That case is weird as Hell.
This article is by Nominay, a veteran commentator at Beyond Highbrow. He has his own site where he posts mainly about the JFK assassination but also on current events and in defense of liberalism generally. His blog is called The Endangered Left. This piece originally appeared there.
Did the tentacles of the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy reach into the State Department? Unfortunately, I harbor suspicions that Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was involved. As JFK’s 11th hour Ambassador to South Vietnam, Lodge joined the Kennedy administration just in time to make matters worse for that country. Kennedy is often blamed, and rightly so, for the lukewarm consent he gave for President Diem to be overthrown in a coup, but the manner in which his consent was brought about, and what was done with that consent once it was given, was used against Kennedy by his own representatives at State. Chief among them was Henry Cabot Lodge, who worked in concert with the CIA division in Saigon.
What Kennedy knew to some extent in the lead up up to Diem’s assassination was that Lodge and the CIA had flattened the flexibility he sought for his options to remain open. As Kennedy had seen it, there was still a slight chance that diplomatic relations between his administration and Diem’s could be restored, and there was no apparent leader to succeed Diem who offered any hope for an improvement. Kennedy resorted to threatening Diem with a pull out of US troops in South Vietnam in order to bring him back in line with the US effort there, but also to save Diem from his own government.
He wanted a coup to be avoided if a way to reverse Diem’s declining popularity and support was possible. Still, Kennedy had not opposed a coup however, which, per assurances given to him, would see Diem upon resignation being provided safe passage out of the Presidential palace and into exile.
As hopelessly divided as the Kennedy administration was over how to “govern” South Vietnam, Kennedy liked Diem personally and had known him since 1951. As a Congressman, JFK visited Vietnam to learn more about the fight there against the communists, when the struggle belonged to France. Now, in 1963, with the US having replaced France, Kennedy was trying to use his insight from that failed, foreign intervention to determine the best action to take in what was precipitously becoming a confusing quagmire.
These problems with South Vietnam had always discouraged Kennedy from widening a US presence there the way nearly his entire administration wanted, which was a full scale war upwards of 210,000 troops. Kennedy refused to entertain the idea of an engagement anywhere close to this magnitude no matter what the conditions on the ground were. Even as he gave the order to increase more military advisers there, Kennedy was demanding from his top brass that they provide him with a withdrawal plan that included a tight timetable.
Once he became US Ambassador to South Vietnam, it didn’t take long for Henry Cabot Lodge to decide that he just wanted Diem gone and for the US to engage more militarily. Convinced that a more robust front against the communists and better treatment of the South Vietnamese people by its leaders was the solutions to their problems, Lodge saw Diem as the obstacle to his vision of some kind of victory.
But Lodge made his biggest difference for the Kennedy administration before he even joined it. At the end of 1962, just when National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy was fleshing out his ideas for a diplomatic approach to Cuba with President Kennedy, Lodge – who learned about this from an official who worked closely with Bundy – told a lawyer affiliated with an anti-Castro Cuban committee that JFK was seeking to normalize relations with Cuba. In other words – peace with Castro – not overthrow Castro.
This of course was a total reversal from the intent in 1961 with the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the subsequent sabotage campaign of Cuba’s military resources, along with hair-brained attempts to assassinate Castro. This lawyer friend of Lodge’s in turn told a leading Cuban exile militant sponsored by the CIA named Felipe Vidal Santiago. Naturally, Santiago was beside himself with rage as were his fellow, rebel soldiers. This info undoubtedly upset their CIA handlers as well.
Lodge’s credibility to Castro’s enemies as a reliable informant rested on his esteemed career and pedigree. The grandson and namesake of Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and the descendant of three, other US Senators, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. was elected first as a Massachusetts Congressman, then as a Senator himself in 1944. A leader of his party, Lodge, in 1952, drafted 5 star General and World War II hero Dwight Eisenhower to run for President, and served as his campaign manager. Although Lodge lost his Senate seat that year to John F. Kennedy, his stint as a recruiter and campaign manager succeeded in electing the general President. Lodge then served as Ambassador to the United Nations in Eisenhower’s cabinet for 7 years.
Lodge’s temperament in the arena of international politics during this time, is telling. As noted in Wikipedia:
…Lodge supported the Cold War policies of the Eisenhower Administration, and often engaged in debates with the UN representatives of the Soviet Union. During the CIA sponsored overthrowing of the legitimate Guatemalan Government, when Britain and France became concerned about the US being involved in the aggression, Lodge threatened to withdraw US support to Great Britain on Egypt and Cyprus, and France on Tunisia and Morocco, unless they backed the US in their action.
When the Government was overthrown, the United Fruit Company [a CIA front] re-established itself in Guatemala. These episodes tainted an otherwise distinguished career [up to that point] and painted Lodge as a face of US Imperialism.”
Lodge returned to electoral politics in 1960 as Richard Nixon’s running mate, losing again to Kennedy in a close election. Lodge somehow ingratiated himself to his opponent, the victor, however, and by 1963 was a fox lying in wait to guard a hen house in the Kennedy administration.
Lodge of course was a very intelligent and savvy man. He had to know the implications of declassifying such a sensitive, working policy of Kennedy’s to a close associate of Cuban radicals who were working in concert with the CIA to assassinate Castro. Lodge’s disclosure of a possible diplomatic restoration with Cuba was an irresponsible breach of the highest order, and it probably led to his back channel on the plan to kill JFK. In this context it is easier to understand Lodge’s hubris defying JFK’s instructions on relations with Diem and other Vietnam-related directives. JFK thought that Lodge would not survive his position as Ambassador, but instead, it was Kennedy who would not survive to replace Lodge.
Strategist Roger Stone has been involved in national political campaigns since the late 1960’s. At age 16 he was tapped by Connecticut Governor John Davis Lodge (Henry Cabot Lodge’s brother) to run the state’s “Youth For Nixon” organization. A prodigy campaign worker with a talent for dirty tricks, Stone was ingratiating himself to major players in the Republican party when he was barely out of his teens. By his mid-20’s he was a trusted confidant to President Nixon … and of his longtime mentor, John Davis Lodge.
In Stone’s best selling book The Man Who Killed Kennedy: The Case Against LBJ, he recalls part of a conversation he had with Davis Lodge that is at once outrageous and chilling:
In 1979, we sat in his Westport, Connecticut home enjoying a cocktail. I knew that JFK had planned to fire ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge upon his return from Texas on November 24, 1963. I also know that Lodge knew why he had been summoned to see the President. I couldn’t resist asking John Lodge about his brother.
“Did you ever ask your brother who really killed Kennedy?” I said.
His lips spread into a tight grin. “Cabot said it was the Agency boys, some Mafiosi.” He looked me in the eye. “And Lyndon.”
“Did your brother know in advance?” I asked.
Lodge took a sip of his Manhattan. “He knew Kennedy wouldn’t be around to fire him. LBJ kept him at his post so he could serve his country.”
In his renowned book JFK and the Unspeakable, author James Douglass adds content confirming what Kennedy’s intentions were on this issue from another vantage point. In it, Douglass writes:
JFK’s death in Dallas preempted several decisions he was ready to make in Washington the following week. The first was the question of how to deal with his rebellious ambassador to South Vietnam, Henry Cabot Lodge, who wanted to escalate and “win” the war the president had decided to withdraw from.
Robert Kennedy has commented on his brother’s loss of patience with an ambassador who would not carry out his instructions, or even give him the courtesy of a response to those instructions:
“The individual who forced our position at the time of Vietnam was Henry Cabot Lodge. In fact, Henry Cabot Lodge was being brought back – and the President discussed with me in detail how he could be fired – because he wouldn’t communicate in any way with us … The President would send out messages, and he would never really answer them … [Lodge] wouldn’t communicate. It was an impossible situation during that period of time.”
According to RFK, the President in consultation with the Attorney General had already made the decision to fire Lodge: “We were trying to figure out how to get rid of Henry Cabot Lodge.” It was only a matter of “trying to work out how he could be fired, how we could get rid of him.”
President Kennedy was scheduled to meet with Lodge on Sunday afternoon, November 24, as soon as JFK returned from his trip to Texas, and Lodge from his post in Vietnam. Kennedy had prepared for his encounter with Lodge by inviting to it a strong dissenter to the Vietnam War, Under Secretary of State George Ball. He talked to Ball by phone on Wednesday night, November 20, right after the White House reception for the judiciary, making sure that the most anti-war member of his administration would attend the Sunday meeting with Lodge.
It was his successor as president, Lyndon B. Johnson, who instead presided over the Sunday, November 24, meeting with Henry Cabot Lodge.
Before this meeting occurred however (and before John F. Kennedy would be assassinated), Lodge had another meeting to attend – in Honolulu while en route to DC – on November 20-21. It was just after this Honolulu conference to discuss Vietnam with other administration officials that Cabot Lodge was observed in a peculiar scene:
“In Hawaii on Nov. 21/63…shortly after lunch Honolulu time, U.S.Ambassador to South Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge made a long distance call from the lobby of the Royal Hawaiian Hotel…This distinguished diplomat had access to phones in privacy from his room or the military circuits at no cost…yet he was seen, according to the Honolulu Star Bulletin, with a stack of quarters in his hand putting coin after coin into a pay phone…
Lodge was the only person of the seven member policy-making body to stay at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel…the others stayed in the military quarters.” *
Henry Cabot Lodge deserves further scrutiny as a character in this saga of assassination and conspiracy. He was detrimental to JFK’s safety by putting him on disastrous terms with the Central Intelligence Agency, over Cuba. Lodge’s role was unique in providing the CIA with the impetus to kill the President. Kennedy’s adversaries within the government, chiefly at the CIA and Pentagon, had a commitment to win the cold war at all costs. This is not just the view of conspiracy theorists, but also of multiple, government insiders, including JFK’s very own pick to represent him at brokering a peace deal with Castro – William Atwood. In Anthony Summer’s book Not In Your Lifetime, he quotes former UN Ambassador Atwood, as saying:
“If the CIA did find out what we were doing [talks toward normalizing relations with Cuba]…they might have been impelled to take violent action. Such as assassinating the President.”
What we’ve since learned from Summer’s interview with Atwood however is that the CIA did find out what they were doing…and we know how the agency found out, and from whom.
Russia’s dumb opposition is “uniting” apparently to win election and overthrow Putinism. The problem is that even if they all unite, they will not get more than 15% of the vote. No more than 15% of Russia is opposed to Putin and a number of those opposed to him are on the Right.
The Russian opposition, which US liberal Democrats can’t get enough, are sort of the Russian version of the US Republican Party. Their economics program is the same economic program as the Republican Party, although they are liberal on social issues. So it’s Republican Party economics plus the Western Cultural Left, which is more or less the platform of the US Democratic Party now anyway. They are taking the worst of the Right and mixing it with the worst of the Left, so we get the worst of both tendencies.
Much has been made of Boris Nemtsov’s political party. Nemtsov had and has the support of no more than 5% of Russians. Nobody liked him, nobody wanted him. He represented the Western/Jewish/Russian Mafia looting of the country under the radical free market politics of Boris Yeltsin.
I love this word. From the Urban Dictionary. I agree with most of this definition, but sadly I would say that most liberals I know are also patriotards just like this. You simply cannot oppose US foreign policy in the United States. If you oppose our foreign policy, that means “you hate America.”
And most liberals will tell you that too, just like conservatives. Most liberals I know support US foreign policy 100%. They seem to support it more when a Democratic President is in power, but they support most foreign policy under Republicans too. And when they oppose foreign policy, they are often quiet about it, as if they are frightened and ashamed. My father was an ADA liberal, but he backed US foreign policy 100%, in all of its most crazy and reactionary forms. He hated the Sandinistas in Nicaragua and he supported the US armed coup that removed Aristide from power in Haiti. He even supported that Bush’s insane Iraq War and he tried to start a fistfight with me over it, calling me a traitor.
I will say that he turned against the Vietnam War, but he waited until 1968 to do so like most antiwar types. My father was what you call a “Cold War Democrat.” They are and were much more common than you think.
The common line that Republicans say that liberals hate America and especially that they hate US foreign policy does not appear to be true.
Most liberals support the Democratic Party, and their foreign policy is about as horrible as the Republicans’. This is something called “the bipartisan foreign policy consensus” that was put in after World War 2, mostly by Harry Truman and one of the worst Americans of the last century, a Republican who served under Eisenhower named John Foster Dulles, who singlehandedly launched and maintained the Cold War.
Under Truman, US policy was bad enough. This was when the containment doctrine was set into place, Greece was destroyed and 50,000 Leftists were murdered by reactionary Monarchists supported by the US, the Korean War was engaged, China was threatened with nuclear weapons, and the wartime spy service was turned into the CIA.It was Truman who is more responsible than any other man for the birth of the National Security State.
Dulles thought Containment was too wimpy. He wanted war, or rollback, or liberation. Liberation meant the placement of a Far Rightwing Monarchist, authoritarian or fascist state, preferably a dictatorship, to make sure the country did not go Communist. It was Dulles who set in stone the crazy US policy that if you were not with the US, by default, you were with the USSR. You’re with us or against us. This ended up labeling much or all of the Nonaligned Movement as Soviet supporters and fellow travelers. Dulles was a monster and set off 45 years of diabolical US foreign policy, which by the way did not change even 1% with the fall of the USSR.
The standard US liberal argument was that the US did a lot of bad things during the Cold War, but we had to because if we did not, the Soviets would have taken over that country. This implied that with the fall of the USSR, we would finally be forced to stop acting so bad and could go back to being the World Nice Guy that liberals think we are.
However, when the Wall came down, US foreign policy was exactly the same as it was during the Cold War which implies that all of our wickedness came not from a realpolitik Cold War with the USSR but instead derived directly from US imperialism acting on behalf of US capitalism in the form of the US corporations and the elite rich.
By the way, most US liberals that I have met defend US imperialism. They tell me that “a lot of US investment dollars are at stake” in various countries, and that is apparently why we have to be so reactionary and vicious when we stage coups, launch revolutions or assassinate foreign leaders, usually for doing something like raising the minimum wage.
Yes that is correct. The US staged coups in Haiti and Honduras in the past 20 years. The reason for the coups? Aristide and the Honduran President both raised the minimum wage. Apparently according to US bipartisan foreign policy, raising the minimum wage means you are a Communist. I swear to God this country is nuts.
The only people who qualify as “America-haters” are Leftists like me who truly do oppose the Elite/Corporate Fake Managed Democracy and its imperial, reactionary foreign policy. If opposing such things makes me an America-hater, then I guess I am an America-hater. If that’s the definition of the word, I would say that a lot more Americans ought to sign up to be America-haters.
Urban Dictionary patriotard:
An American who is easily manipulated by appeals to superficial pro-American sentiment. Is often a jingoist and rarely if ever opposes any US military action; dismisses all who oppose such military action as liberals or Un-American.
Typically rejects out of hand any criticism of his country’s foreign policy, no matter how justified, unless the criticism is that America isn’t being ‘tough’ enough in some way. Confuses support for the people and/or the founding values of his country with support for his country’s government, especially if his political party of choice (almost always the Republican Party) is in power.
Uncritically swallows propaganda and slogans representing the above mindset – for example: America is ‘Hated For Our Freedoms’ and the troops are ‘Fighting For Our Freedoms’.
Tends to place far greater importance on the trappings of patriotism (American flags, etc.) than on protecting the Constitution or upholding America’s founding values.
Worships the US military. Often a Fox News fan.
George Friedman, Jew, psychopath, explains the psychopathic foreign policy goals of the Dictator of the World, America. Mr. Freeman is one of the men who run our foreign policy. Freeman is for all intents and purposes the voice of the CIA or better yet, the voice of the Deep State. Note the rank cynicism and viciousness of this man. The fact that he is a Jew is not surprising. There is no longer discrimination against Jews in America. On the contrary, Jews run the whole damn country.
The Jews have managed to insert themselves in vast numbers all through every inch of the US foreign policy apparatus. They are also deeply embedded in the Pentagon. Most of them, like Mr. Friedman, are de facto agents of a foreign power, Israel, and almost all of these Jews are wrapped up in the Jewish Lobby that nearly controls US foreign policy.
This process began in the early 1980’s when the Mossad managed to penetrate the US government in huge numbers. At some point a decision was made that there were too many Mossad agents and characters like Friedman in the Pentagon and the Defense Establishment, and efforts to root out the spies were sidelined either out of resignation or surrender.
In other words, Israel penetrated the US government 30 years ago, and the penetration has only increased by a great deal since. The US government has stopped trying to stop the infiltration and at this point has apparently simply surrendered the US government to Israel and its agents like Friedman in the US. Attempts by the FBI to go after the Israeli spies in the government have resulted in firings and career destruction. The word has gone out – the Israelis and their US agents are untouchable.
Under George W. Bush, Jewish power in the US government reached its zenith under the neocons. You know their names. These psychopathic neocons directly manipulated the US government for years on end to serve among other things the foreign policy goals of the Jewish people.
For instance, these neocon Jewish psychopaths declared war on Putin early on. This is because Jews hate Russia.
This hatred goes back to the formation of Israel and US Jews lining up with the US in the Cold War. Many US Jews spied for the US in the Cold War against the USSR. Israel was then enlisted as a Cold Warrior against the USSR.
Israeli special forces psychopaths trained murderous death squads that rampaged across Latin America, torturing, imprisoning and murdering hundreds of thousands of people. The reason for this was that the US was outsourcing the dirtier aspects of US foreign policy to the psychopathic Israelis. The South Koreans and Taiwanese were also enlisted to some extent. At any rate, there was an Israeli hand in back of the mass slaughters of the innocent poor in Latin America in the 1980’s.
The only major country to vote for the US embargo on Cuba has been Israel. Once again, the US-Israeli alliance means that Israel must support all US foreign policy, no matter how reactionary.
While the rest of the world boycotted the reactionary racists in South Africa, the reactionary racists in Reagan’s America and Israel continued to blatantly trade with the apartheid regime. Racists supporting racists.
After World War 2, Israel quickly turned to the US, and the USSR turned against both Israel and sadly the Soviet Jews, who were seen as pro-Israel traitors.
Many Soviet Jews began agitating to leave for Israel. It was very difficult for anyone to get an exit permit in the USSR due to brain drain, and the Jews were no exception. Nevertheless, Israel and the US Jews took up this cause of “Let the Jews go to Israel!” Why should the Soviet Jews get to go to Israel? Other Soviets were not allowed to immigrate to the West. Are the Jews special people deserving special rights?
At any rate, the US government soon took up this fake cause about “persecution” of the Soviet Jews by the big bad USSR government who wouldn’t let them leave the country. This became a huge cause celebre for Israel and the US Jews, despite its highly dubious moral grounds – Why carve out an exception for the Jews? Who says the Soviets were “discriminating” against Jews? They wouldn’t let anyone go to the West, not just Jews.
Nevertheless, the US used this phony “human rights” club to beat the Soviets over the head all the while dubiously labeling the USSR “anti-Semitic,” while the truth was that the Jews had it pretty good in the USSR. The Soviets began slowly allowing small numbers of Jews to emigrate. Many of these folks were barely even Jewish, but for some reason, Israel let them in anyway.
For a long time now, the Russian Jews have been some of the most criminal and racist Jews on Earth. When it comes to tendency towards organized crime and sheer vicious Gentile-hatred, no one beats the Russian Jews. The reason for this may lie in centuries of conflict between Jews and Gentiles in Russia. For instance, Russian Jews pour themselves Bloody Marys out of habit, proudly proclaiming while they drink them that they are drinking the blood of the Russian Gentiles. Russian Jews have a profound vengeance mindset against the Russian people who they think owes them one.
Hence when the USSR fell in 1991, Russian Jews quickly formed the Russian Mafia, and many became oligarchs. With the help of Jews in the US (Jeffrey Sacks, psychopathic economist), London (a sociopath named Lord Rothschild) and Israel, these Russian Jews, with the help of quite a few Russian Gentiles, set about stealing just about everything in Russia that wasn’t locked down. By the end of the decade, the state was destitute, looted bare. The Jews and their opportunistic pals had stolen just about every last nickel in the country. They shipped much of the stolen money to their psychopathic Jewish friends in London, New York and Tel Aviv, a sort of a tri-city Jewish nexus for the looting of Russia.
After Yeltsin was voted out and Putin came in, VVP began cracking down on some of the oligarchs, Jewish or otherwise. A few oligarchs found themselves athwart Putin. He put them in prison on various charges. They were guilty of all of these charges and then some. Mr. Khodorovsky,a Jewish psychopathic criminal, was one of the worst of the lot. He was sentenced to eight years in prison, and he was guilty as Hell.
The Jews in power in the US, including psychopaths Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, began screaming because their fellow Jewish psychopath had been caught red-handed looting the hated Russia. Perle began issuing a number of warlike threats in the name of the US government. In this way, under George Bush, Jews like the psychopathic Perle not only inserted themselves into the highest echelons of the US government but then attempted to use this power to manipulate the US into foreign conflicts on behalf of the Jewish people. Perle and his gang of neocons also became very active in supporting the Chechen rebels against Russia.
Just before Khodorovsky went to prison, he managed to ship most of his stolen loot out of the country. It just happened to go directly into the bank account of a Jewish psychopath named Lord Rothschild.
These are some of the roots of the US hate against Russia. While it is true that the US elites hate Russia for many reasons, part of this mess is that the US Jews are spoiling for a fight with their old nemesis, Russia.
From the Internet:
It’s long been obvious that the Republicans had a special gift for “I know you are but what am I” politics. (Some people refer to this as “projection” in which someone applies their own faults and flaws onto another.)
One example of this is how they routinely threaten to shut down the government unless the Democrats acquiesce to their outrageous demands by insisting that it’s the Democrats who are shutting down the government by failing to acquiesce to their outrageous demands.
It’s a very common right-wing tactic designed to twist liberals into pretzels trying to explain why that makes no sense.
I do not want to go into details here, but first of all, some background to the craziness of the notion of a government shutdown in the first place.
Before the Republicans started shutting down the US government under Newt Gingrich’s Contract on America, Congress rarely if ever shut down or threatened to shut down the government for political reasons. But most folks do not seem to know this. I have even had liberals argue vociferously that Congress used to regularly shut down the government pre-Gingrich.
These people need to offer me some proof. Based on my analysis of US political history, I am not aware of one single incident of the US Congress shutting down or even threatening to shut down the US government if a certain bill doesn’t pass that they demand. I am not even aware of a single case of a US political party shutting down or even threatening to shut down the government unless they get what they want. But I am all ears. If you can show me one single case of Congress or even one party even threatening a government shutdown, God forbid enacting one, pre-1996, show me your cards. Because I don’t believe you.
People say to me, “Well of course the government got shut down or was at least threatened with a shutdown in past.” Because we all know that Congress has always voted on outrageous must-pass funding bills that had “If you don’t sign this bill, we will kill this dog” poison pills in them.
First of all, I am not aware that legislative outrages were regularly put into must-pass government funding laws before 1996.
But I do seem to recall some logjams where the parties could not agree on some aspects of a must-pass funding bill. The way I remember it is that in these cases, Congress routinely passed what is called a “continuing resolution” which would simply reinstate last year’s funding bill as this year’s. Federal budgets for each agency would be funded at the previous year’s level, and the buck would be passed on until the next trip around the Sun.
Yet there is a method to the madness of Republican government shutdowns, and it is rooted in ideology. There is a reason why the Republicans started shutting down the government in 1996.
The Republicans have shut down the US government many times in the last 18 years. Poll after poll shows that despite the idiotic government-hatred of Americans, the public is furious about every one of these government shutdowns. They’re not popular.
Nevertheless the Republicans have nothing if not huevos, and they don’t care about popular opinion about much of anything they want to do. They just say, “Damn the polls, people are idiots,” count on the corporate media to cover for them, and go ahead and do it anyway. After the Republicans do something that has say 2% public support, the public yawns, the corporate press writes what a great idea it is and how it has mass support, the Overton Window gets reinstalled even further Right, and the goalposts move to barely within squinting distance as the latest reactionary outrage becomes yet another New Normal.
So we can see that in terms of government shutdowns, American society seems to have Borderline Personality Disorder at least in their view of the state, the hallmark of which is, “I hate you, don’t leave me.”
Apparently the Republicans seem to have gotten the memo that the US public is getting sick and tired of these idiotic shutdowns. So now the latest scam is to say that the Republicans are not shutting down the government. It is the Democrats are shutting down the government.
I was stunned when I first heard this, so I asked for details about how the Democrats were shutting down the government.
Of course it turned out they weren’t, but everyone was saying they were anyway. All the Democrats were doing was refusing to vote for the Republican must-pass funding bill which included a lot of the usual Republican poison pills. Because the Democrats refused to vote for a funding bill with these diabolical poison pills in them, the Democrats were “shutting down the government.”
It is an insane argument that makes no sense, but there is a nutty “logic” behind it.
The argument behind the Republican lie that the Democrats are threatening to shut down the government is something like this:
It’s noon. I live on a crowded city street. My name is Democrat. A maniac called Republican breaks into my house. He points a gun at my head and orders me to run down the street naked screaming, “I’m gay and I love Osama bin Laden!” Obviously I don’t want to do that because I am not gay, I hated Osama and I do not do such things as run naked down public streets screaming crazy things. So I simply refuse to do what Mr. Republican orders me too.
But Mr. Republican has a trick, a poison pill if you will. He has brought a dog with him. A very cute darling little Maltese terrier even a hardened felon would have to love. And now he adds this new poison pill to the deal. If I do not do this crazy and stupid stunt that will probably get me at least arrested…and Mr. Republican pulls out a gun to make his point. He points the gun at the cute little dog. If I do not run naked amok past my neighbors, Mr. Republican will kill the dog. Of course I refuse to get myself arrested for disturbing the peace and 5150’d in the process.
And so it comes to be that Mr. Republican shoots the dog in the head, killing it. And then he walks out the door. Well the gunshots draw the cops and the killing of the dog becomes a hot topic of outrage in my hood. But before he left, Mr. Republican spread a lie. He said I killed the dog. And he explained how. And now everyone believes Mr. Republican. They press around me, yelling that I killed the dog. How? By not running down the street naked.
So you see this is what the Republicans are doing when they claim that the Democrats are shutting down the government by refusing to pass the latest outrage of legislative madness.
I killed the dog. The Democrats shut down the government. It’s the same thing. Get it?
Oh come on now, that thinking is so stupid that no one could be dumb enough to fall for that line, right? Well of course, but you need to think again.
Everyone is falling for it. The media has been screaming nonstop about how the Democrats are threatening to shut down the government.
Concerned liberals come up to me worried. Did I know that the Democrats were threatening to shut down the US government? Um, no I didn’t, and where did this crazy notion come from in the first place?
With lined faces, the liberals lay out the Republican lie, and it is clear that the the lure is hooked deep. With solemn tones, they explain to me what had to be done. The dog had to be saved. We are liberals; we can’t be dog-killers. But if we don’t pass the Crazy Bill, then we, the Democrats, are puppy killers.
So to keep our party from doing this horrific deed, the Democrats were forced to pass the latest Kafkaesque legislative dreck. They had to do it. They had no choice. It was either that or the dog got it. And we now how much liberals love their cute little dogs.
When Ronald Reagan came into office in 1980, he launched a campaign of demonization of the federal government the likes of which this nation had never seen before. Even Goldwaterites, John Birchers and Southern Democrats had never shown this level of contempt and hatred for the federal government before. Keep in mind that a Republican lie is that they only hate the federal government. Like most things Republicans say, it’s a lie. Republicans hate all forms of government. They mostly hate the federal government, but they do not like the state governments much either. Nor do they even like county or even city governments.
When Republicans spit their contempt for “government workers,” we need to know a few things. First of all, they do not only despise federal government workers. They despise all government employees who work for any branch of the government, even City Hall. And there is something else. “Government workers” is shorthand for two things.