| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Inside the Committee that Runs the World |
| 2005-02-28 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #4 Oh-oh Conspiricies Abound! Illuminati OK, now that we know everything we need to know... Next comment? |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-02-28 6:41:33 PM |
| #3 Oh and one last point - the author seems so deeply astounded and confused that Bush II isn't a puppet on a string of his daddy's advisors. He works hard to see that as something sinister, but some of us might just consider that to mean that, you know, times change and Bush II has adapted. But hey...maybe that's just me. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-02-28 8:44:27 AM |
| #2 It was like reading the Enquirer. Very Close Condi Whispers In Bush's Ear! Powell Admits Bush II Impulsive Jesus Freak! Cheney - King Of The Neocons! Kissenger: Rumsfeld - World's Most Ruthless! Bush/Condi/Rumsfeld The Threesome Love Triangle That Rules The World! Are They Splitting Up? That said, despite the author's angst and need for Prozac, it was an interesting article. But then I find all gossip interesting. I actually thought the conclusion (sans the angst) wasn't half bad.. so I'll post.. Further, the chemistry of the group and the personalities of the individuals within it play a far greater role in determining its true function [*snicker* author speaking to himself here]than does any preconceived aspect of its structure. Indeed, the structure of the actual committee (which is the ad hoc group the president relies on rather than the formal NSC itself) is based on a constantly changing series of transactions between the president and its members in which he offers or withdraws access, trust, influence, and power. Statutes and history are far less important than these transactions, which continuously remake this powerful entity. Philosophies are, of course, of central consequence to this process, in that they shape affinities and the collective character of the group. Tugs of war over ideology are a central tradition of the NSC, and todayâs struggle shares much with those of the past, particularly those that have divided the Republican Party throughout the modern era. President Dwight D. Eisenhower was torn between anti-Communist hardliners who urged him to act forcefully (and unilaterally, if necessary) to âroll backâ the Soviets and more moderate voices who urged a âblock-and-tackleâ approach that relied on international alliances and institutions to help contain communism and promote American values. Goldwater and later Reagan championed conservative views in which âextremism in defense of liberty [was] no viceâ and that attacked the realpolitik advocated by the likes of Kissinger and Scowcroft. Underlying these battles was a debate over the nature of U.S. leadership, and whether Washington weakens that leadership by seeking agreement and cooperation with the international community that the United States helped construct. The question is whether the next four years will see a continued ebb and flow between these opposing viewpoints or whether we really have entered a new era in which the nature of the threats we face warrants the approaches that the transformationalists propose. Will the war on terrorism be supplanted by other economic or political issues that dictate new priorities? Will their policies start to bear fruit? As these answers are revealed, so too will be the answer as to whether the rifts within the Republican foreign-policy establishment represent momentary tremors or transformative tectonic shifts within the party that now controls the committee in charge of running the world. So many questions. So much paranoia. But some damn good gossip. |
| Posted by: 2b 2005-02-28 8:30:49 AM |
| #1 ...I think this article tells us more about the guy who wrote it than its subject. RTWT. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2005-02-28 7:19:42 AM |