| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Time Still Ain't Getting It |
| 2006-02-07 |
| From our friends at Time Magazine The Pentagon, which is calling for the largest defense budget since the cold war, has been floating scary threats lately. TIME has obtained a copy of a PowerPoint presentation that senior officers have been showing to groups around the U.S. warning that failure to stop Osama bin Laden and his ilk would have the same "consequences" as Europe's appeasement of the Nazis before World War II. Bullet points describe possible U.S. economic depression and Washington being forced into an "accommodation" with terrorists. Skeptics question the timing of such predictions. Says security analyst John Pike: "The Pentagon has a long tradition of dialing up the threat to get more dollars at budget time." It's simultaneously saddening and heartening to see that while neither our government nor our "elites" seem capable of grasping the scope of this war and fighting the informational battles, guys like Fred, Wretchard, Zombie (whose latest photo-essay on Mohammed iconography is being widely plagarized by MSM reporters), and Charles Johnson are winning the battles largely on their own dime and on their own time. To the idiots who wrote this piece, it's still all about triangulation and manipulation. "Wag the Dog, right? Those silly officers can't fool us Columbia J-school grads." I don't say this out of flattery, but when this is over, Fred, and the others I named deserve a Presidential Medal of Freedom. I don't believe in karma, so I don't know what will happen to the Time writers, but I hope it isn't pleasant. |
| Posted by:11A5S |
| #18 TIME has obtained a copy of a PowerPoint presentation that senior officers have been showing to groups around the U.S. warning that failure to stop Osama bin Laden and his ilk would have the same "consequences" as Europe's appeasement of the Nazis before World War II. What part of IslamoNazi do these idiots not understand? I hope the blogsphere puts Time out of business. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-02-07 20:43 |
| #17 Sorry, LH - I mean't whatever THEY say it is.... |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-02-07 19:56 |
| #16 #9 LH - And it's Time's job to hype the "news" = whatever you say it is. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2006-02-07 19:55 |
| #15 Liberalhawk, there is a train of thought, backed by a lot of data, that when you lower taxes the government revenues actually increase. If you believe than tax cuts are always a good thing because it means more money for the people, and the government as the economy expands. Most of the people against the tax cuts are against it not because it robs government revenues but because they want to redistribute wealth from the richest to the poorest and that is harder to do with tax cuts. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-02-07 18:24 |
| #14 'Tax policy is not about making social policy or getting home folk on board. It's about how to pay for what the government needs to buy and stealing money at gunpoint from some of the people to give it to other people as a bribe for votes." During a war we need to buy more. "The primary reason we have a deficit is because of the recession that the tax cut ameliorated. " And what point in the business cycle does this deficit end? You cant blame the recession for the deficit when youre at the peak of the cycle. At some point you have to have the budget in balance. "How about in order to get the home folk on board and sharing the sacrifice we cut down on the spending" yes, together with ending the tax cuts, that we be a good compromise. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-02-07 16:50 |
| #13 When in the course of a business cycle do you think tax increases ARENT a mistake? NEVER! Tax policy is not about making social policy or getting home folk on board. It's about how to pay for what the government needs to buy and stealing money at gunpoint from some of the people to give it to other people as a bribe for votes. The primary reason we have a deficit is because of the recession that the tax cut ameliorated. This has reduced the deficit as the country has grown. How about in order to get the home folk on board and sharing the sacrifice we cut down on the spending and bribes for votes? |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-07 15:34 |
| #12 You want to fight a war you mobilize resources. You want to get the home folk on board, you share the sacrifice. Its been 4 years since 9/11. When in the course of a business cycle do you think tax increases ARENT a mistake? |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-02-07 15:14 |
| #11 In fact if the admin were really taking the threat seriously theyd be acting far differently. They wouldnt be cutting taxes, for ex. Yup, our enemies really get petrified by a tax increase. Especially when it reduces growth. Makes 'em shake in their boots. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-07 15:10 |
| #10 "Now that the Hildabeast has called for increasing the Army by 80,000. Remember that TIME? When she and her SO were blowing off the Army during the 90s and downsizing it from 750,000 to under 500,000, I'm sure they and TIME thought it was just another budget 'thingy'" Please show me a source documenting GOP opposition to downsizing the army in the 90's. The GOP DID aggressively attack Clinton on military spending - mainly for not funding ballistic missile defense, and not maintaining adequate readiness, and for overstretch of the AIR FORCE. I dont recall any particular opposition to the downsizing of the ground forces. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-02-07 15:04 |
| #9 1. of course inside the Pentagon you emphasize threats to get bucks. But thats true of ANY bureaucracy. If youre at CDC infectious you hype bird flue, etc while if youre in mental health, you hype suicide, etc, etc. Same way if youre Navy you hype China, if youre Spec Ops you hype the terrs. 2. I know of no real opposition to the growth of the Pentagon budget at this time. Can Time point to any mainstream pols who oppose that? 3. In fact if the admin were really taking the threat seriously theyd be acting far differently. They wouldnt be cutting taxes, for ex. 4. Its hard to assess this powerpoint without having seen it. OBL is probably hidden away in cave in Waziristan, and is hardly a conventional threat like Hitler. OTOH a big terr hit in CONUS COULD have very substantial economic consequences. 5. Lots of folks at the Pentagon make LOTS of PPT presentations. My suspicion is that the "senior officers" here are from some minor outreach office, and their showing it to some friendly audiences. Hardly the big propaganda push Time is making it out to be. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2006-02-07 15:02 |
| #8 has been floating scary threats lately. The world is rapidly moving towards a major war. Events will continue to spiral out of control before the next election. The democrats decision to pretend that the war is just a figment of the Karl Rove's imagination will put them in a position that will make it impossible for them to recover. Fine by me. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-02-07 11:07 |
| #7 The conformity of the blather coming from the MSM, such as the NYT, the LA Times, etc. suggests a single entity is calling the shots. Who really owns all these rags? Investment in only a few key businesses can exert lots of powerful influence on global affairs without ever exposing themselves to the public sunshine, in "trickle down treason". Big banks, big business, and the MSM all have some common denom-efellers. |
| Posted by: Danielle 2006-02-07 10:58 |
| #6 "The Pentagon has a long tradition of dialing up the threat to get more dollars at budget time." Yeah, that's the ticket. Now that the Hildabeast has called for increasing the Army by 80,000. Remember that TIME? When she and her SO were blowing off the Army during the 90s and downsizing it from 750,000 to under 500,000, I'm sure they and TIME thought it was just another budget 'thingy'. Again, and again, the military men have seen themselves hurled into war by ambitions, passions, and blunders of civilian governments, almost wholly uninformed as to the limits of their military potentials and almost recklessly indifferent to the military requirements of the wars they let loose. Aware that they may again be thrown by civilians into an unforeseen conflict, perhaps with a foe they have not envisaged, these realistic military men find themselves unable to do anything save demand all the men, guns, and supplies they can possibly wring from the civilians, in the hope that they may be prepared or half prepared for whatever may befall them. Vagts, Alfred, History of Militarism, rev. 1959, Free Press, NY, pp 33-34. 1959? Sigh. They never learn. |
| Posted by: Cruter Uninter1758 2006-02-07 09:07 |
| #5 would have the same "consequences" as Europe's appeasement of the Nazis before World War II. Hmmm, let's think about this for just a second. OK times up, the boys at the Pentagon are right, Time mag is ate TF up with the dumbass, and all you have to do is listen to that jerk from Iran to understand the Pentagon is really understating the threat. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-02-07 08:15 |
| #4 Time is a bad joke, a piece of trash. Has been for many years. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-02-07 07:39 |
| #3 I've spent a bit more time than I like in doctors' offices over the last few years, RWV, and I don't remember seeing anyone reading Time and its ilk... just the car mags, Sports Illustrated and the women's mags. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-02-07 07:00 |
| #2 Slowly going out of business is Time's reward for such insightful reporting. They have become largely irrelevant except to the other media. I can't recall the last time I saw or heard of anyone reading a news weekly like Time, Newsweek, or US News anywhere other than in a doctor's office. It is better to just ignore them and let them fade into obscurity. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-02-07 02:54 |
| #1 My question is why we should wait for anything to happen? I say be proactive. There is no right to sedition in the Bill of Rights. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2006-02-07 02:05 |