Editor’s Note: The pharmacologic supplements necessary to speed efficient recovery from surgery have added a new dimension to the continuing excitement of the election. Last night, the final Presidential debate was interesting. It was filled with empty promises about big plans that have no details. Call me an idiot, but I felt a tugging of memory of other uncertain times. Out of curiosity, I went through some older files about controversies surrounding the Deep State as we lived it twenty years ago, and the resolution of that dramatic contest between Mr. Bush and Mr. Gore. It is interesting to compare that to now, isn’t it? I will inflict some memories of that time, and that resolution on you, Gentle Reader, over the weekend.

-Vic

Author’s Note: Extra Edition… This sort of felt like it needed to be said…

-Arrias

ARRIAS.png

Admirals in Wonderland

What is it about those who once held positions of authority? Do they simply want power again? Will they say anything to curry favor with those who might restore that lost power?

Consider the 4-star admiral who recently wrote an editorial announcing that he‘d be voting for Vice President Biden for President. Like many in the foreign policy arena, he makes a point of talking about how things are so dire after more than 3 years of President Trump and that America’s reputation around the world is about to go forever into the basement if Trump is re-elected.

Perhaps that’s so. But it’s worth noting that the “good ole days” to which the Admiral wishes to return weren’t exactly everything they’re now being cracked up to be. After all, it was the leadership of the last 30 years (and particularly of the previous administration), that:
Put China in the driver’s seat in East Asia and potentially the world
Funded China’s economic growth with American economic atrophy
Was going to let Iran build nuclear weapons and missiles
Had done nothing at all to stop North Korean missile tests
Had done nothing but subsidize Palestinian violence for 3 decades
Was quite content to let the “forever war” go on in Afghanistan without asking the Pentagon “What the Heck?”
Continued to let Western Europe pay 1% of their GDP for national security and let the US carry the rest
Said that a nation without borders is fine
Let millions of jobs flow out of the US
Or what about the former “leaders” of the Intelligence Community that banded together and announced that they suspected the hard drive in the news this past week was part of a Russian disinformation effort? They note that they have no evidence, but they still “suspect” that it is.

Hmmm… Why would they say that, particularly given the fraudulent nature of the previous accusations of Russian meddling?

This is one of those situations where it’s either A, or not A. Remember the Knight, in Alice in Wonderland, telling Alice that he’d written a song and that:

“Either it brings tears to your eyes or else,”
“Or else what,” asked Alice.
“Or it doesn’t.”

Just so. Either the hard drive is part of a Russian Disinformation Campaign, or it isn’t. But to the uninitiated the “suspicions” of senior intelligence officers lend credibility where there is none, as if they actually have inside information. Yet, they state they don’t.

And if they don’t actually know that the hard-drive is a Russian disinformation effort, and are simply talking through their hats, spewing “suspicions” so as to sow confusion, then what we have here is a gaggle of squawking former intelligence officers who are willing to say anything to pay court to the possible next administration.

But aren’t intelligence officers supposed to speak the truth, no matter what? So, aren’t they really demonstrating that they’ll say anything to curry favor and gain power? Haven’t they actually shown that none of them is fit for any position of responsibility in any administration?

And returning to the Admiral.

The Admiral made an interesting statement; he commented that he was “pro-life” but was going to vote for Vice President Biden anyway.

Now, the reason anyone makes a series of statements like that is to make a rhetorical point. “I strongly oppose A. This man, Mr. X, is for A. But things are so bad that I will support Mr. X, despite his support for A, because we need Mr. X.” One fact is placed in juxtaposition to the second to show just how important is this action.

But, to make that sort of statement work you need to demonstrate that things are so bad that the thing you oppose is worth suffering through.

In this case the Admiral makes the point that he is pro-life. Mr. Biden and Miss Harris are both strongly pro-abortion. To make that particular unbalanced justification a valid statement the Admiral would need to show that the tradeoff is worth it, that the strengthened US support to abortion would provide an overall increase in moral good around the world and a strategic benefit to the US, one that outweighs the lives lost (he is Pro Life, you see) by the election of this Pro-Abortion administration.

The Admiral also notes that Black lives matter, yet he wants to return to policies of the past – which left Black unemployment at roughly twice the national average. Does he want those policies as well?

Not only does the Admiral not make any case for these actions, but by espousing support for a return to policies that for 8 years turned a blind eye to the strikingly immoral behavior of Beijing and “Emperor” Xi, the Admiral engages in a truly outlandish degree of moral equivocation.

In fact, he’s about as far out on the limb of moral equivocation as you can get. Someone who can make that sort of moral calculus “work” is in the same league as the former leaders of the Intelligence Community. One imagines that, if prodded, he and they could justify just about anything.

Hurrah for equal rights – except for Chinese minorities.
Hurrah for freedom of religion – unless it conflicts with academic elites.
Hurrah for free speech – unless it offends Tehran or Beijing.
Hurrah for free enterprise – unless it challenges the tech/data monopolies of Silicon Valley.

For the last several years there’s been a constant drumbeat among the foreign policy “elites” that, as the US changes direction away from the policies (listed above) that have weakened the US, away from polices that weakened several of our key allies, and strengthened China, and away from policies that left us mired down in forever wars, that the US needs to come back to that old course, and “show leadership.” In the last few months this has even been expanded to include warnings that the world now sees the US electoral system and our Constitution as dangerous and weak and needing change.

Over the past few years the nation finally started to recoil from the web that the Washington DC elites, and the doyens of academia, had sought to wrap around the nation. Yet, the Admiral and the Intelligence Community leaders to want to turn back the clock, and more firmly wrap themselves up in that old web. We can only wonder why?

Copyright 2020 Arrias
www.vicsocotra.com