Dionne: The last decade was simply a post-mortem (Cause of Death: Greed and Bullshit)
Mort Zuckerman
scientifi...@ostp.gov, pkru...@princeton.edu,
Stanle...@fiu.edu, emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, sidney_b...@yahoo.com,
criminal...@usdoj.gov, karla.d...@usdoj.gov,
christophe...@usdoj.gov, richar...@yale.edu,
harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu, inq...@aldf.com,
ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: [SpinLyme] Dionne: The last decade was simply a post-mortem
Date: Jan 1, 2010 2:49 PM
Um, no. 2000 to 2009 was simply an
autopsy.
We got to see what killed us.
The people couldn't get past the
porkers:
http://www.actionlyme.org/080924.htm
We died of ... what do they call
it medically... impacted feces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_retentive
"a generalized interest in collecting, possessing,
and retaining objects"
KMDickson
http://www.actionlyme.org
===============================
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/fighting_over_the_squandered_decade_20091230/
Fighting Over the Squandered Decade
Posted on Dec 31, 2009
By E.J. Dionne
Certain decades shape the country’s political life for generations by
leaving behind an era to embrace or, at least as often, to scorn.
The 1960s were definitely such a decade. The 1930s qualify, and so do
the 1980s. But as important as all these periods have been, their
significance may be dwarfed by the reckless and squandered decade that
is, mercifully, ending.
I’m afraid that the past 10 years will be seen as a time when the
United States badly lost its way by using our military power
carelessly, misunderstanding the real challenges to our long-term
security, and pursuing domestic policies that constrained our options
for the future while needlessly threatening our prosperity.
I am aware that the previous paragraph is thoroughly controversial,
and that befits any description of a politically consequential decade.
Much of the contention surrounding Barack Obama’s presidency is simply
a continuation of our argument over the effects of George W. Bush’s
time in office.
That is why Obama, despite his fervent wishes, has been unable to
usher in a new period of consensus. Bush’s defenders know that Obama’s
election represented a popular reaction against the consequences of
the 43rd president’s time in office. Because Obama is both the anti-
Bush and the leader of the post-Bush cleanup squad, his success would
complete the rebuke. So the Bush camp—Karl Rove’s regular
contributions to The Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages are emblematic
—must stay on the attack.
Advertisement
Domestically, Obama inherited an economic catastrophe. Dealing with
the wreckage required a large expenditure of public funds that
increased a deficit already bloated by the previous president’s
decision to fight two wars and to cut taxes at the same time. Bush’s
defenders, preferring to focus attention away from this earlier period
of irresponsibility, act as if the world began on Jan. 20, 2009, by
way of saddling Obama with the blame for everything that now ails us.
But the previous eight years cannot be wished away.
Our current president is more deliberate about the use of American
power than his predecessor was, and determined to repair America’s
image with other nations. Obama is committed to fighting terrorism,
but does not believe that a “war on terror” should define American
foreign policy.
This leads directly to another essential argument over the meaning of
the last decade: whether the proper response to the 9/11 attacks
included not only the widely supported retaliation in Afghanistan but
also the invasion of Iraq. Obama’s view—that the Iraq war wasted
American power and dissipated good will toward us around the world—is
a direct reproach to the core assumptions of the Bush foreign policy.
So is Obama’s refusal “to set goals that go beyond our responsibility,
our means, or our interests,” as he put it in his recent West Point
speech, as well as his insistence upon appreciating “the connection
between our national security and our economy.” This measured approach
to the use of force is antithetical to a foreign policy based on
“bring ’em on” and sweeping pledges to “defeat our enemies across the
world.”
But this makes it imperative for Obama to inspire trust in his
capacity to thwart terrorism, and his administration’s initial
response to the Christmas Day airliner attack fell short. Republicans
were shameless in politicizing the incident, knowing that
rehabilitating Bush’s approach to terrorism depends upon discrediting
Obama’s. The president can’t afford to give them anything to work
with, as he finally seemed to grasp on Tuesday.
It should not surprise us that the battle for the future will be
shaped by struggles over the past. How often over the last 40 years
have conservatives defended their policies in the name of rolling back
“the excesses of the ’60s”? For even longer, liberals were charged
with being locked into “the New Deal approaches of the 1930s.”
Liberals, in turn, pointed proudly to both eras as times of
unparalleled social advance.
As for the 1980s, that period remains a positive reference point for
conservatives even as progressives condemn the Age of Reagan for
opening the way to the deregulatory excesses that led to the recent
downturn.
Americans instinctively recoil at living too much in the past. Yet we
have no choice but to reach a settlement about the meaning of the last
10 years. It is the only way we will successfully turn the next 10
into a decade of renewal.
E.J. Dionne’s e-mail address is ejdionne(at)washpost.com.
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links