Echoing recent comments from former Bush administration officials, Rudy Giuliani defended former President George Bush's record on terrorism Friday, saying the country was not subjected to domestic terror attacks when he was in office.Yep... the 9/11 attackers who took down 3 large buildings in the very city where Giuliani was mayor at the time of the attacks, the anthrax attacks shortly afterwards, the numerous would-be attackers who plotted but failed (e.g. Fort Dix, the shoe bomber, etc.). These all disappear if you are an ideologue. All you see are attacks while Obama is at the helm. Pathetic.
"We had no domestic attacks under Bush; we've had one under Obama," Giuliani said on ABC's Good Morning America.
Personally, I would classify the Wall Street meltdown as a "terror attack", a very successful terror attack, carried out by financial "engineers" that nearly destroyed the world. Their attack destroyed $10 trillion. That makes the 9/11 attack with "only" 3,000 lives and maybe a billion dollars worth of property damage look like small potatoes. Ah... but the media treats the financial terrorism just like Giuliani treats terrorism under Bush... the media blinks and squints and sees nothing. The ideologues on the Right brought the world to its knees as the apocalyptic outcome of a right wing fantasy world of deregulation and downsized government, and the media reports 'nobody saw nuttin'.
3 comments:
I thought that Rachel Maddow did a good one on this. She thinks that Giuliani won't be able to successfully run for any office after his latest remarks. That remains to be seen of course. The American voter is very amnesic.
I like the way that you point out that the financial meltdown was a terrorist attack... It's affect was to terrorize those with money invested in anything. Many were afraid to do any kind of investment for some time afterward maybe still. Anyone who lost large amounts of their retirement (like you) are probably still suffering from this attack. Those of us with no money are affected, too, but in a little different way. But, middle class on down to the ones on the edge of poverty are fearing a very unstable future. I would still like to try to read Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine" although I probably don't agree with all that she says or writes..
Thomas: I've read Naomi Klein's book, see my comments. I liked the book, but she sees the world too much in black & white. I don't think there is a "grand conspiracy". I do accept that the elites move in flocks, but they are like birds, there is no "mastermind bird" running the flock. They are following self interest and flocking. The rich do the same thing. The trick is for a society to rope in the rich so that they stay connected with the majority while letting the entrepreneurial rich push open new economic frontiers. I think you achieve this by giving the society "a story" which gives everybody a role and responsibility so people will collaborate. The right wing nuts create fascist states to achieve this "harmony". The left generally isn't as successful because they have a hard time coming up with a socially acceptable role for the rich.
The problem with hating the rich is the same kind of problem religions have with their "anti usury" laws. The impulse in these "laws" is noble, but if you don't let people who put their money at risk to make a return, you paralyze society. So successful societies find a way to skirt the religious dictates by "reinterpreting" loans as something other than usury. Similarly, the left has to learn to accept that wealth and big incomes have a role in society. But the trick is to harness the rich so that they feed wealth back into the larger society by playing their "role", a role of public beneficiaries. I have no problem with the superwealthy building up a big pile of money if they give most of it away on their deathbed. It is when they pass it on to their idiot sons & daughters and built up an aristocracy of wealth that I have a problem.
The Wall Street behaviour strikes me as the kind of "Marie Antoinette" attitude of the insulated rich that needs to be broken down. These guys are paying themselves big bonuses on the basis of the tax money that saved their skins. That is outrageous. That money should be flowing into loans to Main Street to help recovery the economy, not into the pockets of the idiots who created the catastrophe. I would have no problem with big profits on Wall Street if I could see the money being recirculated through loans to help the economy revive. I have a big problem with the fat cats high fiving themselves over big bonuses at the expense of the taxpayers. I think Timothy Geither, Larry Summers, Ben Bernanke, all of the Wall Street banks top 3 levels of management should be marched off to a "re-education" camp for six months. (OK, I'm kidding, but something drastic needs to be done to get their cold dead hands off the controls of the American economy.)
I don't really believe in conspiracies because I was fed too many of these things while growing up and as a young adult. I wonder about it sometimes though. I do think that things come together as a matter of course (this leads to that), and much of our current economic situation is a result of that leading to this. Still, some in the upper echelons know that certain courses of action will inevitably lead to a situation that will make them rich and they take advantage of these events. But, a conspiracy? I am pretty sure these do not exist to any great degree.
I started reading you comments on Klein's book and I had to bookmark it so I can get back tomorrow; a very impressive review..
I find your viewpoints very enlightening. Thanks again.
Post a Comment