i don't need no stupid map'cause i already know the compass is a liar
Phil Carter posts about the U.S. Army's distribution of C.S.A. talking points to its troops. Which is worth noticing, sure, and I've written before about the use of government platforms to inflict dimwitted propaganda on people in the military. But whatever -- my own view is that we should have long since started identifying most senior military officials with the style convention used for members of Congress: Gen. David Petraeus (R-Tampa). Much of the leadership drank the Kool-Aid, finished it, and licked the bottom of the bowl until their tongues went sore. They're O.G.O.P for life, like Tupac or Marlon Brando. (Many of the O-5s and below are smarter than that, which is why they'll retire with lighter collars.)
But, as usual on the InterTubes, it's the comment thread that really produces Teh Funny, as some of Phil's readers calmly note that the Army was just linking to a blog that said Obama wants to surrender to the Islamofascists, which can't be propaganda 'cause of how it's factually accurate, so, like, what's wrong with telling the plain and objective truth? Which leads other earnest readers to ask earnest questions about whether or not these idiots have ever actually read any earnest thing Obama has written, or heard him speak earnestly, and we're off to the furrowed-brow races. Now, see here, FRANKGRTTEE249, where do you get the information that Barack Obama plans to surrender to terrorists? The response is pitch perfect:
I've read the Obama position papers and his book.My position is based on nothing, and in fact runs precisely counter to all available evidence -- I therefore believe in it with all my heart!
Reading his materials does not mean believing him. Politicians say what they must to get elected.
Politicians lie about wars, yeah. LBJ ran in '64 on "We Seek No Wider War," which mortal humans would totally not be able to say with a straight face, and which is why it takes a Lyndon Johnson-size bullshit artist to be preznit. Or a Richard Nixon, who ran in '68 on his secret plan to whip up a quick peace in Vietnam. Or a Woodrow Wilson, who ran for a second term on the implied promise that he kept us out of the war, so he'll keep right on keeping us out of it, hooray!
All the historical lies run in one direction, is the problem. American politicians say they don't want war, and they do. "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about, if we can't use it?" Especially (but not only) in the last few decades, the momentum is for empire; the half-a-trillion-dollar-a-year machine is built to run. You spring for a fleet of stealth bombers, the keys are gonna itch in your pocket. Why have cool shit just to...just to...peace around with it?
And yet we have these people, walking freely among us and appearing to be fully functioning grown-ups, who think that half of the American political establishment is made up of raving, desperate pacifists, who just for the love of God want to find a dictator or terrorist that they can surrender to, already, because they yearn to feel that hot foreign boot heel on the back of the neck. The Democrats control both houses of Congress, and invariably offer six impossible capitulations before breakfast, each and every business day. They Are. Not. Trying. To stop the war. They are not fucking trying to stop the war. They largely do not oppose the basic premises of the current American empire. If John Murtha can serve as your hairy-fanged demon of pacifist sentiment...
Anyway, man, I've like read their papers and their books and stuff, man, but I don't believe 'em when they say they want a strong military and stuff, man, because I know that they're like secretly using their secret surrender signals to slyly pander to the popular American passion for pacifist, anti-statist ideology. Because once a politician locks up that point-zero-two percent of the vote, man, he just needs to get another fifty percent to win -- it's like their base, see?