A foreign policy dinner had ‘a full range of views,’ according to the New York Times–featuring hawks from both major political parties.
Obama hosted a dinner of foreign policy insiders on Monday to talk about his plan to attack Islamic State fighters. The New York Times (9/9/14) reported this was “an effort to win over elite opinion,” adding:
The guestlist, which included national security advisers to three former presidents from both parties, represented a full range of views about the risks of returning to Iraq.
So what does a “full range of views” look like to the New York Times? Powerful people who worked for Republicans and Democrats.
The Times‘ Mark Landler ran down the list:
Two of the guests–Stephen J. Hadley and Richard N. Haass–worked for the George W. Bush administration and have direct experience with the Iraq War and its chaotic aftermath.
Theirs would certainly count as “direct experience.”
The discussion included Sandy Berger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, who both advised Democratic presidents; former Obama officials Tom Donilon, Michele Flournoy and CIA deputy director Michael Morell; and former Clinton adviser Strobe Talbott and Democratic hawk Jane Harman.
If the idea was to hear a “full range” of ideas, you might want to add–or subtract–a few names.
Judging by the stories that emerged after the dinner, things went well for the Obama camp. Here’s Washington Post columnist David Ignatius (9/9/14):
“We have to do it,” says Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser and the dean of a group of strategists who met with Obama on Monday night.
And back to the New York Times (9/10/14), which reports that “several participants” said that Obama “presented a comprehensive plan that included military, diplomatic and ideological components.” The Times also reported that Harman said that “she and other participants told Mr. Obama that he could order military action in Syria without fear of helping Mr. Assad, since ISIS was occupying ungoverned territory that his forces were unlikely to reconquer.”
So Obama was able to “win over” a group of elites who were likely to agree with him anyway.
They had a full range; of people who agrees with them. Why should they ask the people who don’t agree them, because, surprise – surprise – surprise, they would not agree with them. You know, like those party poopers who Shat on Wal-tons Happy day…. Because they aren’t happy for The “lords and Masters” getting ever and more richer, faster and faster.
Brzezinski’s the same nitwit who manipulated the Soviet Union into invading Afghanistan in 1979, after the US engineered a regime change there from a government that was close to the Soviet; and upon the initiation of said invasion, sent a gleeful memo to President Carter saying that the US now had the chance to give the USSR its “own Vietnam.” Although from the Democratic side of the aisle, the opposition, still it’s straight out of the Henry Kissinger school that defines cynicism by stating to the effect that foreign diplomacy is not an exercise in charity. The realpolitik Kissinger in a just world, would be criminally liable for, including the mass murder of 3 million Indochinese in the war Vietnam calls the American War. Brzezinski’s Afghanistan gambit resulted in the ten-year support the US provided to the Jihadis, including bin Laden that morphed into Al Qaeda. I think it was before 9/11, but subsequent to Brzezinski’s escapade in Afghanistan and the rise of terrorist organizations from the area – not of the stature of the US government it ought be quickly added – Brzezinski’s was cited as asking, “What’s more important, the winning of the Cold War, or a few cannon-loose Arabs running around Southwest Asia.” So the chess-master has major culpability in the fact that today’s world is far more dangerous than it was before he put his Kissingerian tools of the trade to use. I’m beginning to believe the compatriots I manage to prompt the voici an opinion about politics. Politicians are all rotten. Yes, there is Hugo Chavez, Evo Morales, Nicolas Maduro, President Correa and their governments. Not all rotten, on the contrary. I was informed Saturday that no less than Cynthia McKinney voted to approve all of Bush the Stupider’s senseless wars. He’s well-informed else-wise, so without doing the research I guess I have to believe him. But he also told Kucinich did too, which made me suspicious of the assertion about McKinney. Because I’m as pure as Ivory soap sure Kucinich never cast an aye vote to Bush’s violent descent into madness. Indeed, the fellow-activist wouldn’t bet me $100 on it. Too bad Bush, like Hitler, hadn’t saved the world much pain and bloodshed, and become successful as artists before their frustrated ambitions led them to mass murder. If Brzezinski’s wisdom concludes “it has to be done,” how about Brzezinski straps a rifle to his back, dons a helmet, and leads the charge? Maybe he can get one of the Fox News talking head to join him with a bugle. And that goes for any advocate of doubling down on sheer madness: if it’s so vital, let’s see you at the front. This war needs more than just cannon-fodder: it needs leaders.
Those several participants are liars. Diplomacy is redundant in US foreign policy, and simply not practiced. As Noam Chomsky has reported often, a nation, like an individual leads with its strength. In the case of the United States, that’s its military might. Pity the planet Chomsky is so right.