Monday, August 25, 2014

Fratsuds at The New York Times

You sometimes can't tell, what
gets into TNYT - comes over, I
guess one would say - while an
editorial board known for sedu-
cing the Left vies with warmon-
gers at WaPo to set the agenda.
Never mind, naturally, the low-
er orders at Fox. But there we
are, splitting syntactic foib-
les to save our self-respect,
as our clerks debauch themsel-
ves in fomenting another war.

It's only just going to be slightly more hideous, when the nausea of this next adventure is scooped up by fastidious histor-ians, to recall that it was a scary homicide of an honest journalist which actually turned the tide of this Pavlovian aban-donment of reason. And just when we were wondering why it should be, how any generation born since the mid-20th Century should gain exemption from their trek upon the slop-soaked slope of the Truman Doctrine. With TNYT behind her, how can anyone now demur from Senator Paul's prediction, that our second Clinton since Sister Souljah is poised to post them anywhere her resolve might be in question? Whose welts demand renewal next?

I believe it must be the policy
of the United States to support
free peoples who are resisting
attempted subjugation by armed
minorities or outside pressures.

Oh, come on, Harry. You don't believe anything of the kind. You're dressing up an absorption of the spoils of the Second World War (in this case, supplanting Britain in the Hellespont) in a demagogic toga of moralising gibberish, pre-figuring John Kennedy's tragic bear any burden mantra in his inaugural address. But this is no longer 1947. It's not even 1961. It isn't that we're tired of war. It's that we've been educated by the best. Every child is taught to argue the soundness of the extremest case on the slenderest legitimate predicate, where flamboyance is vulgar, foul, fatal; his mission doesn't creep, it drains in stagnant putrefaction. Done that.

The problem is, US foreign
policy is not fact-driven.
You have this notion, that
all you need to do is get
the facts before the policy
makers, and things'd change.
But gradually, you realize, 
that [they] don't care.

So confided a CIA veteran of service in the Near East to Kai Bird, in his biography of Robert Ames, The Good Spy. This is hardly the indictable disclosure that it might have been, if credibility were the flimsiest calling card of the nation's pretexts. Senator Vandenberg warned Harry Truman, he'd have to scare our people deeply to condone his plans. We've come to accept that we have "interests" no one can substantiate, to pursue objectives which are not available (office holding aside), and that we are "tested" repeatedly on the depth of our righteousness. I can not forget what we use as the gauge for that measurement, because for this he does not volunteer. For this he is seduced. 

The Editorial Board
24 August 2014
The New York Times©

D.D. Guttenplan
A review appearing in
The Times [UK] Literary Supplement
20 August 2014
The Good Spy
  The Life and Death of
  Robert Ames
Kai Bird
Crown, 2014©

Fredrik Logevall
Citing Harry S. Truman
March 1947
Embers of War
  The Fall of an Empire and the 
  Making of America's Vietnam
Random House, 2012©


  1. Replies
    1. Thank you for the endorsement of this posting. The internal links portray that the page has gone over some of this material before, but a blog is in no position to assume prior readership. Obviously, in view of the structural menace of our delusions, it would be unseemly to blame our redundancy for their revival. But I can assure you, I dislike presenting such postings.