious conspiracy isn’t a real crime to anyone but the U.S. government.
To be convicted of seditious conspiracy, the charge levied against Stewart Rhodes who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for being the driving force behind the January 6 Capitol riots, one doesn’t have to engage in violence against the government, vandalize government property, or even trespass on property that the government has declared off-limits to the general public.
To be convicted of seditious conspiracy, one need only foment a revolution.
This is not about whether Rhodes deserves such a hefty sentence.
THIS IS ABOUT THE LONG-TERM RAMIFICATIONS OF EMPOWERING THE GOVERNMENT TO WAGE WAR ON INDIVIDUALS WHOSE POLITICAL IDEAS AND EXPRESSION CHALLENGE THE GOVERNMENT’S POWER, REVEAL THE GOVERNMENT’S CORRUPTION, EXPOSE THE GOVERNMENT’S LIES, AND ENCOURAGE THE CITIZENRY TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT’S MANY INJUSTICES.
This is about criminalizing political expression in thoughts, words and deeds.
This is about how the government has used the events of Jan. 6 in order to justify further power grabs and acquire more authoritarian emergency powers.
This was never about so-called threats to democracy.
In fact, the history of this nation is populated by individuals whose rhetoric was aimed at fomenting civil unrest and revolution.
Indeed, BY THE GOVERNMENT’S OWN DEFINITION, AMERICA’S FOUNDERS WERE SEDITIOUS CONSPIRATORS BASED ON THE HEAVILY CHARGED RHETORIC THEY USED TO BIRTH THE NATION.
THOMAS JEFFERSON, THOMAS PAINE, MARQUIS DE LAFAYETTE, AND JOHN ADAMS WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN CHARGED FOR SUGGESTING THAT AMERICANS SHOULD NOT ONLY TAKE UP ARMS BUT BE PREPARED TO PROTECT THEIR LIBERTIES AND DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD IT VIOLATE THEIR RIGHTS.
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
“IT IS THE DUTY OF THE PATRIOT TO PROTECT HIS COUNTRY FROM ITS GOVERNMENT,” INSISTED PAINE.
“WHEN THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATES THE PEOPLE’S RIGHTS,” LAFAYETTE WARNED, “INSURRECTION IS, FOR THE PEOPLE AND FOR EACH PORTION OF THE PEOPLE, THE MOST SACRED OF THE RIGHTS AND THE MOST INDISPENSABLE OF DUTIES.”
Adams cautioned, “A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution, to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.”
HAD AMERICA’S FOUNDERS FEARED REVOLUTIONARY WORDS AND IDEAS, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO FIRST AMENDMENT, WHICH PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO POLITICAL EXPRESSION, EVEN IF THAT EXPRESSION IS ANTI-GOVERNMENT.
No matter what one’s political persuasion might be, every American has a First Amendment right to protest government programs or policies with which they might disagree.
The right to disagree with and speak out against the government is the quintessential freedom.
Every individual has a right to speak truth to power—and foment change—using every nonviolent means available.
Unfortunately, THE GOVERNMENT IS INCREASINGLY LOSING ITS TOLERANCE FOR ANYONE WHOSE POLITICAL VIEWS COULD BE PERCEIVED AS CRITICAL OR “ANTI-GOVERNMENT.”
American Liberalism ~ like the NYT and most of America's MSM ~ has long been a bloodthirsty cheerleader for war, Bill. As far back as LBJ, FDR, and Woodrow "Making the world safe for Wall Street" Wilson.
There are no "liberals" in DC, there are Red Team and Blue Team members, all of whom are very conservative. The entire "liberal news" fantasy that we hear about in the "news" is just misdirection. You don't get to hear anti-war, or anti-capitalism points of view in DC. You just hear from the two organized crime families (Red and Blue). In fact, the entire history of the US has been about crushing anything that looked or smelled like "the left" throughout the world, especially in Central and South America. Notice how the US only funds and arms "right-wing death squads". When was the last time that the US armed "Left-wing death squads" (if there even is such a thing).
During the recent kayfabe debt-ceiling crisis, I saw media reports praising the fact that the one area where bipartisan unity was easy to find is “defense” spending. This was meant to be inspiring and encouraging.
Yes. They use the artificial debt crisis to force through cuts in social spending. Then they applaud themselves for being "fiscally responsible" as they throw even more money at the Pentagon.
The NYT has been a bloodthirsty cheerleader for every US war during my lifetime--Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and now Ukraine. In fact, all mainstream media (both print and TV) in the US, including so-called "liberal" cable channels MSNBC and CNN, are bloodthirsty supporters. All of them are much better described as shameless regurgitators, just spewing out the latest claptrap from the US National Security State. These media outlets may be liberal when it comes to social and cultural issues, but when it concerns anything remotely related to "national security," they just parrot what they have told by the US government. And who are the politicians who run the US government? It is a complete fiction that there are 2 parties in the US. There is only one party, and based on recent US history the best name for it would be the War Party. This singular party has 2 wings, one called Democratic and one called Republican. On matters of "national security" there is unanimity of thought, with each wing vying to see which can be more hawkish and more slavish to the military-industrial complex. Only on matters of social and cultural issues can one discern any distinction between the 2 wings of the War Party. And so, for all the above reasons, Ray McGovern's acronym is the perfect description for our times--Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think Tank, or MICIMATT.
As always, thanks for telling it like many of us see it. 'Liberal' only with respect to the culture wars, NYT has now long been, indeed, a 'bloodthirsty cheerleader'. It has become, along with Washington Post (whose owner Bezos has, through Amazon, massive financial ties to the CIA), the go-to publisher for the security state.
I don't know when it actually began - I've only been over the years an occasional reader. But I recall well its unquestioning promotion of the Iraq invasion as the Washington neocons began selling their fiction about Iraqi WMD and the existential threat to the U.S. that these weapons presented to the U.S. Those lies had been rather compellingly debunked, well before Powell made the infamous televised speeches. My wife will recall how loudly I yelled at the TV screen, "That's a Lie!!! ", in response to his claims. But the NYT ate it all up; Colin Powell's speeches were CONFIRMATION of what they'd already been printing (always attributed to 'intelligence sources').
Later, of course, when the truth came out and all the claims were 'found to be invalid', they scapegoated Judith Miller (who certainly deserved the firing)- thus making everything ok. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis paid the price with their lives, while the country itself was devastated.
So what they've been doing w/r/t the Ukraine tragedy is just part of a long pattern. They haven't backtracked yet on Ukraine, but it will happen soon enough. Already they've begun their pivot to China. Just look at the headlines in every edition. Russia - this, China that. And Iran and Venezuela for good measure. Whoever resists the petro-dollar hegemony is The Empire's enemy; and therefore the bogeymen that NYT and 'WaPo' gladly use to keep everyone in line.
This seems to be so obvious; yet self-described 'liberals' still talk and act as if these papers (and NPR, MSDNC, etc.) represent a priori truth and sanity. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Well, there is no need to wonder anymore about the closed ecosystem of the MICMATT complex. A recent study shows that the sources for the NYT, Washington Post, etc. are all spokespeople from think tanks funded by weapons contractors who make obscene profits from war, up to and including the proxy war in Ukraine. No wonder the mainstream media is giddy about war!! Does this look like a conspiracy to you? Beware next time you dare to consider the NYT as an authoritative source concerning any war anywhere across the globe.
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/01/how-weapons-firms-influence-the-ukraine-debate/
"....the New York Times is gushing about Ukraine using the element of surprise...."
I would suggest that if word of this attack is appearing in the NYT, it will hardly be a surprise. Never ceases to amaze me what appears in print and is supposedly "secret" or "a surprise."
Great critique of the coverage, Bill.
For what it's worth, Denise, the NYT said the offensive itself won't be a surprise, but the direction/timing could be. And they used D-Day 1944 as an example, because, I don't know, the only war we've ever fought is World War II. I guess.
Even so, why publicize the offensive at all in the "paper of record?" Seems kinda....dumb. Are the Russians supposed to be intimidated?
I know you were being rhetorical, but if I had to guess, I'd say that the use of D-Day was because a) it's convenient, requiring no research; and b) it's a "safe" reference, as opposed to, say, the Surge(s), or any escalation in Vietnam. Bringing up phony wars that the NYT supported would be rather awkward, doncha know?
Agreed! D-Day is "safe." With respect to mentioning the offensive, they've been talking about it for months, so I guess the "surprise" is that it hasn't happened yet. :-)
Oh....so this is still the "spring offensive"? I honestly thought it had already happened. I'll admit I don't follow that segment of the news all that closely. Shame on me, but it just seems like the same war from 20 years ago. I realize that sounds completely callous, but I can't bear to read the horrendous stories. I know what's going on: unspeakable carnage for the sake of political domination.
Bravo Bill.
"Combined arms warfare", using tanks followed by infantry? How original. Sounds a whole lot like what's laid out in Guderian's "Panzer Leader." It was probably suggested by the "nazi" element this war is or was supposed to be all about, way back when.
Good article, Bill, Will be linking today @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/
The NY Times has been cheerleading for war since day one. Makes you wonder if they aren't invested in the arms industry somehow!!!
AMERICA’S ADDICTION TO WAR COMES WITH A 15 TRILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG by Jeffrey D. Sachs / Information Clearing House 060123
June 01, 2023: Information Clearing House -- In the year 2000, the U.S. government debt was $3.5 trillion, equal to 35% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2022, the debt was $24 trillion, equal to 95% of GDP. The U.S. debt is soaring, hence America’s current debt crisis. Yet both Republicans and Democrats are missing the solution: stopping America’s wars of choice and slashing military outlays.
Suppose the government’s debt had remained at a modest 35% of GDP, as in 2000. Today’s debt would be $9 trillion, as opposed to $24 trillion. Why did the U.S. government incur the excess $15 trillion in debt?
The single biggest answer is the U.S. government’s addiction to war and military spending. According to the Watson Institute at Brown University, the cost of U.S. wars from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2022 amounted to a whopping $8 trillion, more than half of the extra $15 trillion in debt. The other $7 trillion arose roughly equally from budget deficits caused by the 2008 financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic.
To surmount the debt crisis, America needs to stop feeding the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC), the most powerful lobby in Washington. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned on January 17, 1961, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Since 2000, the MIC led the U.S. into disastrous wars of choice in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and now Ukraine.
The Military-Industrial Complex long ago adopted a winning political strategy by ensuring that the military budget reaches into every Congressional district. The Congressional Research Service recently reminded Congress that, “Defense spending touches every Member of Congress’s district through pay and benefits for military servicemembers and retirees, economic and environmental impact of installations, and procurement of weapons systems and parts from local industry, among other activities.” Only a brave member of Congress would vote against the military-industry lobby, yet bravery is certainly no hallmark of Congress.
America’s annual military spending is now around $900 billion, roughly 40% of the world’s total, and greater than the next 10 countries combined. U.S. military spending in 2022 was triple that of China. According to Congressional Budget Office, the military outlays for 2024-2033 will be a staggering $10.3 trillion on current baseline. A quarter or more of that could be avoided by ending America’s wars of choice, closing down many of America’s 800 or so military bases around the world, and negotiating new arms control agreements with China and Russia.
Yet instead of peace through diplomacy, and fiscal responsibility, the MIC regularly scares the American people with a comic-book style depictions of villains whom the U.S. must stop at all costs. The post-2000 list has included Afghanistan’s Taliban, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and recently, China’s Xi Jinping. War, we are repeatedly told, is necessary for America’s survival.
Continued at https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/57596.htm .
"Combined-arms". AKA Blitzkrieg (German). AKA Deep Battle (Russian). Although I think it only works if you have control of the skies. Or at least if the enemy doesn't.
i don't see where nytimes knows 'combined arms'........
The Future of Freedom Foundation's Jacob G. Hornberger begins his June 1 article WHAT DEBT CEILING? as follows:
“Statists all across the United States, especially those within the mainstream press, are uncorking their champagne bottles today and celebrating the newest deal that lifts the debt ceiling. Predictably, the political strategy of crying “Default! Default! Default!” succeeded spectacularly, just as it does every time. In fact, it worked so well that THIS TIME CONGRESS DECIDED TO NOT EVEN SET A NEW CEILING. INSTEAD, THE DEAL AUTHORIZES FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO SPEND AND BORROW TO THEIR HEART’S CONTENT FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS — BEYOND ELECTION DAY 2024, OF COURSE.
“The people who will pay the price for this deal will be American taxpayers. If you happen to die before the day of reckoning arrives, you’ll escape having to bear the consequences of what these people have done. But if you’re alive when that day of reckoning comes, you will be one of the ones reaping the whirlwind.
“Right now, each taxpayer’s share of the federal government’s $31 trillion in debt is around $275,000. It will be increasing over the next couple of years. How many people list that liability on their financial statements? I’ll bet not very many. And yet, there it is — and growing.”
And concludes it as follows:
“FDR’s nationalization of gold along with his conversion of the federal government to a welfare state, set the stage for a century of out-of-control federal spending, debt, and monetary debauchery. Once President Truman converted the federal government to a national-security state in 1947, so much paper money was printed to cover federal welfare-warfare state expenditures that silver coins, which FDR had not made illegal to own, were driven out of circulation. [Note: That nationalization happened 90 years ago this past May 1, and required all Americans to turn in the gold they owned to the federal government under the threat of 10-year jail sentences.]
“CONTRARY TO POPULAR OPINION, THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE FREEDOM AND WELL-BEING OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS NOT RUSSIA, CHINA, SYRIA, AFGHANISTAN, IRAQ, CUBA, NORTH KOREA, VIETNAM, THE TERRORISTS, THE MUSLIMS, THE DRUG DEALERS, OR THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. THE BIGGEST THREAT TO OUR FREEDOM AND WELL-BEING LIES IN WASHINGTON, D.C. IT IS THE WELFARE-WARFARE STATE THAT IS TAKING US DOWN FROM WITHIN. IT IS JUST A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WILL PUT A STOP TO IT BEFORE IT TAKES US DOWN COMPLETELY.”
Full article at https://www.fff.org/2023/06/01/what-debt-ceiling/ ; EMPHASESE added.
SENATORS EYE UKRAINE AID BILLS AS AVENUE TO INCREASE DOD BUDGET: Defense hawks, unhappy with the limits on the Defense Department's budget in the debt ceiling bill, are seeking ways to add more funding to the Pentagon by Caroline Coudriet / Roll Call 060123
Senators on Wednesday signaled interest in using Ukraine-focused supplemental spending bills as a mechanism to secure defense spending outside of strict caps that would be imposed by a debt limit compromise deal.
The caps would restrain defense spending in fiscal 2024 to $886 billion, the level proposed by President Joe Biden — a roughly 3 percent increase from current levels. In fiscal 2025, the cap would be $895 billion, a 1 percent increase from fiscal 2024.
But BUT UKRAINE AID, IF CLASSIFIED AS EMERGENCY FUNDING, COULD NOT COUNT TOWARD THOSE LIMITS, PROVIDING LAWMAKERS WITH AN OUTSIDE AVENUE FOR MILITARY SPENDING. CONGRESS HAS APPROPRIATED SUPPLEMENTAL FUNDS FOR UKRAINE BEFORE, INCLUDING A MEASURE BIDEN SIGNED INTO LAW IN MAY 2022.
“When you have a supplemental for Ukraine, I’m hoping we’ll use that as an opportunity to repair the damage done by this budget deal,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “I don’t see how we help the Ukrainian military and not help our own.”
The compromise deal, which would stave off a catastrophic debt ceiling breach and impose across-the-board spending limits, passed the House by a vote of 314-177 on Wednesday. The Senate is aiming to pass the bill before the default deadline of June 5, though consideration could drag longer if an individual senator uses procedural tactics to force a delay.
Graham said he planned to offer amendments that would remove the defense spending caps and state U.S. support for Ukraine.
Republican senators for months have slammed the Biden administration’s Defense Department budget proposal, arguing it does not do enough to build up the U.S. military in the face of Chinese aggression in the Indo-Pacific. Many are wary of a debt limit deal that would lock in those spending levels.
Continued at https://rollcall.com/2023/06/01/senators-eye-ukraine-aid-bills-as-avenue-to-increase-dod-budget/ ; EMPHASIS added.
WHEN ANTI-GOVERNMENT SPEECH BECOMES SEDITION by John and Nisha Whitehead / The Rutherford Institute 060123
June 01, 2023: Information Clearing House -- Let’s be clear about one thing: seditious conspiracy isn’t a real crime to anyone but the U.S. government.
To be convicted of seditious conspiracy, the charge levied against Stewart Rhodes who was sentenced to 18 years in prison for being the driving force behind the January 6 Capitol riots, one doesn’t have to engage in violence against the government, vandalize government property, or even trespass on property that the government has declared off-limits to the general public.
To be convicted of seditious conspiracy, one need only foment a revolution.
This is not about whether Rhodes deserves such a hefty sentence.
THIS IS ABOUT THE LONG-TERM RAMIFICATIONS OF EMPOWERING THE GOVERNMENT TO WAGE WAR ON INDIVIDUALS WHOSE POLITICAL IDEAS AND EXPRESSION CHALLENGE THE GOVERNMENT’S POWER, REVEAL THE GOVERNMENT’S CORRUPTION, EXPOSE THE GOVERNMENT’S LIES, AND ENCOURAGE THE CITIZENRY TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT’S MANY INJUSTICES.
This is about criminalizing political expression in thoughts, words and deeds.
This is about how the government has used the events of Jan. 6 in order to justify further power grabs and acquire more authoritarian emergency powers.
This was never about so-called threats to democracy.
In fact, the history of this nation is populated by individuals whose rhetoric was aimed at fomenting civil unrest and revolution.
Indeed, BY THE GOVERNMENT’S OWN DEFINITION, AMERICA’S FOUNDERS WERE SEDITIOUS CONSPIRATORS BASED ON THE HEAVILY CHARGED RHETORIC THEY USED TO BIRTH THE NATION.
THOMAS JEFFERSON, THOMAS PAINE, MARQUIS DE LAFAYETTE, AND JOHN ADAMS WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE BEEN CHARGED FOR SUGGESTING THAT AMERICANS SHOULD NOT ONLY TAKE UP ARMS BUT BE PREPARED TO PROTECT THEIR LIBERTIES AND DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD IT VIOLATE THEIR RIGHTS.
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms,” declared Jefferson. He also concluded that “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
“IT IS THE DUTY OF THE PATRIOT TO PROTECT HIS COUNTRY FROM ITS GOVERNMENT,” INSISTED PAINE.
“WHEN THE GOVERNMENT VIOLATES THE PEOPLE’S RIGHTS,” LAFAYETTE WARNED, “INSURRECTION IS, FOR THE PEOPLE AND FOR EACH PORTION OF THE PEOPLE, THE MOST SACRED OF THE RIGHTS AND THE MOST INDISPENSABLE OF DUTIES.”
Adams cautioned, “A settled plan to deprive the people of all the benefits, blessings and ends of the contract, to subvert the fundamentals of the constitution, to deprive them of all share in making and executing laws, will justify a revolution.”
HAD AMERICA’S FOUNDERS FEARED REVOLUTIONARY WORDS AND IDEAS, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO FIRST AMENDMENT, WHICH PROTECTS THE RIGHT TO POLITICAL EXPRESSION, EVEN IF THAT EXPRESSION IS ANTI-GOVERNMENT.
No matter what one’s political persuasion might be, every American has a First Amendment right to protest government programs or policies with which they might disagree.
The right to disagree with and speak out against the government is the quintessential freedom.
Every individual has a right to speak truth to power—and foment change—using every nonviolent means available.
Unfortunately, THE GOVERNMENT IS INCREASINGLY LOSING ITS TOLERANCE FOR ANYONE WHOSE POLITICAL VIEWS COULD BE PERCEIVED AS CRITICAL OR “ANTI-GOVERNMENT.”
All of us are in danger.
Continued at https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/57598.htm ; EMPHASES added,