There is a sense of deja vue in this.
I blathered something about this the other day and it is nice to be vindicated by one of the Oz's top journos, Mike Carlton. Here is what he said this week about the US and their foreign policy.
Trawling the TV news channels on Tuesday for the latest from Egypt, I hit on a chat between two of the nastiest people in America, Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck of Rupert Murdoch's Fox News outfit.
O'Reilly has the smirk of a welshing Irish bookmaker. Beck looks like a child's inflatable swimming pool toy, with an IQ to match. Together, they were ''analysing'' the demonstrations on the streets of Cairo, in infantile terms.
''Mubarak: bad guy!'' announced O'Reilly. ''But then he's our guy.''
''It's the Marxist communists [sic] and the jihadists doing all this stuff,'' said the pool toy.
They would not recognise it but these two dolts unwittingly put their finger on the central fault line of American foreign policy.
President John Kennedy's inauguration promise in 1961 that the US would ''pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty'' turned out to be one of the great swindles of the past century.
Liberty be damned. In the 50 years since, successive presidents have funded and encouraged some of the worst tyrants of our time, for as long as they were professed anti-communists and usefully ''our guys''. Diem of South Vietnam, Marcos in the Philippines, Suharto in Indonesia, Verwoerd in South Africa, Pinochet in Chile, the Shah of Iran and the vile Saudi royal family spring immediately to mind. And Hosni Mubarak, and even Saddam Hussein, for a while. Who could forget the pictures of Ronald Reagan's special envoy, none other than Donald Rumsfeld, embracing Saddam in Baghdad in 1983?
But they do not learn in Washington. As we have seen again now with Egypt, the State Department is ever surprised when it is bitten on the bum by the huddled masses yearning to be free
More of him can be found at www.smh.com.au
enjoy. Note the reference to the IQ of Beck.
Re: There is a sense of deja vue in this.
I agree with what you are saying but would like to add a few thoughts on the subject. I think it is not just the U.S. but most all countries and tribes that have over time befriended and even supported rulers and leaders of other countries or tribes and often not because they were wild about the guy but because they felt it was in their own best interest at the time. I think past presidents thought that while Mubarak was not perfect he was good for stability in an unstable region that has been at the root of many of the world's problems.
Trouble with the U.S. is it has more money then other countries and like a kid with to much money in their pockets our government tends to spend it to freely and at times foolishly with out much thinking before hand.
I would like to see the Tea Party folks get Congress to end all these "foreign aid" payments doled out to other countries every year like farm payments to farmers no matter if the financial assistance is needed every year or not. I'm in favor of giving aid to countries in the event of a major disaster or to help improve the basic necessities for poorer nations needing help with safe and adequate water supplies, growing food, sanitation or such. But even that I would prefer to be handled by volunteer groups for the most part such as Peace Corp. I know there are many religious groups and organizations that go abroad and do wonderful things in poor countries but I get a bit nervous about that as I fear they may try to preach or promote their own particular religious beliefs upon the needy which can upset and cause resentment with many of the locals which I feel is completely understandable. I doubt folks in the U.S. would like to have some Muslim volunteers from another country come here and help build schools or wells for some poor community in West Virginia and at the same time try to preach and convert the locals over to their faith.
Re: There is a sense of deja vue in this.
Well said Dag . Where are all he know alls on this subject because they all read it. Perhaps they have the opposite opinion? Where is the be everywhere Mollie when a dumping of mountainous intelligence is needed.