Reluctant Warrior Bombs Yet Another Country

[Octafish]

Reluctant Warrior Bombs Yet Another Country

by Peter Hart
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), Wednesday, September 24, 2014

If there's one thing elite media seem to know for sure, it's that Barack Obama doesn't like war. One phrase in particular seems to stand out:

"It was a remarkable moment for a reluctant warrior." – Jonathan Karl (ABC Nightline, 9/10/14)

"He's a very reluctant warrior, didn't want to do this. But you have to say, it is good he recognized reality." – David Gergen (CNN, 9/10/14)

"Is he going to become a warrior, and not a reluctant warrior, when he is taking such a strong stance that he will do anything to defeat ISIS, except for if it involves American troops? – Erin Burnett (CNN, 9/10/14)

"He's a reluctant warrior." – David Brooks (PBS NewsHour, 9/10/14)

"You have a reluctant warrior in President Obama, and the press saying, 'Do something.'" – Lauren Ashburn (Fox News, 9/12/14)

"He is, as you know, the standard phrase, the reluctant warrior. And I think he's played that long before this decision." – David Bergen (CNN, 9/14/14)

"But now with weekly beheadings by ISIS, the reluctant warrior must wage war, but not total war–tepid war." – Bill O'Reilly (Fox News, 9/15/14)

Last night came the announcement that US had begun conducting airstrikes on Syria. Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept posted a story (9/23/14) with this headline:




It does make one wonder: What would an enthusiastic warrior look like to the corporate media? Would bombing eight countries in six years be enough?

SOURCE: http://www.fair.org/blog/2014/09/23/reluctant-warrior-bombs-yet-another-country/

------------------------------------

Interesting echo, war.

[leftstreet]

1. It's such a terrible phrase. It reminds of Bush Elder and wimpgate

sigh

These talking points go out to the tightly controlled M$M without much feedback, methinks

[Octafish]

4. The echo reminds me of a marketing campaign.

It is September, the time of a new selling season.

QUOTATION OF THE DAY

Published: September 7, 2002

[font color="green"]''From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August.''[/font color]

ANDREW H. CARD Jr., White House chief of staff, on why the Bush administration waited until September to press for public support of its Iraq policy. (A1)

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/07/nyregion/quotation-of-the-day-766518.html

Since forever, war's big business. Growing up, I didn't think it would be that way in the United States of America of the 21st century.

[nationalize the fed]

2. The President finds these pathetic scribblings by Mr. Hart and GG to be

less than amusing

[Octafish]

5. I remember the candidate who actually, you know, talked about peace and shit.

"We’ve got to be very clear about what our mission is. We would make sure that our embassies & our civilians are protected; that we’ve got to care for Iraqi civilians, including the four million displaced already. We already have a humanitarian crisis, an we have not taken those responsibilities seriously. We need a strike force that can take out potential terrorist bases that get set up in Iraq.

"But the one important thing is that we not get mission creep, and we not start suggesting that we should hav troops in Iraq to blunt Iranian influence. If we were concerned about Iranian influence, we should not have had this government installed in the first place. We shouldn’t have invaded in the first place. It was part of the reason that it was such a profound strategic error for us to go into this war.

"I will offer a clear contrast as somebody who never supported this war. I don’t want to just end the war, but I want to end the mindset that got us into war in the first place." -- Sen. Barack Obama

Source: 2008 Democratic debate in Los Angeles before Super Tuesday Jan 31, 2008

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm

Don't know what happened.

[MrMickeysMom]

9. The "mindset that got us into war in the first place" re-invented itself… Insanity sells!

I can only think that the MIC has a new marketing strategy, which is to have someone who said that 6 years ago suddenly strut down the runway with that new message about war being about peace now...

It's a "War is Peace" tour, launched this September! It is so very sheik. It is so insane, but it looks good on you, America. War-Is-Peace looks so good on you, Syria! You'll love becoming three countries after the allies get done with your make-over.

And, just look at the market respond!

"Wow… I simply must have one... Hey, does this war-is-peace make me look too fat? Everyone's getting one…"

I don't know what happened, either, my friend, but that is how insane it feels to bare witness right now.

[Boreal]

13. He lied, that's what happened

Then there's 2012 (that would be just after all the talk about Al Qaeda being defeated and whatnot) and this gem I ran across from Biden. He's reaming Romney on a laundry list of wars and conflicts Romney would get into and every one on the list has been or is being done, except for attacking Iran!

Gosh, the way things are going you'd think US foreign policy was laid out a long time ago - you know, by PNAC or someone - and it's being carried out regardless of who occupies the WH.

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. I'm sure he didn't mean to lie.

[jamzrockz]

27. They say things like this to get elected

and once they get it, they go back on their words and give a big middle finger to all those people that voted for them. Thanks Joe, you guys sure make me look foolish now

[merrily]

28. "except for attacking Iran." January 2017 is still a way off.

Then again, maybe Iran will be our ally by then.

Realpolitik might be funny if it did not cost so much blood and treasure.

[merrily]

26. He also talked about how we "took our eye off the ball" off the war

in Afghanistan by "diverting" to Iraq. So, maybe he was more of a "wrong place, wrong war" candidate than a "peace" candidate, "aspirational" Nobel Peace Prize notwithstanding.

Or, maybe he was a "campaign rhetoric that covers all bases" candidate. Hard to tell with politicians, which is probably what they want.

[sabrina 1]

35. "including the four million displaced already." Have you noticed that NO ONE talks

about OUR displacement of those 4 million Iraqis, driven from their countries, into SYRIA AND JORDAN by the violence WE rained down on their coungtry?

The only refugees we hear about now are those displaced, we are told, by ISIS.

And our involvement in Syria has once again caused those 2 million Iraqi Refugees to be forced to flee, AGAIN due to our involvement in MORE violence in the ME.

I remember how outraged the 'left' was over those millions of refugees driven from their homes by our illegal and brutal invasion of their country. Apparently Obama shared that outrage, THEN.

[bobduca]

11. No, he's classier than you

[dilby]

3. He doesn't want to bomb them, he has to bomb them. There is Billions of dollars to be made in war.

I don't fall for the reluctant warrior, he is doing the bidding of the wealthy corporations who profit from war. If this was because ISIS was bad we would be bombing other countries that were committing atrocities. Anyone remember those missing girls in Nigeria, they get a hashtag and Syria gets bombed.

[Octafish]

7. War Is Swell for Banksters and their Bosses

The Merchants of Blood War Profiteering from Vietnam to Iraq

War Profiteering from Vietnam to Iraq

by JAMES M. CARTER (a PhD candidate in 2003)
DECEMBER 11, 2003

EXCERPT...

The project failed. Ordinary Vietnamese in concert with northern Viet Minh cadre began to openly resist the whole campaign. By the early 1960s, the United States came to rely almost exclusively on military solutions to put down the growing opposition, soon a broad-based and popular insurgency opposed to continued occupation and Diem’s rule, now referred to as My-Diem or American Diem. John Kennedy increased direct American involvement from around 680 to over 16,000 troops as "advisors" who, despite their title, participated in combat. The administration, at the same time, vastly expanded the military forces built earlier to defend Diem and insure he remained in power. Opposition to the occupation grew at a steady pace. The whole project continued to unravel. By late 1963, a coup de tat finally removed Diem and his influential family from power.

From 1964 into 1965, the experiment was vastly militarized. From around 23,000 troops in Vietnam by the end of 1964, the next year there were 185,000, and the next there were over 385,000. American force levels peaked at around 542,000. By all accounts a traditional society, southern Vietnam needed an infrastructure to receive this influx of military aid. Responsibility for building that necessary infrastructure was given over to the largest construction entity ever, the RMK-BRJ (Raymond International, Morrison-Knudsen, Brown & Root, and J.A. Jones Construction). Calling itself "The Vietnam Builders" and receiving highly lucrative "no bid" contracts, this consortium of private corporations was to turn southern Vietnam into a modern, integrated military installation that would enable the United States to properly defend its client. The Vietnam Builders entered into a contract with the federal government, via the U.S. Navy, as the exclusive contractor for the huge military buildup that was to come; there would be no open bidding or otherwise competitive process.

Brushing aside the messy reality that the nation of "South" Vietnam had yet to be created, U.S. officials ordered a staggering volume of military projects be begun immediately. The congress granted to the administration of Lyndon Baines Johnson for 1965 $700 million for the expected ramping up of a direct American military role. Of that sum, $100 million was earmarked for the Defense Department’s construction projects already begun. Soon, the figures ballooned far beyond anyone’s expectation. Initially contracted for around $15 million prior to 1965, the lead corporation, MK, was shocked by the magnitude of orders for rapid construction. As one MK executive said early in 1965, "all we knew was that they wanted a lotta roads, a lotta airfields, a lotta bridges, and a lotta ports, and that they probably would want it all finished by yesterday." (Fortune, Sept., 1966)

These demands outstripped the capacity of any one of the corporations. Equipment requirements alone for the Vietnam project far exceeded all equipment owned by MK for all of its worldwide operations and all subsidiary companies. The value of the project leapt from its 1964 starting point of $15 million of work in place per month to over $67 million of work in place per month within two years. The Builders could hardly keep pace with the demand for more projects, which numbered over one hundred concurrently at the peak of construction. Suppliers in the US could hardly keep up either and backlogs of three to six months became commonplace. Caterpillar Tractor Company’s annual report to shareholders intoned, "1965 was another recording-breaking year and only the physical limitations of production capacity kept sales and profits from being higher." (ENR, Feb., 17, 1966; ENR, May, 19, 1966) Three of the four firms making up the Vietnam Builders ranked in the top ten of four hundred U.S. corporation doing business abroad for 1966. Collectively, and individually, they gobbled up hundreds of millions in profits for their efforts. In the process, Vietnam Builders employed 8,600 Americans and over 51,000 Vietnamese. They built six ports with 29 deep-draft berths, six naval bases, eight jet airstrips 10,000 feet in length, twelve airfields, just under twenty hospitals, fourteen million square feet of covered storage, and twenty base camps including housing for 450,000 servicemen and family. In short, they put on the ground in southern Vietnam nearly $2 billion in construction of various kinds of facilities and infrastructure. Military commanders called it the "construction miracle of the decade." (Jones Construction Centennial)

In deciding to go to war rather than withdraw from Vietnam, the Johnson administration had stepped onto a slippery slope where foreign policy crises meet domestic politics. At home just as in Vietnam, Johnson fought to control inflationary pressures. Now, those pressures mounted as the war in Southeast increased in scope and intensity. The soaring demands on the construction industry certainly meant rising profits, but it also threatened rising prices. Republicans in congress began to criticize Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam situation, warning his policies threatened to over-heat the domestic economy and drive prices up. Some also specifically criticized the way in which aid, both construction/military and economic, was being sent to Vietnam. In 1966, Illinois Representative Donald H. Rumsfeld went perhaps further than most when he charged the administration with letting contracts which "are illegal by statute." He urged investigation into the relationship between the private consortium working in Vietnam and the Johnson administration, in particular the infamous "President’s Club," to which Brown & Root, one of the principle Vietnam contractors, had given tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. Rumsfeld argued on behalf of serious inquiry into the whole affair saying, "under one contract, between the U.S. Government and this combine, it is officially estimated that obligations will reach at least $900 million by November 1967…why this huge contract has not been and is not now being adequately audited is beyond me. The potential for waste and profiteering under such a contract is substantial." (Cong. Rec., August 30, 1966) Rumsfeld’s alarm was echoed by others in the congress and in the press as well, although will little affect. All the while, the war in southern Vietnam continued to spiral out of control despite the dramatic increases in firepower and troops and military construction. The government’s contract with the Vietnam Builders ended only in 1972 shortly before the Nixon administration itself quit the commitment to the long failed project.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2003/12/11/war-profiteering-from-vietnam-to-iraq/

[Volaris]

37. That quote from Rep. Don Rumsfeld would be damned cute, if he wernt such a conniving bastard...

I guess he learned a very productive lesson from the vietnam conflict. Too bad it was lucrative in nature, rather than Moral.

[woo me with science]

6. Isn't that some marketing.

Now that is some well-orchestrated catapulting of the propaganda.

Yeah, he's bombing the shit out of his seventh country, but he's *reluctant* about it.

[Octafish]

8. Corporate McPravda certainly got the message. Others see through the bull...

Don't Cry for Me, Damascus

When Irony Fails: Obama’s Syrian Airstrikes

by ROBERT FISK
CounterPunch, Sept. 24, 2014

The moment America expanded its anti-Isis war into Syria, President Bashar al-Assad gained more military and political support than any other Arab leader can boast. With US bombs and missiles exploding across eastern and northern Syria, Assad can now count on America, Russia, China, Iran, the Hezbollah militia, Jordan and a host of wealthy Gulf countries to keep his regime alive. If ever that creaking old Arab proverb – that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” – contained any wisdom, Assad has proved it true.

In his Damascus home, the Syrian leader can reflect that the most powerful nation on earth – which only last year wished to bomb him into oblivion – is now trying to bomb his most ferocious enemies into the very same oblivion. Sunni Saudis whose “charity” donations have funded the equally Sunni “Islamic State” now find their government supposedly helping the US to destroy it. As Shia Iran and its Hezbollah protégés battle the Sunni executioners and throat-slashers on the ground, US bombs and missiles rain down to destroy the enemies in front of them.

Not since Churchill found himself an ally of Nazi Germany’s erstwhile friend Stalin in 1941 can a president have found a fearsome antagonist transformed so swiftly into a brother-in-arms. But – and it’s a very big “but” – the Baathist Syrian regime is not so stupid as to take the word “friend” at face value. Neither should we. Obama is the last person with whom Assad would want to associate himself – as Vladimir Putin doesn’t need to remind him – and the Syrian regime will be watching with the deepest concern as America’s promiscuous use of air power spreads inexorably to include more and more targets outside its original stated aim.

Quite apart from the civilian casualties in Idlib province, America’s targeting of the al-Qaeda-linked Jabhat al-Nusra suggests that the Pentagon has more than Isis in its sights. How soon, for example, before a missile explodes in a Syrian regime weapons depot – by “mistake”, of course – or other government facilities? Since the US has decided to fund and train the so-called “moderate opposition” to fight Isis and the Syrian regime, why should it not bomb both sets of enemies? And how will Syrians who support whatever is left of these “moderates” react to the American bombs in Idlib which killed their fellow civilians rather than Assad’s forces – bombs, indeed, which appear to have been just as lethal as the munitions dropped on them by Assad’s aircraft?

SNIP...

The Gulf Arabs, after all, have been here before. They remember clearly the exaggerated claims of military success in the air – of smart bombs that did not slaughter civilians, of cruise missiles that destroyed bunkers and training camps and “command and control centres” in 1991 and 2003. It all proved to be a very dodgy war menu. Yet now the Americans are re-cooking these old snacks for the Isis conflict.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/24/when-irony-fails-obamas-syrian-airstrikes/

Catapaulting war is revolting, especially when it's now so very, very buy-partisan. Must be an Oh-So-Social thing.

[merrily]

30. Reluctant.

Section 1 is a vesting clause, granting all the federal government's legislative authority to Congress. Similar vesting clauses are found in Articles II and III, which grant "the executive power" to the President and "the judicial power" to the federal judiciary. In legal proceedings, the working definition of "herein" connotes specificity and exclusivity. The Vesting Clauses thus establishes the principle of separation of powers by specifically giving to each branch of the federal government only those powers it can exercise and no others.[1] This means that no branch may exercise powers that properly belong to another (e.g., since the legislative power is only vested in Congress, the executive and judiciary may not enact laws).[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution


Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 1.

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section 8.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

.........

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

.........

Section 2 of Article II of the Constitution of the United States of America does, of course, state:

Section 2.

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States; he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices, and he shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.

(Think George Washington, who was no doubt was being considered for President of the US during the Constitutional Convention, having been the actual commander in chief of the revolutionary forces.)

But, Article II does not expressly empower the President to declare war. That power is expressly given to Congress by Section 8 of Article I. If Section 2 of Article II had been intended to give the President a "co-power" to initiate military action, Article II would have said so.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expressio%20unius%20est%20exclusio%20alterius

Worth contemplating, for those who still contemplate the meaning of the Constitution:

Did the AUMF of 2001, which authorized the President to act against those responsible for the attack on the WTC authorize everything that has been done since?

Was bombing Syria in 2014 within the the intent of Congress when it passed that resolution in 2001?

If so, is that a Constitutional way for Congress to operate or is it a delegation of power so broad that it subverts the separation of powers on perhaps the most important issue in Articles I and II?

[Caretha]

32. Declaring war

is so "yester-year".

We only kill the masses of other sovereign nations under the auspices of 'Resolutions' and/or 'Police Action', while Congress gets to approve the funding.

It's a nice little racket, huh?

Those in Congress who approve the funding are really voting for war and yet get to claim they are just supporting the troops - it appeases their constituents and makes them look patriotic.

[Volaris]

38. I think it's not so profound as any of that...

Congress, (esp. The House of Rep.) Having to be re elected every 24 months, is, by design, a POLITICAL body. This means that most of them, most of the time, are scoundrels by nature, and passing the blame for something gone wrong (or potentially wrong) off on the Executive Branch is a hell of a lot easier politically than admitting that you yourself made a mistake or lapse in good judgement.
I'm of the opinion that if Congress could find a way to still pay itself a nice salary for Legislating itself out of existance, it would have done so about 200 years ago.

[SidDithers]

10. Greenwald. LOL...nt

Sid

[BrotherIvan]

12. Dead people LOL!

[gratuitous]

41. Indiscriminate massacres. LOL...da

Oops, meant "nt."

[pampango]

14. He'll catch up to FDR's record of countries bombed if he keeps this up. n/t

[Octafish]

15. Really? Did FDR bomb innocent people to appease the neocons, too?

Did FDR believe that "money trumps peace" like George W Bush and his Poppy George HW Bush?

Those two lied America into wars on Iraq. Background for those who never knew or don't remember:

The Lies We Are Told About Iraq

by Victor Marshall
Published on Sunday, January 5, 2003 by the Los Angeles Times:

OAKLAND -- The Bush administration's confrontation with Iraq is as much a contest of credibility as it is of military force. Washington claims that Baghdad harbors ambitions of aggression, continues to develop and stockpile weapons of mass destruction and maintains ties to Al Qaeda. Lacking solid evidence, the public must weigh Saddam Hussein's penchant for lies against the administration's own record. Based on recent history, that's not an easy choice.

The first Bush administration, which featured Dick Cheney, Paul D. Wolfowitz and Colin L. Powell at the Pentagon, systematically misrepresented the cause of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the nature of Iraq's conduct in Kuwait and the cost of the Persian Gulf War. Like the second Bush administration, it cynically used the confrontation to justify a more expansive and militaristic foreign policy in the post-Vietnam era.

When Iraqi troops invaded Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990, the first President Bush likened it to Nazi Germany's occupation of the Rhineland. "If history teaches us anything, it is that we must resist aggression or it will destroy our freedoms," he declared. The administration leaked reports that tens of thousands of Iraqi troops were massing on the border of Saudi Arabia in preparation for an invasion of the world's major oil fields. The globe's industrial economies would be held hostage if Iraq succeeded.

The reality was different. Two Soviet satellite photos obtained by the St. Petersburg Times raised questions about such a buildup of Iraqi troops. Neither the CIA nor the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency viewed an Iraqi attack on Saudi Arabia as probable. The administration's estimate of Iraqi troop strength was also grossly exaggerated. After the war, Newsday's Susan Sachs called Iraq the "phantom enemy": "The bulk of the mighty Iraqi army, said to number more than 500,000 in Kuwait and southern Iraq, couldn't be found."

CONTINUED...

http://www.representativepress.org/LiesAboutIraq.html

I don't believe FDR would bomb Syria, a country that didn't bomb us first, if not at all.

[pampango]

16. The US was attacked by one country, Japan. FDR bombed Libya, Tunisia and Egypt in Africa.

The British handled the bombing in Syrian, Iraq, Iran, Palestine and Lebanon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_East_Theatre_of_World_War_II

Did FDR bomb innocent people to appease neocons, too?

The bombing of German and Japanese cities most assuredly killed millions of 'innocent people'. Was he doing it to appease neocons? I doubt the 'innocent' Germans and Japanese particularly cared.

[Octafish]

19. Tell me about it.

[Doug.Goodall]

29. One country attacked first

There was the Reuben James

USS Reuben James (DD-245)—a post-World War I, four-funnel Clemson-class destroyer—was the first United States Navy ship sunk by hostile action in the European theater of World War II and the first named for Boatswain's Mate Reuben James (c.1776–1838), who distinguished himself fighting in the Barbary Wars.

Reuben James was laid down on 2 April 1919 by the New York Shipbuilding Corporation of Camden, New Jersey, launched on 4 October 1919, and commissioned on 24 September 1920, with Commander Gordon W. Hines in command. The destroyer was sunk by a torpedo attack from German submarine U-552 on 31 October 1941.

Woody Guthrie wrote a song about it.

[neverforget]

40. The allies were fighting the Germans and Italians in those countries, 2 nations which were

at war with. On December 11, 1941 Germany and Italy declared war on the US and we did the same.

[JEB]

17. Sloganeering. Reluctant or enthusiastic.

Dead is dead. Profits are profits.

[Octafish]

20. Marketing War for a Good Cause.

The one-percent. Economist Tyler Cowen of George Mason University knows what's coming and what's good for us, especially the top wage earners. Looks like a heapin' helpin' of War and the Status Quo.

The Pitfalls of Peace

The Lack of Major Wars May Be Hurting Economic Growth

Tyler Coswen
The New York Times, JUNE 13, 2014

The continuing slowness of economic growth in high-income economies has prompted soul-searching among economists. They have looked to weak demand, rising inequality, Chinese competition, over-regulation, inadequate infrastructure and an exhaustion of new technological ideas as possible culprits.

An additional explanation of slow growth is now receiving attention, however. It is the persistence and expectation of peace.

The world just hasn’t had that much warfare lately, at least not by historical standards. Some of the recent headlines about Iraq or South Sudan make our world sound like a very bloody place, but today’s casualties pale in light of the tens of millions of people killed in the two world wars in the first half of the 20th century. Even the Vietnam War had many more deaths than any recent war involving an affluent country.

Counterintuitive though it may sound, the greater peacefulness of the world may make the attainment of higher rates of economic growth less urgent and thus less likely. This view does not claim that fighting wars improves economies, as of course the actual conflict brings death and destruction. The claim is also distinct from the Keynesian argument that preparing for war lifts government spending and puts people to work. Rather, the very possibility of war focuses the attention of governments on getting some basic decisions right — whether investing in science or simply liberalizing the economy. Such focus ends up improving a nation’s longer-run prospects.

It may seem repugnant to find a positive side to war in this regard, but a look at American history suggests we cannot dismiss the idea so easily. Fundamental innovations such as nuclear power, the computer and the modern aircraft were all pushed along by an American government eager to defeat the Axis powers or, later, to win the Cold War. The Internet was initially designed to help this country withstand a nuclear exchange, and Silicon Valley had its origins with military contracting, not today’s entrepreneurial social media start-ups. The Soviet launch of the Sputnik satellite spurred American interest in science and technology, to the benefit of later economic growth.

War brings an urgency that governments otherwise fail to summon. For instance, the Manhattan Project took six years to produce a working atomic bomb, starting from virtually nothing, and at its peak consumed 0.4 percent of American economic output. It is hard to imagine a comparably speedy and decisive achievement these days.

SNIP...

Living in a largely peaceful world with 2 percent G.D.P. growth has some big advantages that you don’t get with 4 percent growth and many more war deaths. Economic stasis may not feel very impressive, but it’s something our ancestors never quite managed to pull off. The real questions are whether we can do any better, and whether the recent prevalence of peace is a mere temporary bubble just waiting to be burst.

Tyler Cowen is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

SOURCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economic-growth.html?_r=0

The guy seems to specialize in Big Ticket themes:

Tired Of Inequality? One Economist Says It'll Only Get Worse

by NPR STAFF
September 12, 2013 3:05 AM

Economist Tyler Cowen has some advice for what to do about America's income inequality: Get used to it. In his latest book, Average Is Over, Cowen lays out his prediction for where the U.S. economy is heading, like it or not:

"I think we'll see a thinning out of the middle class," he tells NPR's Steve Inskeep. "We'll see a lot of individuals rising up to much greater wealth. And we'll also see more individuals clustering in a kind of lower-middle class existence."

It's a radical change from the America of 40 or 50 years ago. Cowen believes the wealthy will become more numerous, and even more powerful. The elderly will hold on to their benefits ... the young, not so much. Millions of people who might have expected a middle class existence may have to aspire to something else.

SNIP...

Some people, he predicts, may just have to find a new definition of happiness that costs less money. Cowen says this widening is the result of a shifting economy. Computers will play a larger role and people who can work with computers can make a lot. He also predicts that everyone will be ruthlessly graded — every slice of their lives, monitored, tracked and recorded.

CONTINUED with link to the audio...

http://www.npr.org/2013/09/12/221425582/tired-of-inequality-one-economist-says-itll-only-get-worse

For some reason, the interview with Steve Inskeep didn't bring up the subject of the GOVERNMENT DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT LIKE IN THE NEW DEAL so I thought I'd bring it up. Older DUers may recall the Democratic Party once actually did do stuff for the average American, from school and work to housing and justice. But, like Social Security, we can't afford that now, obviously.

While the good news is the 1-percent may swell to a 15-percent "upper middle class" while the rest of the middle class goes the other way, there are no guarantees, which sounds eerily familiar.

"Commercial interests are very powerful interests" uttered same press conference where Smirko said, "Money trumps peace." Pretty much always the on-message 24/7/366 for most of the last century. Those same commercial interests are why so many people in politics go along to get along. Their future economic well-being depends on it.

[whatchamacallit]

21. Pushing our buttons, pulling our strings, filling our empty noggins

Perception substitutes reality...

[Octafish]

22. It's why I'm a JFK Democrat.

The guy used his powers as president to keep the peace and to build prosperity for all. Things have not been the same since.

JFK battled Wall Street and Big Business

"If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich"
-- Inaugural Address of John F. Kennedy, Friday, January 20, 1961



So, in the short time he had, President Kennedy did what he could to balance the interests of concentrated wealth with the interests of the average American -- necessary for the good of the country.

Professor Donald Gibson detailed the issues in his 1994 book, Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency.

From the book:

"What (J.F.K. tried) to do with everything from global investment patterns to tax breaks for individuals was to re-shape laws and policies so that the power of property and the search for profit would not end up destroying rather than creating economic prosperity for the country."

-- Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street. The Kennedy Presidency

More on the book, by two great Americans:

"Gibson captures what I believe to be the most essential and enduring aspect of the Kennedy presidency. He not only sets the historical record straight, but his work speaks volumes against today's burgeoning cynicism and in support of the vision, ideal, and practical reality embodied in the presidency of John F. Kennedy - that every one of us can make a difference." -- Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, Chair, House Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs

"Professor Gibson has written a unique and important book. It is undoubtedly the most complete and profound analysis of the economic policies of President Kennedy. From here on in, anyone who states that Kennedy was timid or status quo or traditional in that field will immediately reveal himself ignorant of Battling Wall Street. It is that convincing." -- James DiEugenio, author, Destiny Betrayed. JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Had he lived to serve a second term, I'd bet on JFK over The Fed.

JFK ignored CIA director Allen Dulles and JCS chairman Gen. Lyman Lemnitzer when they told the President that the best time to launch an all-out nuclear sneak attack the USSR would be "Fall 1963."

Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?

Recently declassified information shows that the military presented President Kennedy with a plan for a surprise nuclear attack on the Soviet Union in the early 1960s.

James K. Galbraith and Heather A. Purcell
The American Prospect | September 21, 1994

During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies -- from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" -- worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent power of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R., based on our growing lead in land-based missiles. And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced opposite is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.

CONTINUED...

http://prospect.org/article/did-us-military-plan-nuclear-first-strike-1963

We wouldn't know about how great he was, were it not for one copy of that memo surviving the CIA's shredder. Details:
he'd think of the memorandum of Col. Howard Burris?

[whatchamacallit]

23. He took a bullet for it

There may never be another JFK :/

[Octafish]

24. JFK knew what he was walking into in Dallas...

...not just because of the way the rightwing nutjobs treated Adlai Stevenson there, but from the DOCUMENTED conspiracies on his life busted up -- and apparently covered up -- in Chicago and Miami earlier that November. The Chicago Plot, FWIW, was busted up by a tipster named "Lee," last name not recorded.

PS: Please know that I think the world of Adlai Stevenson Democrats, too.

[woo me with science]

25. kick for calling out the propaganda

Last edited Sat Sep 27, 2014, 06:59 AM - Edit history (1)

[woo me with science]

31. kick

[99Forever]

33. K&R

[JEB]

34. K&R

[TheKentuckian]

36. Reluctant now means not fitting in with Dr Strangelove very well.

[Rex]

39. If the POTUS was a warhawk, we would be in WWIII with Russia right now.

People need to thank their lucky stars Obama does not suffer from bloodlust.

[woo me with science]

42. kick