When We Hear It Thirteen Times in Three Days
An over generous, and possibly also overly naive, observer might occasionally be impressed with the meat handed, ideological "conceptual continuity" of thinly disguised GOPCon "hired guns," in fact, make that GOPCon "talking heads." MeanMesa supposes that "talking heads" is a more relevant title because, in order to penetrate this posting, that's exactly what they have to be doing, day by day, week by week.
Now, this might be yesterday's news if we were discussing the highly consolidated flow of GOPCon "talking points" issuing forth from the heavily soiled FOX radio pundits and the lower echelon "water carriers" of the Republican Congressional Clutch. The old, road weary phrases already too tired for further repeating from this GOPCon media strategy are familiar to all of us.
"Cut and Run"
"Stay the Course"
"Tax and Spend Democrats"
However, amid the continuing unrest called the "Arab Spring," bright new "talking points" are being added daily.
This post concerns one specific "talking point" which has been rolling out of the RNC "talking points factory" as, you guessed it, its most recent effort to undercut any possible successes which might be attributed to the Obama Administration. A reasonable observer might, at this point, assume that MeanMesa has reverted to "splitting hairs" in an effort to make the point.
Well, "splitting hairs" is, exactly, the point.
The Types and Varieties of Wing Nut Talking Points
|Right. Suspicious Foreign Entanglements|
There seem to be two strata of these "talking points," dividing them, generally, into the "really big, cheap, trailer park" talking points and the slightly more sophisticated "being nibbled to death by ducks" talking points. Of course, the big, cheap stuff is handed over to throw backs such as Beck and Savage, proffered up, then "gobbled down" by back porch hill billies listening to their radios.
However, the "being nibbled to death by ducks" style talking points must be presented in a much more subtle style. These, somewhat complicated by the fact that the background credibility for them must be established in smaller increments, are begun in a nice, comfortable, toothless way, then slowly amplified if the initial "bait" seems to have been taken.
In this particular case, the oligarch task masters have assigned the work to a nice little flock of retired Cold War generals, retained to appear on "corporate media news" programs for cozy little "over view, big picture" interviews. No doubt, aside from the "base pay" these generals are receiving for their appearances, there is some sort of "special commission" added to their pay checks based on the number of times they are able to inject the "authorized innuendo" into their folksy, casual discussion of "military issues."
Sure. Why not? This posting has gone on long enough to get down to specifics.
The "Authorized Innuendo"
To set the stage for this last part of the posting, we will have to journey back through time -- at least a few hours -- to yesterday's post.
Further, we will want to focus on the list of "talking points" discussed in that last post -- especially the third one.
1.) The "confused mission" concept has been resurrected, and relentlessly piped through the mouths of a few retired generals.
2.) The implied hypocrisy vector remains on the table. "If Libya, why not Syria?" This might have made sense if Syria had been the focus of a UN Resolution, a NATO response and the rest of what precluded intervention in Libya.
3.) The humbling prospect of the US not being "in the lead" in the military action. The war loving Republicans in the Congress feel, well, cheated, denied the breast beating glory of being the main bully in the conflict.
4.) Finally, the War Powers Act, except this time, from the right instead of from the left.
To exploit the common mistrust in the minds of Americans about treaty obligations with European allies and to rehabilitate the idea that the United States must, essentially almost by Divine Right, be at the head of any global exertion of power, the oligarchs have concluded that the viability of NATO must be undercut in public opinion.
The "mistrust" apparently originated in the national isolationism Roosevelt faced at the beginning of US involvement in WWII. It arose from WWI.
This artificially sustained necessity of being at the head of international exertion of military power springs from several sources. Naturally, the weapons industry is already on the phone to Congressional procurement committees, but also, the penchant appetite to reinforce the country's waning position as the world's super power can also be well serviced with "just a bit more" military conflict, here and there.
So, What Did the Generals Say?
One after another, the generals "explained" to the American people that NATO was no more than a bit of an out of date "straw man," unprepared to actually fulfill its role as an American military ally in such conflicts, let alone take the lead in matters such as the conflict in Libya.
The story was that NATO had already "run out of" the ordinance needed to make precision air attacks on targets in Tripoli. The narrative went on to imply that NATO was "barely" able to find enough jets and bullets to successfully pursue the conflict without an ever increasing amount to a modern version of US equipment and supplies in a modern version of the "lend lease" program?
Can MeanMesa visitors begin to see a suspicious "relevance" being constructed here?
For the younger visitors to MeanMesa, it is suggested that the origin and purpose of NATA be reviewed. The treaty organization was established to confront the Warsaw Pact nations of the old Soviet Union along the "fire line" of Eastern Europe. None of the four players could have possibly been described as a "toothless straw man."
The Soviet Union
The Warsaw Pact
The United States
Don't "take the bait." These out of date old military frauds are simply "following orders." If this last "talking point" can gain any traction with information challenged Americans, it will join the long list of GOPCon propaganda designed to lubricate additional armament expenditures, more borrowed money and the next stupid war.