As regulars may know, I delight in finding and occasionally republishing barking moonbat comments, since they are, in their little, sad way, a marker for our times. Take it away, music maestro!
“You mean, the anti-war movement that is comprised of the political action groups, the infiltration of which by the CIA, FBI (and now branches of our military) that Commander-in-Chief Ronald Reagan provided for by signing E.O. 12333 in December of 1981, which infiltration is “for the purpose of influencing the activity of [those groups]?” Don’t worry – it’ll be back. Our military dictatorship knows it has to keep up the pretense that America is still a free and open society in which dissent is possible, so they’ll trot out their anti-war movement whenever they instigate another conflict for profit – because, like the ancient barbarians, they believe that war is the organizing principle of society, which is why George W. Bush declared never-ending COVERT war for “hearts and minds” against those who dissent against them in 2003.”
A commenter called “Saoirse”, writing in response to a comment by the Wall Street Journal on the strange behaviour of the so-called “anti-war” movement in the age of Obama. (H/T, Econlog).
I know I’m probably wrong on this, but I’d like to think that the commentor’s name is pronounced “Sore-Arse.”
Ah, the good old fashioned “make up an executive order’s import” ploy.
A classic, much like the “just make up an executive order entirely” ploy, though the latter’s much easier to check these days.
The best part about this claim is that the actual part he quotes is in EO 12333 – but he’s reversed the meaning.
In full (formatting modified for clarity):
2.9 Undisclosed Participation in Organizations Within the United States.
No one acting on behalf of agencies within the Intelligence Community may join or otherwise participate in any organization in the United States on behalf of any agency within the Intelligence Community without disclosing his intelligence affiliation to appropriate officials of the organization, except in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General.
Such participation shall be authorized only if it is essential to achieving lawful purposes as determined by the agency head or designee.
No such participation may be undertaken for the purpose of influencing the activity of the organization or its members except in cases where:
(a) The participation is undertaken on behalf of the FBI in the course of a lawful investigation; or
(b) The organization concerned is composed primarily of individuals who are not United States persons and is reasonably believed to be acting on behalf of a foreign power.
So, so far from authorizing intelligence infiltration of “anti-war” groups, it prohibits it (at least without open acknowledgment of being intelligence personnel), except in the course of a lawful FBI investigation (which is exactly the exception that would be correct, since there’s no reason why “being an anti-war group” should get one immunity from criminal investigation).
One wonders whether he’s self-deluding or simply lying to us?
I’ve never known how to pronounce it either, until I saw a trailer for a movie with Saoirse Ronan where the inevitable gravelly voiceover man pronounced it “sir-shuh”. Apparently it’s “freedom” in Gaelic. Ironically enough.
I can’t fault her taste in films though…
ahh principle…even the best of us epitomized in the “saving man from the evils of war” Left, seem to have only one real principle. That is, make noise ONLY during regimes they dislike.
conspiracy theorists on the internet, who woulda thought it?
talking of partisan inconsistency on military interventionism here is Rand Paul mocking the neo-cons congnitive dissonance caused by Obamas Libyan adventure
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLjCgQ2yonE
Bashing Newt Gingrich may be justified (although the humour was in poor taste), but bashing Fox News is a STUPID thing for Rand Paul to do.
He will not make any friends on the left (although, like his father, he may not see that) – they will continue to smear him. As far as ABC, CBS and NBC are concerned Rand Paul is just a bit of dirt – he is not a man of the left, so (to them) he is dirt, PERIOD.
Fox News and Fox Business are the only television stations that will give Rand Paul a fair hearing – including for his anti war opinions. And there are (contrary to what is often thought) people at both Fox News and Fox Business who share these opinions. And even those who do not share them treat Rand Paul with respect (with the possible exception of Bill O’Reilly – but then “I give everyone a hard time” is his mantra).
A man should not piss on his friends. And in this clip that is what Rand Paul does.
I repeat, it will him no friends on the left – they will just use the clip and then turn on him (whenever it suits their purpose).
Good point Paul, especially as what he’s mocking is the lack of a party-line on FOX. Pity, I thought he was smarter than his dad.
Unintentionally hilarious yes, but: reality check, the eyeball-rolling and suppression of the gag reflex we might feel on reading this sort of thing is, I suspect, very similar to the reaction of most people when confronted by libertarian reasoning, even those people who were they better educated and more inclined to think deeply on matters political and cultural would be libertairanism’s natural sympathisers.
I have a friend who is an extremely successful executive, my age, very bright, very quick on the uptake, whose views are broadly in favour of freedom, free markets and so on. Indeed because there’s a meeting of minds between us, at least of some sort, our conversations tend to be far more interesting than those I have with collectivists. He understands, logically, the libetarian points I make, of that I have no doubt, yet he recoils from them not, I think, because he is unwilling or unable to reason from first principles to rational conclusions, but because they are, in his view, too abstract, not realistic enough, nobody will buy them, that sort of thing.
And he is, in an unhelpful way, a sympathiser (although I appreciate some will argue that such individuals are in fact our greatest enemies).
Take a more basic example, suggest to more or less anyone that multiculturalism is a Marxist political doctrine designed and implemented to control the culture and thus the parameters of thought, and you will in most cases be met by polite boredom, at best, and the sound of crickets chirruping, at worst.
Having said all of which, nutters like this “Saoirse”, who exist in no mean quantities, do affect the centre of political and cultural gravity by acting as magnets to those less bonkers but who are basically favourably disposed, so there may be something to be said for outliers stretching the envelope of interpretation by their very extremism … yet that I think is how libertarians are seen. Those who think of themselves as the common sense majority are often very, very disobliging to the libertarian cause.
Yes, I read even today, in some commentary by a leftist, that it has been said that ‘libertarianism is liberalism as common sense goes asymptotically to zero’. I read that in one of the assigned readings for a philosophy course with the Open University. To be fair Nozick is also part of of the assigned readings, although it is pretty obvious where the faculty’s sympathies lie.
It si a very good point, thanks for your contributions. Hotel Grenada
One of the things I have seen on Fox News is how pro war people (Glenn Beck was never really pro war – but then he was not on Fox News before 2009) have started to change their attitudes.
Long Island, New York State, tough guys (like Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly) and New Jersey realists (like Neil Cavuto or Judge Andrew N.) never really bought this “let us spread democracy and fluffy bunny rabbitism” of the Bush Administration.
They wanted war to bring Bin Laden and his allies to justice – i.e. killed.
Slowly, painfully, they (like me) have come to understand that the neocons were never interested in that. They were interested in fluffy bunny rabbitism – they even think it can happen in Egypt.
The savage crowds of “democracy protestors” engage in every crime (including the gang rape of a journalist who was actually sympathetic to their cause) and it does not cause a moment’s doubt in the neocons minds.
In the face of such a mindset – the main Fox News people start to move to an anti war position. And will continue to move that way.
Unless they are pissed on.
Remember we are not dealing with the metropolitian elite here – we are dealing with Long Island people and New Jersey people (that, in the main, is who the main Fox News personalities in fact are).
People who knew they could never quite make it to the top in the established networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) high, but never the top. As much because of their social background as their political opinions.
They are touchy people (not touchy feelly people) Rand Paul is foolish indeed to piss on them.
Would you like to have a trip with your family this summer,and do you want to buy some outdoor equipments?We all know that the sun will hurt your eyes when you are climbing,surfing,and swimming. Wearing a pair of designed sunglasses will make you look fashionable and beautifull,welcome to visit our discount oakley sunglasses hut online,you can find lots of best and cheap oakley sunglasses you like!