Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Off the cynicism scale

Frequent local gadfly TA constant accuses me of insufficient cynicism. If I worked like the MSM, I'd simply point out that most people I know think I'm too cynical, and blithely conclude that I must be about right.

But via a Daily Kos diary comes an indication that TA might just be right -- a serious inside-the-Beltway uber-macher has turned the volume knob on my Armageddon piece to 11.

Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski took the false flag scenario further than I could have dreamed:

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a “defensive” U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

That quote is from his written statement (PDF). Lest you think I must be misinterpreting Zbig's point, the LA Times ran an opinion piece from him that connects the dots with a big fat Sharpie:

Indeed, a mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potential expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the decisive ideological struggle of our time...

I thought I was way ahead of the curve positing an Administration so morally bankrupt that they would run a false flag operation in the Persian Gulf. Not in my wildest dreams would I have imagined that they would be willing to plant the false flag on our own soil. And here it comes from the man who, thirty years ago, held the same position Colin Powell and Condi Rice once held and Stephen Hadley now holds.

You win, TA. I'm simply not up to the task of charting the depths of such evil.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chin up there old boy. It doesn't matter at this point if they set the whole business off with a false flag on 9/11. What matters is this:

1) Are you willing to look at what they are capable of? Prospectively, historically and most importantly in real time, which oddly enough is more difficult than the other two (It's a don't blink or you'll miss it operation).

2) What are you gonna do about it? Plan A -- Ignore it and pretend it'll come out right in the end; Plan B -- well, what choice do you have except to fight it wherever you find it?

As for Plan B in general, since you'll (we'll) never be able to outspend them, we have to be way, way smarter than them (which clearly leaves out the Democratic Party).

Otherwise, we might as well go back to Plan A. But remember, Plan B can't work if you ever take your eye off the game for a second. There's your happy thought for the day.


3:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

On further reflection I feel compelled to add a few thoughts.

With very few exceptions (pulling off a band-aid being one of them) large changes in awareness are usually best taken in a measured way.

The really sticky bit is how to keep up sufficient momentum of discomfort caused by changes in perception (the real world) so as to make real progress, without going so fast that the pain forces you to stop all together.

I should probably leave you with that thought. You, and presumably your readership, have been being subjected to events in the real world that are so mind boggling as to force something in your collective heads to break. The interesting question is: will it be your existing conceptions of the world or your entire grasp on reality?


8:52 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

see web stats