Waging war for our “Ruling Class” masters.

You don’t just walk up to the local bully and slap him across the face. If you are determined to confront him, then you try to knock the living daylights out of him. Otherwise, you are better off leaving him alone.

Thus notes the awesome Thomas Sowell.   As someone who’s also fought a lot of bullies, obviously I agree.  Obama simply doesn’t understand those not like him; not rural folks or Tea Partyers or terrorists (note to journalists: none of those terms are synonymous).

This is not a politically partisan essay.  It’s “liberty partisan”.  And it doesn’t hammer Obama, but a Republican Commander-in-Chief.  As you’ll soon see.

But first note what George H.W. Bush and Obama have in common.  At that link is the justly famous “Ruling Class” essay.   If you care about freedom it’s absolutely something to read and learn.

Mr. Codevilla focuses on our domestic Ruling Class.  But the Ruling Class is also international.  Presidents GHW Bush and Obama are members of it first, and Americans second.

Is this a charge of “Treason!”?  Not at all.  Bush and Obama don’t mean harm to America.  They simply don’t understand it.  They are Ruling Class potentates, not lovers of liberty.

But GHW Bush inflicted immeasurable damage to our nation, morally and philosophically.  This led to tremendous physical harm as well. 

Obama now follows in Bush’s steps.  The length of stride is different, but the path is the same. So let’s look back at Gulf War I, after Saddam’s Iraq invaded and took over Kuwait.

Now first, a word about GHW Bush as a human being.  He’s a courageous war hero, and I have considerable respect for him as a man.  But absolutely none for him as an American.  Why?  Let’s resume:

Bush led the coalition that responded to Saddam.  The President began at home, with propaganda (let’s call it what it was).  Bush cited Saddamic atrocities like gassing his own citizens, having babies pulled off respirators. etc.  Remember?  Remember how Saddam was worse than Hitler?

Of course America supported Bush.  Most of the world was agreed, and the Arabic leaders themselves insisted on a response.  Remember?  The Saudis were terrified of Saddam. 

And so, the war.  Saddam’s forces were rolled back in six weeks.  It wasn’t the blitzkrieg “Dubya” put on, but it was decisive.  And with Saddam’s military defeat, of course America could accept only one outcome.  We toppled that evil regime.  Rooted out the monsters scrambling for cover.  We established law and order until the Iraq people could govern themselves. 

Remember?  Just like we did for Japan and Germany.

Oh…wait.  We did WHAT?!     

My outrage was such that this blog would be twenty years old, had it been possible.  And that anger included you, my fellow citizens.  You let our government, in our name, betray America.  

Remember now?  Or is it still unclear to you what evil was committed?

We defeated a foe our President had described as worse than Hitler

…and left him in power.

Did that somehow escape you?  I know that a few Americans–a pitiful pathetic few–noticed.

And we know how it was spun.  Let’s skip the “realpolitik” crap.  You want realpolitik, go back and read this essay’s opening.  That’s “realpolitik” from Thomas Sowell, a superlative genius.

You keep your rationalizations, I’ll stick with the truth:  Bush waged war on behalf of the Ruling Class.  Status quo…ho!  His oil-wealthy Arab counterparts wanted safety from Saddam.  Thus, toss him out of Kuwait.  But…depose him and institute democracy?  In the Middle East?!  Crazy talk, to Saudi princes and Kuwait royalty.     

That’s right.  Remember Kuwait?  Remember Bush proclaiming “this isn’t about oil, it’s about freedom!”  Because nothing cries “freedom!” like restoring a monarchy. 

Just FYI. 

Our President–who actually fought against Hitler— sold us on war against someone worse.  Defeated him handily.  And then left Saddam “Worse Than Hitler” Hussein in power over millions of helpless Iraqis. 

How could he?  Oh no no no, my fellow Americans.  Individual human beings will do anything.  The question is, “how could America let him?”.  Because that was the moment, folks. 

In hindsight, it was the exact moment when America submitted to the Ruling Class.  When Bush got away with his Ruling Class war.  American statists come and go, but America had never surrendered its ideals and bent the knee to a master before.  Reagan loathed and fought against the very idea of a “ruling class”. 

His successor used America to serve those other masters.  American lives–but military lives, not precious Ruling Class ones–were offered up.  Sacrificed…to keep the world safe for oil tyrants.

So I can’t say America’s loss of freedom since then is unjust.  Sure, it’s unjust that those who screamed bloody murder have lost liberty.  We were on the side of Kuwait and Iraqi citizens. 

The rest of you sided with oil-rich tyrants.  What does that say about your right to freedom? 

Well…c’est la vie, I guess?  Apart from America submitting to a new master, no harm came of this misdeed.  Right? 

Well, another decade of torment for Iraq.  Oh, and of course Saddam funded people eager to murder Americans, payback for the humiliation our nation had dealt him.  But hey, the President’s got the Secret Service for that, right?  So no problem there.

Well, we shouldn’t forget that we also had to station tens of thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia to keep Saddam bottled up.  We couldn’t depose him to save powerless Iraqis, but it was unthinkable to leave oil despots at the mercy of someone worse than Hitler.

But naturally Islamic extremists didn’t take kindly to infidel “occupation” of their holy lands.  So recruitment boomed for bin Laden & Co.  But without tremendous funding, what harm could they do, really?

Okay, so they were given lavish resources too.  But it’s not like all the funds given by the Saudis were to subjugate the very Western world that had protected them from Saddam in the first place.

Some of it was simple protection money.

There you have it.  A Ruling Class war.  Waged in the name of freedom and human dignity, fought for anything but.  Twenty years ago we walked up to a vicious bully, slapped and insulted him, and then walked away.  Anticipating no consequences.

Sound familiar?

About wormme

I've accepted that all of you are socially superior to me. But no pretending that any of you are rational.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to Waging war for our “Ruling Class” masters.

  1. Polynices says:

    Amen, brother! As terrible as Clinton obviously was even in 1992 (not to mention Perot), I was so outraged by Bush leaving Saddam in power that I couldn’t vote for Bush again*.

    * Technically, I didn’t vote for him the first time being an entirely too drunken college student but I could have, I was 19!

    • wormme says:

      Well, this past November was the first time I ever got off my duff and voted.

      • Polynices says:

        I would wonder if like me you’ve never lived in a state where the winner of that state’s electoral votes was remotely in doubt. Certainly reduces one’s worry about making it to the polls.

      • DefendUSA says:

        Wormme-
        Of course it was your decision not to have voted, but given this post-I find it interesting that you didn’t get off your duff after that and vote in the rest of the 90’s!
        As I have seen here, you are quite intelligent and must have known about absentee ballots. You said you hadn’t voted because of jobs and frankly, I find that a poor excuse for any American so concerned about liberty and what is being lost.

        The last election left me voting for the person closest to my principles not my “party”. I can live with that.
        Here’s the rub. You give away liberty by not voting. Does that make sense? The ruling class has power over the people, indeed. But who has the power to get rid of them in this country? The voters. That’s right, YOU. A voter.
        It should be every American’s task to help others understand how important it is to vote. *That* is the first and ultimately the last line of defense for the non- rulers here in this country.
        Overall, I think you are spot on with your analysis. I believe in kicking ass and taking names, no pussy footing, and z-ro concessions as long as we are in the driver’s seat. And as a commenter below said, If you can’t see our way…buzz the eff off!
        Also, as a Tea Party person who has been to the first one in Chicago- subsequents to include Chicago and Raleigh, and 9/12- we do indeed see young people and “we” do have more children than the left minded out there.
        My other half has taught our brood of four, that it is imperative to have at least 3 children in life. Replace yourself and wife and add one to keep our Country populated natively speaking. Europe has screwed up, as has Russia. We can’t!

        • wormme says:

          And Japan’s demographics are probably worst of all.

          Moving around is a poor excuse, guess I just didn’t feel like mentioning self-loathing and alcohol abuse and degenerate living in a failed attempt to numb the self-loathing. When you don’t care about yourself you can’t really care about others.

          I was probably better informed about political stuff than most voters, because I’m a total bookworm and used to read really, really fast. But knowledge isn’t will. And I believe it’s better that self-haters don’t get involved with politics. They try to do with power what I did with chemicals.

          • DefendUSA says:

            I have no doubt you were better informed to be sure. We all have our demons and it *is* an absolute shame we have to go through all kinds of sheisse to get to the other side. I hope you are on the other side and have learned self-love! Because *I* love your site, your wit, your smarts. That’s pretty good stuff for a Wormme, isn’t it? 🙂

  2. crosspatch says:

    I absolutely agree that seeing Saddam being let “off the hook” was infuriating. It seems that the “ruling elite” doesn’t really want to “solve” anything so much as they want to get it into a state where they can manage it in perpetuity. In the end, GWB went in there anyway but we were most of the way “there” already the first time. It ended up being a larger loss of life than it would have been had we simply done it the first time.

    Of course the argument that had we taken Iraq we would have lost Saudi support carried a lot of weight as that is where our base of operations was at the time. But GHWB is absolutely a member of the “Biff and Buffy” set. Ambassador to China and the UN, Director of Central Intelligence, he had some impressive credentials, but he was still one of the “ruling elite” and frankly acted like it.

    If you look at how these “kinder, gentler” types handle crisis, they tend to not want to lose but not actually win either. They want to keep it simmering and manage it forever. Why the hue and cry against Israel in 2006 to stop their incursion into Lebanon? And look what it got us: A UN force that is completely impotent that has allowed Hezbollah to re-arm and re-supply in complete disregard to the “agreement” that was negotiated at the time. So what are we going to eventually see? A repeat. It might not come today, or next week, but it will eventually come, and all that blood should be on the hands of the “ruling elite”.

    They end up spending a lot of time and effort in saving people to death.

    • wormme says:

      The time to insist on deposing Saddam was when they came begging us to stop him. So oil prices destabilize for a while if other tyrants are challenged? That’s the excuse for doing what’s wrong?

      Their “realpolitik” argument for appeasing the Saudis is what empowered bin Laden through our “occupation” of Arabia. So credit where due.

      The suffering of the masses is nothing to the discomfort of the rulers.

  3. crosspatch says:

    A comment by commenter WWS on the Strata-Sphere blog on this subject bears repeating:

    All military people know that the only guaranteed way to bring about the minimum casualties is to end the war as quickly as possible. By extending the conflict, a long drawn out war guarantees that the total death toll will be far greater than those which would have been caused by a short, decisive confrontation. And because of that, the most “humane” thing any war planner can do is to plan to use maximum force aimed at ending the war as quickly as possible.

    That’s what Sherman was getting at when he said “War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.”

    He also predicted that “Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.”

    It’s not just the direct casualties, which are of course awful – an extended war is incredibly degrading to both the physical and the psycholgical infrastructure of the country. Nations that get accustomed to endless low lever warfare become failed states of permanent misery – Lebanon and Afghanistan are perfect examples.

    Starting a war that will never end, that is never intended to end is truly one of the most Evil things that any government – that any Man – can do.

    Evil – and I mean that in every sense of the word.

    And I would add another example of us “saving” people to death. Imagine you have some petty despot in some third world country. Some faction or another arises and he decides to put it down or they decide to attack the leader’s supporters in the countryside (we saw a lot of this in Zimbabwe and are seeing it now in Ivory Coast where a report came out today of up to 1000 villagers being killed:

    Unknown attackers wielding machetes and guns killed more than 1,000 civilians in the neighborhood of an Ivory Coast town controlled by forces fighting to install the internationally recognized president, the Catholic charity Caritas told The Associated Press Saturday.

    The U.N. mission in Ivory Coast said it has a team investigating the alleged mass killings in western Duekoue. It said most of the nearly 1,000 peacekeepers based there were protecting about 15,000 refugees at a Catholic mission in the town at the time.

    Spokesman Patrick Nicholson of the Roman Catholic charity Caritas said workers visited Duekoue on Wednesday and found hundreds of bodies of civilians killed by bullets from small-arms fire and hacked to death with machetes.

    So now the country can not grow food because the villages in the countryside that produce most of the food in the country have been wiped out. So … the UN steps in and sends them food. The “ruling elite” know that they can get away with this because by stripping the countryside of the farmers, the regime will get supplies from the UN that it can then distribute to all the “right” recipients. We actually enable this sort of behavior under the guise of “helping” them avoid suffering from famine even when it is famine created by the very people we are giving the aid to.

    It is absolutely crazy.

    • wormme says:

      Excellent essay. Plus there are the examples of utterly crushing the foe, accepting nothing less than unconditional surrender…then giving them back their freedom when we could. We gave Japan and Germany that grace. Well, Western Germany, anyway. Unlike us, the Soviets had to have their spoils.

      So the single form of war that is known to benefit all decent people who survive it…is the one type not countenanced.

      As you say. Evil.

  4. crosspatch says:

    Ivory Coast is an important example for another reason. You have a traditionally Christian population that has done well economically. You have a Muslim population escaping turmoil in a neighboring country pouring across the border and then demanding the right to vote and take over the government. So a bazillion economic refugees enter the country illegally, now outnumber the indigenous population, and demand the right to take over the government and when that is resisted by the rest of the population, they go on a killing spree. And the UN recognizes the leader elected by the economic refugees!

  5. JP says:

    Only one minor, minuscule bone to pick. GHW Bush flew carrier-based torpedo planes in the Pacific Theater, not the European. He participated in the Battle of the Philippine Sea.

    • wormme says:

      Took me a second to catch your point. I just consider that every Ally was at war with all the Axis. Hitler is the main reference point.

      But the objection is certainly appreciated. Eyebrows would rise if I started in about Patton going after Tōjō.

  6. PL says:

    My feelings on the role of war in our country: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3xlb6_0OEs

    Knocking out bullies is the easy part.

  7. poul says:

    i was living outside usa then, and everybody’s collective reaction at bush’s whimping out was “WTF? he did what now? have americans absolutely gone insane from too much pesticides in their food?”

    that was one moment when everybody in the world noted that americans will promise anything, then turn around and leave you to die for a minor political expediency. guess how easy it became for america to recruit any allies…

    • wormme says:

      As an American it made me heartsick. Korea and Vietnam (and the “police actions”) were bad enough, but those things involved the Sovs. Hundreds of gigatons of nukes do complicate matters. But Saddam? After that rhetoric?

      Disgraceful.

      There are millions of Americans who do believe their word is their bond. Why they let a supposedly representative government get away with that betrayal, though, I’ll never understand.

  8. Jayson says:

    Thanks for the pointer to Codevilla’s essay. I’ve been casting about for reading material of substance to string together what I’ve been seeing over the years and the essay brings themes together into a believable harmony.

    I see that he has a book out that may further explain his ideas, hopefully it has a better call to action than the essay’s suggestion to emulate the Democratic party. Otherwise, hope is lost.

    • wormme says:

      Actually, I do believe the only way to avoid the eventual civil war is to emulate the left’s tactic (minus the lies). Why? Because apart from physical force it’s all they understand. They’ve willfully rendered themselves immune to reason.

      I’m also trying to offer a divorce to them, on the grounds of irreconcilable differences. Just to make obvious who’s the abusive spouse in this relationship. America came together in a unique way, why not a unique dissolution? What better way to maximize “consent of the governed” than by going our separate ways?

      Anyway, all they understand is social pressure and emotional warfare. Since they’re immune to reason, freedom-loving Americans must either counter them in their own language or gird up our loins for war.

      And thank you for joining in.

  9. crosspatch says:

    It goes back further in time. Jimmy Carter started all of this when he ran away from Iran rather than engaging the Shah and working toward a different form of government. Once Carter ran from Iran, Russia was free to invade Afghanistan and did only a few months later. So then Zbigniew Brzezinski got the brilliant idea to fund Islamic “Jihad” as a way to fight the Russians by proxy.

    The Iranian “students” that supported the Ayatollah called themselves “Hezbollah”. It wasn’t long after that in the Shiite community of Lebanon, a similar Hezbollah appeared funded, trained, and equipped by Iran.

    Had Carter not run away in Iran, there would have been no Afghanistan invasion, no Al Qaida, no 9/11. There would have been no Iran/Iraq war, there would have been no invasion of Kuwait. There would have been no subsequent invasion of Iraq in 2003. There would have been no bombing of our (and France’s) barracks in Lebanon and likely no Lebanon civil war.

    People are to this day still dying for Jimmy Carter’s decisions and I am afraid people are going to be dying for a very long time because of Obama’s decisions.

    • wormme says:

      Your very thoughtful comment got me thinking. I was convinced that the tipping point of the “Ruling Class” takeover was the Saddam travesty, and your statements illuminated why I believe that.

      What you say about Carter & Co. is true, of course. But the American people then punished him for his foreign weakness. The mess of the economy also hurt him. But standing him next to Reagan let voters decide who would best represent American interests and ideals. Reagan didn’t make the inroads into statism I’d have liked, but he did spend all eight years laughing at the “Ruling Class”. And they absolutely hated him.

      Then Bush, and the Gulf War. But we didn’t punish him for that! He didn’t lose because we sold Iraq down the river, he lost because of “no new taxes” and debt and Ross Perot. I don’t remember Perot or Clinton making a big deal out of Saddam’s continued existence and promising to free the Iraqi people.

      Sure, later Clinton made Iraqi “regime change” an official policy. But what did he and his Ruling Class ever do about it? A little posturing they didn’t mean.

      The Tea Partys are the first big pushback since America (as a whole) betrayed its ideals in that Gulf War. And this resistance is over domestic debt, not the betrayals of allies and innocents.

    • crosspatch says:

      Maybe this generation is going to tire of the idiocy of the preceding generation and do something about it. Alas, I don’t see a lot of young faces at Tea Party rallies. We have an amazing crop of military in this generation that has been handing a crap sandwich and managed to “embrace the suck”. We can’t keep doing this to our young people.

      I was quite surprised when I looked up these demographics for people who consider themselves supporters of the “tea party” movement:

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/127181/tea-partiers-fairly-mainstream-demographics.aspx

      They are pretty close to the national average in age, education, employment and income with a couple of exceptions. There are fewer unemployed and fewer in the lowest income bracket. Gallup does an interesting “trick” here where they make them seem over-represented in the “highest” tax bracket but they start that “high” bracket at only $50,000. That is below the 2006 median household income and only a tiny bit above the median income of employed males in 2007 ($45,113) so Gallup skews the data presentation to make it appear that the “rich” are over-represented while “average” is included in “rich”.

      • wormme says:

        But of course they Gallup in their desired direction.

        Most young activists are on the left, but I’d bet that Tea Party families average more children than progressive ones. Sooner or later young voters will realize they’ve been sold into financial bondage by their elders.

  10. crosspatch says:

    Where was it that Obama most recently visited?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110402/wl_nm/us_brazil_qaeda

  11. waytoomanydaves says:

    In WWII, we set the standard for what it means (well, what it should mean) to go to war against the United States of America.

    It means…
    … that we will bring the war to your territory.
    … that we will destroy your ability to commit organized violence against your neighbors.
    … that we will remove your government, and replace it with one of our choosing.
    … that we will very likely execute your top level leaders (if they manage to survive the war).

    We deviate from this standard only at our great peril. We live in a world where many people will always hate us, no matter what we say or do. Therefore, the world is a safer place for everyone if our would-be enemies are scared shitless of what could happen to them if the rouse the sleeping giant.

    We should have told the Saudis, “OK, we will save you. But we are going all the way to Baghdad, and you’re coming with us. No? OK, fuck off then.”

    • wormme says:

      Exactly, exactly, exactly. Plain ol’ Americans couldn’ have contemplated something so vile as what our government actually did.

      These days so many “elite” Americans come strutting out of the Ivy League to fix what’s wrong with folks like us. They haven’t bothered to understand us, of course. They already know what needs changing: our peon freedoms to make our own choices.

      We see what passes for elite “thinking”, from Nobel winners on down. And we see their fierce moral clarity in sucking up to murderous tyrants. So, Ruling Class, here is the WORM’s judgement:

      Your defining characteristic is not the honed intellect. It is the coarsened conscience.

  12. Mountainbear says:

    I don’t think Obama is following Bush (jr or sr.) Obama is just being his stupid self. When looking at Libya I see lots of AQ rats coming out of their holes and fighting against Crazy Old Gaddafi and the US (and thus NATO) is helping them. That’s the last thing any of us should do or want. Gaddafi is a crazy nutter, no dbout. He’s a brutal dictator, but anyone who thinks that Libya or Tunisia or even Egypt will have freedom and democracy is horribly naive and completely ignorant of the most simple facts.

    Look into Egypt. Where is the freedom and democracy? The Coptic Christians there, who have been under assault for a long time, are actually fearing that things will get worse now. Worse. They’ve already been killed by mohammedans before, but they now fear it’ll get worse than this.

    Note: I refuse to call them “muslims”, since “muslim” means a “true believer” and I don’t think they are that. Besides, calling them “true believer” means any non-mohammedan using the term labels himself as “infidel”. Plus, if the followers of Jesus Christ are called Christians, then it’s fine to call the followers of Mohammed Mohammedans.

    As for Iraq, we’ll see. Personally I’m convinced that the Iraqi democracy won’t survive ten years. As long as islam is present, there won’t be freedom and democracy, since islam and democracy mutually exclude each other. Democracy is based on the idea that every vote is equal. Islam doesn’t support that, since it would mean that the voice of a “muslim” (aka a “true believer”) and that of an “infidel” are equal and sharia law (which is a vital part of islam) prohibits that.

    A lot of people usually bring up Turkey at this point, as an example that what I said is wrong. However, Turkey turned into what it was (past tense very important here) because Kemal Atatürk was secular. Reportedly he called islam a “rotten corpse that is poisoning our lives.” With Erdogan (a nationalistic Führer figure, heavily entrenched in what western media likes to call “islamism”) in charge now this secularism is being eroded away. Violence against “infidels” is on the rise in Turkey.

    This is the difference with Germany and Japan. They had no such religion. Pardon me, socio-political system masquerading as religion. Japan had state shinto, yes, however that was a pretty modern invention, dating back to the Meiji period. Pefore that there was no official line. There was Shinto and Buddhism with all its different sects competing against each other. Shinto itself is much older, same with Buddhism. Germany had the same Judeo-Christian roots as any other western country. In both cases this was something to build upon, in both cases the basic religions were peaceful, especially Buddhism and Christianity (which have some very interesting similarities, but this would totally go beyond what I’m trying to say.) In both cases the fascism was removed and it worked. Shinto went back to its roots, like it is today.

    It’s interesting that the US military and government both decided against prosecuting the imperial family in Japan, usually with some phoney excuse. Emperor Hirohito was instrumental for the war. He ordered the murder of Chinese POWs (he signed the order himself) and the war was waged in his name. Some pseudo-historians have argued that he wasn’t a popular figure like Benito or Adolf, but that’s irrelevant. He was the supreme commander, he gave the orders or at least approved them. He was never held responsible for his actions. Another case was Prince Asaka, Hirohito’s uncle, the man who gave the order to murder all POWs in Nanking, which eventually led to what General Matsui called “a shameful behavior of the Imperial Army” and the Imperial Navy came up with a saying that went “We’re not the Army, we’re not butchers.” General Matsui was held responsible for the Nanking Massacre even though he wasn’t present, had nothing to do with the order from Asasak’s office and the violence stopped once he arrived. He was executed, the real culprit got away. Even Chinese historians have stated that Matsui was not responsible.

    Apart from that, German national socialism, Italian fascism and Japanese imperialism have been very recent additions. Japanese imperialism, which eventually led to the great catastrophy, was a product of the late Meiji period. The German and Italian counterparts have their basic roots in socialism (of course) and in nationalistic ideas that started to appear in the mid/late 19th century, especially in the multicultural Austrian monarchy. Hitler, being Austrian and having spent several years in Vienna (where this idea was very active), was heavily influenced by it.

    Islamic fascism, on the other hand, goes back roughly 1,400 years and has been part of this ideology since its very foundation. It is, I would say, a fundamental part of islam. What did Mohammed do when the Jews refused to follow him? He killed them.

    Ironically, one can’t even solely blame Hitler for hunting and killing Jews. Hitler was the end-result of hundreds of years of catholic indoctrination that the Jews had murdered Jesus, which is, of course, utter BS, but it led to Jews being second class citizens for a long time. Plus other stories (Jews stealing babies and using them for rituals, poisoning wells, etc), which are resurfacing with different settings in the 21st century (Jews have stopped stealing babies, apparently and now, according to “human rights” organisations and willing minions like “doctors without borders” are harvesting the organs of dead “Palestinian fighters”.) Anti-semitism is on a rise again in Europe. And it’s “chique” again. This time it’s sold as “being critical of Israel” but it’s already at the point where “Deutsche wehrt euch! Kauft nicht bei Juden!” is, once again, used as campaign material. It’s now called “boycott to support the Palestine people.” Today it’s done by red and green parties. But if you mix red and green what do you get? You get brown. Like the brown worn by Hitler and his minions.

    Am I saying Hitler is innocent? Heck no. Sure, he was influenced, but he could have always made a choice. He made one, yes, but that was to follow those ridiculous ideas. He embraced them and acted according to them. The ideas, however, don’t come from him.

    Anyway.

    There are two big mistakes with Saddam.

    Number one was leaving him in power after Desert Storm. I mean seriously, WTF?

    Number two was his trial and execution. He was on trial for one crime and was executed only for that. It felt rushed. And it failed to leave an impact like, let’s say, the Nuremberg Trials.

    As for Saddam being worse than Hitler, well, the Bushes aren’t the smartest cookies in the box. Looking for someone worse than Hitler? Try Lenin, Stalin, Mao.

    Also, those aren’t “islamic extremists”. Just like there are no “islamists”. They are, effectively, “good muslims”. In islamic mythology Mohammed or Muhammad (I call him Moham/Muham the Mad) is the perfect human being. Every “muslim” should/must strife to be like him. And that includes pillaging, raping, murdering and “marrying” little girls, since this “perfect human being” has done exactly that. Also important is that the koran has a hierarchy. Texts written more recently stand above older texts. If Moham the Mad once wrote about love, peace and pink unicorns, but five years later wrote about killing everyone, pink unicorns included, then the part about killing everyone is the one that counts.

    What many people also forget is that the koran, just like shaira law, can’t be interpreted. If the koran would state, let’s say, that wearing yellow socks is a sign of the devil and everybody wearing yellow socks has to be killed, then this would be it. The koran is, according to islamic mythology, perfect and has the universal truth written into it. Period. It’s absolute. There is only black and white, only right and wrong. No shades of grey. No discussion. No critical thought (which is banned by sharia law anyway.) And it has always been like that, dating back to Moham the Mad himself.

    Let me add this one as last: under islamic law killing innocent people is outlawed. Technically. It all comes down to the definition of “innocent”. “Infidels” aren’t innocent. They commit the worst possible crime: they refuse to follow allah. That crime is worse than murder and rape and thus “infidels” can be killed. Some “schools” even say “must be killed.” Of course, the different groups inside islam itself kill each other just the same, but again, it’s the definition of “innocent” that all involved groups apply.

    • wormme says:

      I didn’t mean to imply that Obama is intentionally following Bush. Just that as Ruling Class members they make the same sorts of decisions.

      Also didn’t mean to imply that Iraq would take the same path as Japan and Germany. Apart from cultural differences there’s the danger of sharing a small basket with so many bad apples.

      “Islamic extremist” is a softened euphemism, eh? Guess I never thought otherwise, just didn’t want the hassle from our 21st Century hothouse flowers. It’s amazing how tough they get with you and me for using stark language. Considering how they swallow their tongues when some 14-year-old girl is murdered goes to Candyland because she let herself get raped was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      Ah. Our betters, showing us how it’s done.

  13. Lina Inverse says:

    It’s worth pointing out that the GHW Bush justifications for keeping Sadam in power were explicitly not exceeding the UN mandate for action and implicitly (or more) maintaining Iraq as a counterweight to Iran, the latter of which certainly was a legitimate concern. Of course the means used to achieve the latter end were unconscionable, but was there an alternative to occupying the nation as his son did, following the Pottery Barn rule? How would that have worked in the hands of GHW Bush and Clinton? (Or the majority of Presidents starting with LBJ for whom victory was a four letter word?)

    It should also be noted that Carter actively undermined the Shah and supported Khomeini; other outsiders helped to midwife the Iranian Revolution but Carter was probably the most important after the Shah himself.

    While I agree with our host that Carter was severely punished for his foreign and military policy blunders it’s sure my memory that for both him and GHW Bush the economy was more important. Clinton/Carville’s internal campaign slogan “It’s the economy, stupid” was far exceeded by Reagan’s devastating final debate questions, Are you better off now than you were four years ago? Is it easier for you to go and buy things in the stores than it was four years ago? Is there more or less unemployment in the country than there was four years ago? Is America as respected throughout the world as it was? Do you feel that our security is as safe, that we’re as strong as we were four years ago?. Note the order of topics in the questions.

    Thinking about our Presidents starting with FDR, it’s interesting how few were members of the Ruling Class, at least as I score them, but how all of them since 1989 have been:

    FDR: obviously.

    Truman: no way.

    Eisenhower: perhaps….

    JFK: also obviously.

    LBJ and Nixon: also no way.

    Ford: I think so, by the time he became President.

    Carter: I don’t think so; besides his background, note how much he clashed with the Beltway types, the Congress (he even had a super-majority for his first two years), how the press didn’t carry his water, etc. etc.

    Reagan: no way.

    GHW Bush, Clinton, GW Bush, Obama: obviously.

    • wormme says:

      Very nice comment, thank you!

      Per the U.N., I regard it as the second-most hypocritical and corrupt organization in human history, exceeded only by the Inquisition-era Catholic clergy. The most it can ever hope for from me is to be discounted, as here.

      I completely agree with your reading of those elections. Carter would have lost entirely on economic grounds. But he still took that pounding on his foreign fumbling. The Iranian hostage release was pretty indicative of the world’s judgement as well. Bush was clobbered with the economy, his stupid statements, and Ross Perot. He probably would have won anyone if not for the last factor.

      Wouldn’t dispute your presidential judgements, except for one thing about LBJ. He wasn’t stylistically or culturally “elite”, but he had the essential attitude of the Ruling Class toward the rest of us: “Just do as you’re told.”

      And the “Great Society” bred bureaucrats like stagnant pools breed mosquitos.

      • Lina Inverse says:

        You’re welcome.

        You’re of course right about the UN, but that’s the forum under who’s aegis GHW Bush chose to repel Sadam from Kuwait. That choice may have been a mistake, but I can’t imagine a Democratic Congress (or Republican, for that matter, at that point in history) giving him a Pottery Barn mandate and I gather neither could he and his team.

        Agreed on your last two points, and one of LBJ’s fatal flaws was sticking with too many of JFK’s ruling class types like Robert Strange McNamara … except he took the micromanagement to an even greater degree, e.g. insisting on personally approving each non-CAS air strike (!!!; and I could go on and on).

        Side note: LBJ, though, did believe in the Pottery Barn rule, having become President about a month after JFK and his team engineered the deposing and inevitable assassination of the Diem brothers, which “broke” the nation or at least its armed forces for quite a few years (well, perhaps until Nixon; after we pulled out, the ARVN with US air support stopped cold the first massive NVA armored assault and only failed the second time after the Congressional Democrats cut off military aid (e.g. ammo)).

        • wormme says:

          GHW Bush also tookwhat I believe is the quintessential Ruling Class act, though I haven’t found the reference yet.

          He made our official policy not to assassinate foreign leadership, even if we were war with them (if memory serves). So basically the “elite” class became off limits. Just as the current Admin demurred from targeting Mallomar Qudaffy. Or however you spell it.

          • Lina Inverse says:

            Too bad Saddam didn’t return the favor. (Since that analysis is from the FAS, given its conclusion I’m included to trust it.)

            Here’s some history and discussion of the issue; the general policy started with Ford due to the anti-CIA hysteria of the period.

            Although I should point out that it was very possibly wise during the Cold War, to the extent the Soviets would believe we wouldn’t attempt a decapitation attack. Avoiding putting the nuclear button on more of a hair trigger and all that.

          • wormme says:

            Good points all, plus Bush was ex-CIA. But announcing something like that with public fanfare is just stupid. Assure the commies privately if you must, but leave as many people possible afraid of U.S. assassins, non-existent or not.

  14. Jeffery Archer says:

    That Codevilla article is, perhaps, one of the most insightful political analysis of my generation.

  15. midwest bill says:

    Thanks for posting this wormme … I haven’t read through the whole “Ruling Class” article yet .. I like my doom a little at a time. The numbers of those that are not represented by either Dem or Repub’ fit with my theory that the real Tea Party is 70% of the population. They want less government, lower taxes. And of course, they hate the corruption. Actual political beliefs are not really that far apart, whether Dem or Repub..

    I hope to get caught up some day, on all the political history I lived through, but had no understanding of. It is a little overwhelming, and I have more time for it than most.

    Perhaps you need a “revolution” section to your blog. This page has sorta disappeared … you could have a section in the sidebar maybe? Not sure how it is setup. Not sure what the half life of political decay is, though I tend to think it started the day our constitution was signed, and decay accelerates rather than diminishes. There was contamination from the start.

    Let’s see .. the power was in the rules from founders that understood the power of politics.
    The shielding was the balance of powers, limited government … controlling the nuclear reaction.
    The anti-nuke crowd spreads fear by changing the facts … get rid of the constitution and let the elites run our energy policies, which results in subsidies for non-power green entites.

    All right … the analogy is getting strained … it could be refined I guess. But this more political portion of the wormme broadcast might be given a daily time slot. Or next to the “home” button”, a “political home” with a different worm or something.

    Just a thought.

    • wormme says:

      Prior to Fukushima most of this blog was a howl over our freedoms being eaten away. Had things been organized properly when there were no readers, you could look around easily. The plan is to go back and categorize everything, but staying on top of the nuke crisis seemed more important.

      You’re right about the decay. I’d see the half-life as purity and idealism decaying away. Corruption is the stable form. So “decay” would be from a “Mr. Smith” to John Murtha.

      That’s actually close to what usually happens in the Beltway.

      • midwest bill says:

        Seems to be the same in local politics, as with the beltway privileged, in many ways. A group of lawyers and politicians gain dominance, then everything has to have their stamp of approval, and be run through their hands. Soon corruption is rampant, but joining them becomes so much easier than standing up to them. Pretty soon they are all tied to each others crimes, and it is easier to “bury” anyone that challenges their cabal, than stand up for a little guy getting crushed. Then they just get fat and sassy and walk all over good people, flaunting the law.

        In my hometown, all the gas prices change at all the stations to the same price on the same day. “We found it just works better that way” one of the merchants ignorantly confessed on air once. But “they” investigated and found nothing wrong, no collusion.

        It is more destructive than that behind closed doors, where little guys are picked off quietly … the “ruling class” concept has many variants at many levels. Hopefully people can unite on the internet with blogs like yours, as well as on a local level.

        Cheers …

  16. Sam E says:

    I spent a couple of years at the pointy end of this stick. While there is some truth to the “Ruling Class” issue, the unfortunate truth is that it ranks as a more minor issue. The real problems are much worse.

    1) There is a perception by most people that there are good solutions to all problems and bad solutions to all problems. Wrong! Far too often the choices boil down to horrendously terrible, worse, much worse and indescribably, terrifyingly worse. The Mainstream Media, going back to at least 1608, I haven’t read much MSM prior to that, normally demands “indescribably, terrifyingly worse.”
    I happen to believe that GHW Bush made the least terrible decision to Iraq War I. I also believe that based on current evidence and what Bush Jr has said that Bush Jr.’s was a worse if not much worse decision. Note, I felt that way at the time. To me the best possible, though still bad result, would have been for Iran and Iraq to continue their war for the next century or so. Iraq under Saddam was doing a reasonable job of keeping our worse enemy under control or at least bleeding badly enough to slow it down.

    2)I heard Lt. Col. Shockley, also PhD International Law American University and head of DAO Saigon in 1974-1975 made an interesting comment in Saigon around 36 years ago that pretty well seared it’s self into my brain,

    “When I was a young Lt and Captain running around Indochina in the 1950’s, I would get these absolutely idiotically sounding orders from Washington. I was a mere junior officer and knew that the people in Washington had infinitely more information and knowledge about the situation. So, I followed these apparently stupid orders.

    Later I was assigned the Laos Desk in the Pentagon. After about six months, it dawned on me, I was now the one writing these seemingly idiotic orders. What is worse is that I had perhaps 10% of the actual current knowledge that I’d had as a junior officer running around Indochina. The orders that I was sending out were stupid and idiotic. The fact that I was doing my absolute best didn’t console me much.”

    In other words the people running things mostly get terrible information.

    3) The loose cannons like MacArthur. The US had an arms embargo against France during the late 1940’s because of it’s fight against Ho Chi Minh and we were negotiating with Red China to cooperate against the USSR. North Korea invaded South Korea, perhaps with the encouragement of the USSR. “Red China informed us that they didn’t care what we did in Korea as long as we stayed at least 20 miles away from the Red Chinese Border. Truman ordered MacArthur to stay 40 miles away from the border. When MacArthur’s Army reached with in 10 miles of the border China attacked them. This not only turned a walk over in Korea into a long drawn out war. It made American support of the French in Indochina inevitable and lead to the Viet Nam War.

    Note, with a West Pac in the South China Sea(DLGN-25), two tours in country(attached to TF_116 and VN successors), being evacuated out of Viet Nam 19 April 1975 with my wife(still got her) and two children, maintaining contact with the in-laws since 1976, first returning to Viet Nam in 1995, buying a house(where we spend most of our time these days); I do consider myself something of an expert on Viet Nam. Also note, my wife had a much more interesting war than I did. “Soldier of Fortune and “Gung-Ho”(now defunct) have printed articles about her war.

    • wormme says:

      Wow, this is like an entire poli-mil course. And if the phrase “tip of the iceberg” has any meaning, your last paragraph sure gave that impression.

      I’ve done quite a bit of scriptwriting. If your wife’s war experience could be framed in an overarching story arc or theme, it has the feel of a bio-pic from here. Any movie producers ever come nosing around?

      Hmm. Have there been films centered around Viet Nam women soldiers?

      Regardless…thank you both for your service.

  17. Sam E says:

    You might take a look at “River Rats” by Ralph Christopher.

    http://www.amazon.com/River-Rats-Ralph-Christopher/dp/1420826905/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301960931&sr=1-1

    It is a good read and Ralph is very kind in the acknowledgement that he gives us. And Yes, I did and do like Viet Nam better than working on nuclear reactors. It is much more interesting and considering the number of times that I fly back and forth gives me a much higher cumulative dose.

  18. Pingback: Wow, how often is Thomas Sowell wrong about something? | World's Only Rational Man

Leave a Reply to wormme Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s