Prometheus 6

Condoleeza Rice is about as ill-suited for the assignmnt at hand as it is culturally possible to be. First, the parties in question - WONT FUCKING TALK TO HER. There is no conceivable basis upon which she could concoct any sort of palatable working relationship with the Arab and Persian men running Syria and Iraq. It would be tantamount to appointing you as ambassador to the women's auxiliary of the Aryan Nations.

The conscious and intentional placement of Condoleeza Rice in that position by G-Dub and the militarized oil patch crew - is as clear and direct a statement of the administration's relational intentions as it is possible to make. Now, the question fork that her placement begs is;

1. Do you interpret it as theatre of envidious comparison, i.e., the neocon west is so evolved it can have anorexic Uhura standing in for James T. Kirk in Federation talks with the Klingons? Klingons are forced to step up their game.

2. Klingons are completely intransigent and backward and will be so offended by the cultural insult by anorexic Uhura as interpersonal envoy that they'll inexorably fight rather than switch? (at the end of the day, it's about the oil and not the symbolism)

But the symbolism IS important, and for those so lost in the consensus hallucination that they're not tracking on the real underlying issue, the symbolism may in fact be very meaningful. Red State embrace of the symbolism provides fairly powerful post hoc self-justification and conduces to a continuing feeling of propriety.

The importance of this should not be underestimated given the near certainty of things escalating into an actual regional hot war in the next few years.

Iraq is breaking up into its Shia, Sunni and Kurd regions, this will lead to ethnic cleansing and mass population moves and more or less guarantee the broader regional conflagration that's coming down the pike.

The Roman Empire is falling

What the Romans did do, of course - and what the Americans would never do - is offer their subjects Roman citizenship. Every tribe - in Gaul or Bythinia or Mesopotamia - who fell under Roman rule became a citizen of Rome. What could Washington have done with Iraq if it had offered American citizenship to every Iraqi? There would have been no insurrection, no violence, no collapse or catastrophe, no Baker report. But no. We wanted to give these people the fruits of our civilisation - not the civilisation itself. From this, they were banned.

And the result? The nations we supposedly hated - Iran and Syria - are now expected to save us from ourselves. "Given the ability [sic] of Iran and Syria to influence events and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage [sic] them constructively."

I love those words. Especially "engage". Yes, the "influence of America" is diminishing. The influence of Syria and Iran is growing. That just about sums up the "war on terror".

The British literary landscape is dominated by three writers: Martin Amis, Salman Rushdie and Ian McEwan. All three have considered the central dilemma of our time: terror. Indeed, Amis has issued something of a manifesto on the subject he terms "horrorism". In their different styles, their approach and opinions define a coherent position. They are the vanguard of British literary neoconservatives - or, if you like, the "Blitcons".

Blitcons come with a ready-made nostrum for the human condition. They use their celebrity status to advance a clear global political agenda. The Blitcon project is based on three one-dimensional conceits.

1. The first is the absolute supremacy of American culture.

2. The second Blitcon conceit is that Islam is the greatest threat to this idea of civilisation.

3. The third Blitcon conceit is that American ideas of freedom and democracy are not only right, but should be imposed on the rest of the world.

To such keepers of the consensus hallucination, hardly Red State yahoos, Condoleeza Rice is an archetypal embodiment...,

How does any of that stop this:

Many of the blistering critiques of the Bush administration contained in the Iraq Study Group’s report boil down to this: the differing worldviews of Baker versus Rice.

...from being absolute bullshit? Rice was chosen because of her worldview...it had no impact on Bush's foreign policy goals.

Indirection - the theatrical art of narrative shift..,

You tug on superman's cape

You don't spit in the wind,

You don't go messin with the ole lone ranger,

and you don't mess around with Jim

dood-n-dood-n-doo-doo-doo-doo.....,

You don't directly confront the collective unconscious with the pronouncement that its exemplar is grievously mistaken. All it will do is dig in its heels and resist. G-Dub's not going to get impeached for exactly this reason. Just like rummy had to take the fall, and the neocons are now ensconced backstage, so also the eclipsing of G-Dub's policy by proxy is well underway.

Wizen up thyself..., effective governance proceeds via revelatory disclosure..,

Please?

Nevermind. I saw your comment in the other thread.

that I'm being completely and totally serious here..., this isn't an observation on mysticism as much as simple pragmatism. IMOHO, governance of the collective unconscious has much in common with parenting small chirrens, and condoleeza is vastly more expendable in the overarching narrative than the shining white prince...,

Oh, yes. I understand you're serious. I did say it belongs in Lifestyles rather than not even being published. Not being published was my reflexive reaction.

is also the key to anti-racist praxis.  guess that means the core of most of what you've written about in earnest - goes straightaway into the lifestyles section, as well.

is a figment of ontological political reality, whereas a Black Study Group doesn't even exist as a figment of your imagination.

Guess Black Gold is a heckuva lot more vital in the big picture scheme of things than mere Black folks.., who were after all the 17th-19th century version of texas tea...,

"...any organism that operates without reference to external stimuli (the real world), falls into a destructive cycle of false internal dialogues. These corrupt internal dialogues eventually cause dissolution and defeat."

                                                              John Webb - Global Guerillas

I thought it would be useful to post some observations from military strategists where the U.S. stands now in its effort to fight global terrorism. Many of them think we are losing but not for the reasons you will find listed in the mainstrean media.  

guess that means the core of most of what you've written about in earnest - goes straightaway into the lifestyles section, as well.

Assuming your titular assumption is correct.

is a figment of ontological political reality, whereas a Black Study Group doesn't even exist as a figment of your imagination.

Touchy...

If I understand correctly, nulan's point is that Condi was not selected because of her ideology (because that would not have differentiated her from any other candidate for the job), but for her biology because it would serve as the proper irritant/accelerant for relations intended to deteriorate. As such, her ideological divergence from Baker is much ado about nothing. P6, if I understand your point - it's that her ideology had no bearing on the policies - and so, there is nothing to discuss here.

If I understand correctly, nulan's point is that Condi was not selected because of her ideology (because that would not have differentiated her from any other candidate for the job), but for her biology because it would serve as the proper irritant/accelerant for relations intended to deteriorate.

If that's his point, why is he getting pissy with me instead of making it? 

If anyone has picked up on the fact that nobody who is a real middle eastern scholar was on the group, there were no generals whatsoever and that the study group spoke to absolutely nobody in Lebanon. 

Condi was not selected because of her ideology (because that would not have differentiated her from any other candidate for the job), but for her biology because it would serve as the proper irritant/accelerant for relations intended to deteriorate.

BINGO!!!

in-and-of itself THIS is one helluva two-edged psychological statement and from my peculiar perspective, begs interrogation. Was her biology selected as an additional causus belli - kind of a classic bonesman insult? Or - because the extent of the cultural chauvinism was SO GREAT and SO OVERWHELMING - was it taken for granted that hegemonic roles and standards could be imposed on these decidedly patristic political cultures?

If the former, it suggests that we're approaching an architected endgame. Civil war doesn't pose any problems for oil extraction, and, there are 100+ Billion barrels of proven reserves and much, much natural gas under Iran. America still requires a plausible cover story for reducing Iran to fused glass oblivion.

The latter suggests a degree of cultural naivete which doesn't fit the decades long, intergenerational close relations between Bushco and the Arab world. Bushco is not culturally naive when it comes to patristic Arabic protocols.

The real enemy is Iran. Now then, if things play out just so, the house of Saud will get to mobilize hundreds of thousands of disaffected, unemployed young men to provide boots on the ground to protect Sunni Arabs in Iraq and to pacify the nation. Properly staged further provocations will provide political mimetic cover for an anihilatory aerial bombardment of Iran.

Meanwhile, as a nod to Saud, Israel's highly dubious ghetto pass - a la James R Maclean as a pawn of TEP - may get revoked and the stiff-necked Zionists forced to come to terms with Palestinians, or else suffer the consequences. All of these contingencies are encompassed in the report delivered by the study group.

I'm just saying, things may not be as simple or as simple-minded as they're being made out to be....,

If anyone has picked up on the fact that nobody who is a real middle eastern scholar was on the group, there were no generals whatsoever and that the study group spoke to absolutely nobody in Lebanon.

Yes. I've seen that mentioned here and there. The concern is officially dismissed, the cover being the bredth of the interviews. The panel's membership was an annoucement that a political 'solution' was coming.

Who needs expertise when you have authority? 

i made the point right up front, and you didn't get it.

Just like you didn't get it in the article itself, about which you were naively but haughtily dismissive - just like it would never have occurred to you in the next 50 years to see the edges of it from this perspective.

There's a whole cosmos of the obvious that goes right past you - every single time. Without fail, when this perspective is pointed out to you, instead of getting the gist - you crack wise - which reflex tendency very likely has some bearing on why your perceptions are often so constricted.

something you mebbe ought to consider....,

is the question. It's an appropriate answer too.

There's a whole cosmos of the obvious that goes right past you - every single time.

And you continually miss the fact that I'm not doing what you're doing. For me to look like you would be an error.

is the question. It's an appropriate answer too.

YOU'RE here... 

"If anyone has picked up on the fact that nobody who is a real middle eastern scholar was on the group, there were no generals whatsoever and that the study group spoke to absolutely nobody in Lebanon."

A whole hell of a lot of people were clued in to the intentionally faulty composition of the Baker-Hamilton led Study Group but the lack of mid-east scholars and military brass were the very least of its problems. No one who publicly opposed the invasion of Iraq and predicted the coming disaster, for example, was appointed to the group, which is something I view as a MAJOR problem.

The voices of people who have been calling for a change in U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and the expressed views of millions of Americans as demonstrated in poll after poll and the results of this past November elections have been muffled and ignored. In my opinion, we have heard quite enough from retired and active generals and so-called mid-East experts like Dennis Ross to last us a lifetime.

The entire point of the Study Group was to reassert the hegemony of the Establishment elite in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. The point of the Study was to speak to the elites in this country and reassure them that the proverbial "wise men" or "grownups" were now at least back in the control room. The station has not yet been seized but they are close to the controls.

The so-called divergence of viewpoints between James Baker and Condoleezza Rice is much ado about nothing at all. It is just another example of the sort of mindless chatter that takes place in the salons and around the dinner tables in Georgetown among the chattering classes. It is another sign that folks inside the Beltway are completely out of touch with the American people.

The third purpose in appointing Baker's panel is the most extraordinary. The country's political elite wants to ignore the American people's doubts and build a new consensus behind a strategy of staying in Iraq on an open-ended basis, with no exit in sight. "Success depends on unity of the American people at a time of political polarisation ... Foreign policy is doomed to failure - as is any action in Iraq - if not supported by broad, sustained consensus," say Baker and his Democratic co-chair, Lee Hamilton, in their introduction. In other words, if things go wrong, it will be the American people's fault for not trusting in the wisdom of their leaders.

 Baker's predictable plan is what Bush is already doing 

                                                    by Jonathan Steele

                                                             The Guardian
 

James Baker is a lawyer, a fixer, a Republican, a friend of the Bush family, and a deeply political animal. He is not an independent radical or a man known for original thinking. So the question in the wake of his Iraq Study Group's predictably uncontroversial report is why it was ever set up.

he first purpose was to provide an alibi for the president ahead of last month's congressional elections. Critics of his disastrous strategy in Iraq could be told that Bush was listening to the American people and understood their concerns. That was why he had set up a blue-ribbon panel to evaluate all options. Nothing was taboo. The tactic did not work, and Bush and his Republican party took a heavy beating. It was not Baker's fault so much as a sign that voters felt they had to send a message to Baker as well as Bush. A majority of Americans, as well as Iraqis, want US troops to leave.

The second purpose of the study group was to co-opt the Democrats, to get them behind Bush's war. Having a bipartisan panel with an equal number of members from both parties was intended to make it hard for Democrats to reject its report. Baker, after all, was the man who masterminded the manoeuvrings in 2000 over whether Florida should have a full recount. His job was to get Al Gore and the rest of the Democrats to swallow their anger and fall into line behind the argument that there was no time and that the better strategy was to take the dispute to the supreme court - where Bush's side had a clear judicial majority.

Now the plan is to lock the Democrats into agreeing with the main thrust of Bush's Iraq policy over the next two years, with the aim of preventing it from provoking a major divide during the 2008 campaign for the White House. It is not a difficult task. The main Democratic contenders, starting with Hillary Clinton, are weak fence-sitters who show no desire to challenge Bush directly. None are as clear-sighted as John Murtha, the Pennsylvania congressman who started calling for a US troop withdrawal a year ago. Nor, unless he or she is yet to emerge, is there a Eugene McCarthy or Robert Kennedy figure with the authority to rally voters against a failed president, as there was when Lyndon Johnson was mired in Vietnam.

may just be one of the best fixers the world has ever known. Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury, all around buddy to Presidents and the like...and here he is again. Baker is no lightweight - and in the circles in which he travels, he has considerably more weight than W will ever have. The only people with similar weight are men like HW, Cheney and Kissinger.

As I stated in detail on that other link, this is hardly a catastrophe and Baker's presence will do just a PT suggests...get the Dismalcraps to fall in line behind the Republiphuks.

Still ain't got shit to do with a personality conflict between Rice and Baker. 

or anywhere else. My response was simply amplifying PT's reporting of someone's assessment of Baker. I think they're missing the point of who Baker is and has been for US presidents going back to Gerald Ford. He's a smart, understated nefarious mother phukka. I actually agree with nulan's position on this with respect to Condi. The absurdity of the Times' article (there is ALWAYS an absurdity to an NYT foreign policy article) is the suggestion that Rice has developed and exercised a policy that exists apart from what W wanted AND that that policy is distanced from what HW and JABIII would have done from 2001 to date. For all intents and purposes, she's not part of the conversation. If you substitute the name Rumsfeld for Rice and recall that HW sent Rummy over to Iraq initially, the silliness of this is clear. Baker and Rumsfeld at odds? How silly is that? That's akin to saying HW is at odds with himself - but if Sanger wrote that, some would be tugging at his straight jacket and checking locks on his rubber room.

I actually agree with nulan's position on this with respect to Condi. The absurdity of the Times' article (there is ALWAYS an absurdity to an NYT foreign policy article) is the suggestion that Rice has developed and exercised a policy that exists apart from what W wanted AND that that policy is distanced from what HW and JABIII would have done from 2001 to date.

And how does that differ from what I said? Why the appearance of dispute?

I'm getting annoyed at folks randomly picking fights. Side effect of the combination of a curious inability to load anything from Google on my local Windows box happening when I'm already bugging a bit.

So this supposed recent contention between HW and Rummy is cooked up as well?

Sure. What did Rummy ever do without Bush's full agrement and approval?

then why not revisit your actual vs your conceptual aim of extending the benefit of the doubt?  we were not in agreement over the nature and purpose of the article, and I responded to your "so what" with a "not so fast".  

Instead of considering what I wrote, you dismissed it because it didn't conform to your notion that the article is superfluous.  From where I sit, you took it at face value and dismissed it accordingly as untruthful and non-substantive.

I OTOH, looked at it as a collective narrative patch, part of a larger orchestrated script designed to ease the American collective into the underlying imperial oil expropriation that was this ventures actual objective from day one.   

then why not revisit your actual vs your conceptual aim of extending the benefit of the doubt?

I have, long ago. I do not extend benefit of the doubt. I extend freedom to represent yourself as you see fit. 

not looking to get found on this one. Next post.

Everyone should recognize that as soon as someone takes a personal shot at me, I am free to respond as I see fit, and will do so.

And I STILL haven't made anyone the specific beneficiary of my current mood. No one gets the benefit of the doubt as I have had cause to regret it in the very space.