Lee Dunn's List: TRUE RIGHT

• THE  ANTIWAR RIGHT: OUR TIME IS NEAR
• NEOCONS ARE WORRIED - AND WITH GOOD REASON
• By: Justin Raimondo
• As well they might be: Salam, a self-described advocate of "a Pax  Americana foreign policy," and a fellow at the New America Foundation – a  corporate-funded let's-promote-"new"-but-safely-conventional-ideas, formerly  headed up by James Fallows – knows his enemies, and is preparing to meet them, albeit  not head on.
• Neocons like  Reihan Salam are worried  that Republicans will soon "begin to abandon the president en masse over  Afghanistan."
• Before the battle is joined, however, he wants to define the enemy – in  his own terms, of course.
• There are plenty of antiwar conservatives to cite, including politicians: the primary  example being Rep. Ron Paul, whose presidential campaign mounted an amazingly successful  challenge to the GOP Establishment –
• and, as a result, earned the undying enmity of  the neocons.
• There are others: John Duncan, Republican of Tennessee, Rep. Walter B.  "Freedom Fries" Jones (R-North Carolina) – whose stunning turnaround on the  war provoked a neocon hissy-fit and an electoral challenge, both of which he survived  –
• but Senor Salam chose Jason Chaffetz, a freshman Republican from Utah, perhaps  because he's the newest addition to a growing group. But also, perhaps, because it's  easier to characterize his "antiwar" views in a certain, limiting way.
• "Among grassroots conservatives," Salam avers, "there is a growing sense  that the U.S. military is too hamstrung by concern about civilian casualties and political  correctness to wage an effective military campaign under Obama, which implies that there  is little point in offering him political support."
• Here is what  Chaffetz actually says:
• According to Salam, Chaffetz  "makes this point explicitly," but this is not at all clear.
• "We must redefine the Rules of Engagement: A politically correct war is  a lost war. If we are going to sacrifice lives and resources in this fight, we must go in  with everything we have. We must be committed to win. But then we must go home. Anything  short of an all-out commitment to accomplish the mission puts too many American lives at  risk."
• Rather than saying that the strategy we're pursuing isn't bloodthirsty enough – a  typically neoconnish criticism – Chaffetz appears to be advocating a Colin  Powell-esque approach: go in with overwhelming force, or else don't bother.
• The reference  to political correctness may be a thrust at the new counterinsurgency doctrine recently  adopted by the Petraeus-CNAS clique within the administration,
• the centerpiece of which is  the goal of "protecting" the Afghan population from … itself. Go figure.
• The Mao-quoting Anita Dunn isn't the only admirer of the Great Helmsman in a position  of influence in this administration:
• the top military strategists and advisors, centered  around COIN theorist John Nagl, are committed to a strategic vision inspired by the Maoist  concept of "people's war," based on the concept of "clear, hold, and  build" –
• that is, the old Maoist (or, really, Guevarist) concept of seizing a  hamlet, village, or whatever, carving out a revolutionary "base camp," and  building parallel structure of administrative authority and local services – e.g.  Hezbollah in Lebanon (or the Chinese Communist forces in the struggle against the  Nationalists.)
• Che Guevara famously attempted the same stunt in the jungles of Bolivia,  and wound up a dead man.
• In any case, this strategy of conducting a "people's war" means our troops  will be living close to the people we are pledged to protect: force protection is to be  sacrificed in the name of securing and consolidating control over "liberated"  spaces.
• Which means we'll be taking a lot of casualties – and for what? That's what  Chaffetz, and a growing number of Americans want to know.
• Salam elides the primary point made in the Chaffetz statement, and that is his first  bullet point:
• "First, we must define the mission: Our military is not a defensive  force for rough neighborhoods around the world. They are trained to be an offensive,  mission-driven military force to protect the United States of America. They are not  trained to be nation builders or policemen. They are trained to be an aggressive machine  that destroys and eliminates the enemy. Give them a mission and then get out of the way.  They will accomplish the mission swiftly with outstanding results."
• If our war  aims are to eliminate al-Qaeda, and possibly capture or kill the top leadership, that's  one thing. Fighting a protracted "people's war" is quite another.
• This isn't about how we should accomplish the mission, but instead focuses on a more  fundamental question: what, exactly, is the mission in the first place?
• Given the  choice between withdrawal and an extended – and much wider – commitment,  Chaffetz is choosing the former.

• As he puts it:

   

  "Mr. President, it is time to bring our troops home. If our mission in  Afghanistan is simply to protect the populace and build the nation, then I believe the  time has come to bring our troops home.

   

  "We have successfully rooted out Al-Qaeda from Afghanistan. Fewer than 100  Al-Qaeda operatives are operating in Afghanistan according to Retired General James L.  Jones' assessment of the situation. 'I don't foresee the return of the Taliban,' he said  in an October 4 Associated Press report. Jones, who is President Obama's National Security  Advisor, continued: 'Afghanistan is not in imminent danger of falling.  The al Qaeda  presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the  country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.'
• "Mr. President, we all recognize that we will still have to fight Al-Qaeda  around the globe. So let's bring home the tens of thousands who have fought so valiantly  to protect America. Let's instead use the best human and electronic surveillance available  to allow our special forces to target and kill those who actually threaten us."
• Chaffetz, in short, takes a position elaborated on by such critics of the war as  Michael Scheuer, author of Imperial Hubris, and the former head of the bin Laden  unit at the CIA – and by yours truly.
• My immediate response to the 9/11 attacks in  this space, you'll recall, was "Kill them – and get out." This is precisely  Chaffetz's position.
• The idea is to treat the enemy as  exactly what it is: not a nation-state, but a criminal conspiracy.
• This minimalist approach is no less deadly: the difference is that it is focused,  realistic, and saves lives, both American and Afghan.
• Along these lines,  Chaffetz cites the view of retired Marine Gen. Chuck Krulak, who "has suggested  'Hunter-Killer Teams' with resources and rules of engagement that allow them to root out  the enemy and suppress any Al-Qaeda entrenchment.
• I concur with the retired General. If  the mission is to root out Al-Qaeda, we do not need to risk the lives of tens of thousands  of troops to fulfill it."
• Amen to that.
• Ron Paul has said very much the same thing, on occasion, although his critique of the  war, and the system that makes it possible, is much more comprehensive. Curiously, the  words "Ron Paul" do not appear in Salam's piece.
• True, Paul is not approved by the Washington cognoscenti, and the neocons in particular  are none too eager to lend him any more recognition than he's already gotten, and yet this  is still a curious omission in an article purportedly about the antiwar Right.
• It's not as  if Paul and his movement are invisible, or of no consequence, especially in Utah.
• Utah has always been a libertarian  stronghold, and the Paul organization, the Campaign for Liberty, is quite visible in the  state, supplemented and energized as it is by a campus-based group, Young Americans for  Liberty, which has two active chapters: together, these two groups have thousands of  members and sympathizers in Utah.
• At the Utah GOP convention held in the summer of 2007, Paul came in second in the  polling, behind Mitt Romney, and third in the primary.
• The long term strategy employed by the Paulistas, with their explicitly  "entrist" tactic, is to create a grassroots movement dedicated to, among other  things, an explicitly anti-interventionist foreign policy, and they are finding a fertile  field in precisely those sorts of voters who put Chaffetz in Congress and will keep him  there next time around.
• Chaffetz  represents a growing trend, one that is in transition – but to what?
• While the  leadership of the Republican party is passing resolutions requiring all candidates to  support an interventionist foreign policy – question: will they be cutting off  funding for Chaffetz's reelection bid? – a look at the recent Pew poll results  underscores the stupidity of such a policy.
• Forty-nine percent of Americans say the  US should start minding its own business – a trend the Pew pollsters label  "isolationist" – and they aren't all Democrats, not by a long shot.

• As Pew  reports:

   

  "Isolationist views have typically been more prevalent among Democrats than  among Republicans, and that remains the case today. But the rise in isolationism is  evident across partisan lines: overall, 49% say the United States should mind its own  business internationally, up from 30% in 2002. Currently, 53% of Democrats express this  view, up from 40% in 2002. Among Republicans, 43% agree the U.S. should mind its own  business, up from 22% in 2002. Roughly half of independents (49%) offer this opinion,  compared with 27% in 2002."
• This  bloggingheads exchange between Chris Hayes of The Nation and Matt Welch of Reason  magazine has an interesting section about the political space –
• so far uninhabited,  except by the Paul grouping – available for antiwar conservative-libertarian  candidates to appropriate, either within the GOP or without.
• The "tea party"  crowd may not be calling for the US to get out of Afghanistan, and they may disdain the  idea that they'd ever be up there with Code Pink calling for withdrawal – but when  they realize that Code Pink and the other "progressive" pro-Obama groups aren't  calling for withdrawal, and conservative leaders like Chaffetz (and George Will) are,  those archetypal "little old ladies in tennis shoes" may take up where the  counter-cultural Code Pinkos left off.
• The reaction to Chaffetz's commentary has been disappointing.
• Among those one would  think would be trying to encourage him, such as The American Conservative's foreign  policy blogger-in-residence Daniel Larison, the response had been oddly  hostile:
• Chaffetz, it seems, comes to the right conclusion, but for the wrong reason.  And he doesn't really come to the right conclusion, at least by Larison's standards, as it  turns out:
• Larison accuses him of wanting to turn Afghanistan into a "shooting  gallery."
• This is nonsensical – Chaffetz is in favor of precisely the sort of limited police  action Larison himself comes out for in the same post.
• Weirdly, Larison writes: "As  anyone can see, I am defending the proposed war plan against Chaffetz's insipid  criticisms, and I will be defending the war plan in my next column."
• So Chaffetz  wants out, Larison is "defending the war plan" – which is to stay in for  the next three to five years, and mount a full-fledged counterinsurgency campaign –  and Chaffetz is "pro-war and wrong"?
• Maybe it's all that incense, but Larison needs to  go outside, and take a deep breath of fresh air: maybe that will clear his head.
• Salam, taking his cues from Walter Russell Mead – one of the founders of the New  America Foundation, by the way – characterizes Chaffetz as a "Jacksonian,"  i.e. when it comes to war, the Jacksonian prefers to strike out at the enemy with full  force, or else refrain from doing battle.
• Yet this overemphasizes one aspect of Chaffetz's  position, and minimizes where it diverges from the Bushian-neocon position in a major way.
• The Bush-neocon position insists that the "war on terrorism" is more akin to  World War II than to a conflict which can be handled by Gen. Krulak's "hunter-killer  teams."
• True, Chaffetz does warn against the alleged danger from Iran, but when it gets right  down to it would he be willing to go to war with the Iranians?
• Somehow I doubt it,  especially when he goes on to say that massive debt is the "greatest danger"  facing our nation.
• "Jacksonian" or not, I doubt Rep. Chaffetz would be happy  with $200 a barrel oil prices and the subsequent spike at the pump.
• One, it is clear that a great many conservative  Republicans are undergoing a transition: faced with the consequences of eight years of  dangerous and debilitating militarism, some are beginning to question the basic premises  of interventionism, as Chaffetz does with his insistence on limiting the goal of the  "war on terrorism" to simply taking out al-Qaeda.
• Unlike Larison, I am willing to give advocates of withdrawal such as Chaffetz the  benefit of a doubt, for two reasons.
• Which brings us to the second reason for cutting Chaffetz a little slack, and that is  the political importance of an emerging anti-interventionist caucus in the GOP, especially  at the congressional level.
• The political rationale for Democratic hawkishness is always  that the Republicans will supposedly beat up on Obama and the Democrats in Congress if  they show "weakness."
• With a strong anti-interventionist tendency in the GOP,  the Democratic Leadership Council and its "centrist" allies will have to come up  with a different excuse.
• Yes, it's true that politics in Washington is all about partisanship, and to be against  this president and his programs is to at least call into question the conduct and  motivating principles of his foreign policy – and anti-interventionists shouldn't  hesitate for one moment to take full advantage of this.
• During the run up to the second  world war, Republican opposition to FDR"s strenuous (albeit largely covert) attempts  to drag us into the European side of the conflict provoked antiwar sentiment on the  Republican right.
• The group that came together to oppose the Rooseveltian program of war  abroad and a highly-centralized, semi-socialist state at home – those we call, in  retrospect, the Old Right – came from very disparate points on the political  spectrum: the Hooverites, Liberty Leaguers, and Taft Republicans on the right, and on the  left disillusioned old-fashioned liberals like the journalist John T. Flynn, and anti-war,  anti-Washington Midwestern progressives, such as Senator Burton K. Wheeler, of Montana.
• Together, they built the biggest antiwar movement in American history, the America First  Committee, which, at its height, had 800,000 dues-paying members, and a large activist  contingent.
• This is the model we should emulate when building a contemporary movement against our  policy of perpetual warfare.
• It will take a broad-based coalition, one that spans the  political spectrum and allows for a high degree of variety, to stand against the Empire.  But if we're going to have our old Republic back, it will be a battle worth fighting.

• Justin Raimondo is Editorial Director  of AntiWar.Com.  He is a regular columnist for Ether Zone.

   

  Justin Raimondo may be contacted at egarris@antiwar.com      
   
    Published in the

  December 11, 2009 issue of  Ether Zone.
    Copyright © 1997 - 2009 Ether Zone.

74 more annotations...

• USA Military Coup De Tat 2012
• I have a donation based blog over at www.preparingforthefuture.org. Info is available on the board index/general discussion page in a thread called "How to get DOOMER DOUG'S password."
• January 7, 2010
    Doug McIntosh
• I think the possibility of a military coup de tat in the United States is the highest it has ever been in our history.
• The reasons for that are legion.
• We are simply at a point in our history where the US military may very well decide to take over running the country.
• The reason they will do this is not to save the American Republic, which died in October of 2008 with the first Wall Street and bank bailout votes.
• No it will be at a more basic level: to save the territorial integrity and lives of Americans.
• The US military may very well decide that they need to assume direct control in order to prevent a combination of economic collapse, social collapse and military collapse.
• We should begin at the beginning as they say.
• The reason for any potential US military coup is simple.
• If the military thinks they can do a better job than the civilian leadership they will stage a coup ; if not, the military will avoid a coup.
• The first rule of military coups is they rarely, if ever, happen unless the civilians have mucked things up so badly the military is required to intervene.
• An analysis of the current situation in the USA provides a clearer explanation for any potential military coup.
• Historically, military people want to have as little to do with politics as they can, at least in the Western nations.
• As long as the system runs along smoothly, the politicians aren't complete idiots and the people are relatively content, the military is more than happy to stay in their barracks.
• It is only when things head south the military gets involved.
• In 1973 Chile elected a Marxist egghead named Allende, who promptly began to impose a Marxist dictatorship on Chile. The military moved against him and imposed a military dictatorship under Pinochet.
• I think the model for what is happening in the USA; what has been happening since Obama was anointed is Chile.
• Both the reasons and the methods used in Chile directly apply to the USA, although hopefully any US military coup will avoid the death squads common in Chile.
• Two decades later, the military gave up power.
• The US military has severe strains on its resources, abilities and people.
• The USA is functionally bankrupt at all levels, Federal, state, city and county, individuals and corporations.
• The political leadership class is incompetent, arrogant, out of touch and increasingly drunk on personal ambition and power.
• The US military is now subjected to brazen attacks at its bases inside the United States.
• The media is full of lying shills.
• The banksters, Wall Street whores and corporate criminals are beyond restraint now, feeding at the Federal Reserve and US Treasury with no concern for the exploding anger and chaos around them.
• As the USA burns, the political, cultural, media, educational and religious leadership either ignores the problems, denies the problems or uses the problems to enrich themselves at taxpayer expense.
• The non military leadership classes in the USA are beyond reform. As such, they will simply be replaced during any military coup de tat.
• The civilian leadership classes are simply not relevant to any future events in the USA over the next decade. The military knows this. The people know this. The leadership classes are so out of touch they do not.
• however, the lower and middle levels are not.
• It will a Colonel's coup and not come from the Joint Chief level.
• The military leadership of the USA at the highest levels is globalist to the core;
• The Generals have already sold out the nation to the globalists for at least the last two decades.
• The Joint Chief's have all been CFR members for a long time now.
• The highest levels of the military are no longer interested in national identity, or nationalism at all. They are out of touch with the increasing frustrated and angry troops under their command.
• It was the FreiKorps, a group of frustrated World War One veterans, which formed the striking core for radical change in Germany when the Weimar Republic imploded.
• Janet of Fatherland Security thinks so based upon her recent comments.
• The Freikorps can be either left or right as cultural conditions permit.
• My view is the American Freikorps will be populist and Constitution loving. They will avoid racial stupidity and thus be successful.
• The armed militia is a large segment of the Freikorps.
• The function of our Imperial US military is no longer to protect the American Republic.
• Their function is to protect the society and by doing that to protect themselves.
• If the current corrupt American civilian leadership classes think the Imperial US military is going to fall on the sword to protect the status quo for them, they are even more delusional than I think they are.
• The military takes care of its own; the military protects its own and the military loves its own.
• These Clinton retreads running around our Marxist Dictator Obama have no idea how much the US military despises them; nor do they have any idea of how little is preventing a military coup de tat.
• The US military now realizes its own people are dying because of the insolence and incompetence of the Obama administration.
• The first condition for a military coup de tat has already been met; namely, the incompetence and corruption of the ruling civilian elite.
• The only issue is whether, or how much longer, they will tolerate it.
• On a broad range of issues the Obama administration is seriously disconnected, from the general populace of the United States, as well as the US military.
• The US military is appalled at the level of stupidity regarding nuclear weapon drawdowns, force deployments, the war in both Iraq and Afghanistan; open attacks by militant Islam inside the USA, being allowed by the Obama administration.
• The US military is coming to two conclusions about the Obama administration: one, they are incompetent and two, that incompetence is getting Americans killed.
• The military will not give Obama a third chance. Three strikes and you are out.
• It got American soldiers gunned down at Fort Hood and it nearly got 300 Americans killed over Detroit's airport.
• I could add that Janet Janet's incredibly moronic statement about the "system working" didn't go over in either the Intelligence or Military spheres. You can be a bastard, but you better be a competent one.
• We have a situation where the civilian leadership is discredited, incompetent and allowing Americans to be killed with impunity inside the USA by terrorists. Such is the current state of America.
• At all levels of our culture, our economy, our daily lives we are besieged and overwhelmed by the stupidity of political correctness.
• PC will either be the death of us, or the causative agent for a military coup de tat.
• The military will likely wait for the November elections in the hope the worthless Republicans can reverse the worst of our Marxist in Chief's agenda.
• We are not quite there yet. The military has not given up hope.
• The pieces have not quite come together yet for a military coup.
• We need to have the final political despair. Personally, I don't think it matters whether we even have elections this November. The trends are clear enough for me to see anyway.
• The USA lurches and stumbles through 2010 with increasing economic and social distress.
• Here is the most likely scenario.
• The system manages to issue enough debt to maintain the social order long enough for the November elections.
• The Republicans stomp the Democrats. Early in 2011 the Republicans attempt to reverse our Marxist in chief's agenda, with varying results.
• The only certain result is a bitterly divided country: 25% of Obama's true believers versus 25% armed militia, with the rest caught in the middle.
• Or the Republicans betray the voters and make few changes.
• The military is also caught in the middle as the rhetoric intensifies with charges of racism and anti semitism and the like.
• In 2011 the Taleban kick the USA out of Afghanistan. In the USA itself militant Islam openly attacks with impunity due to the political correct dogmas of Obama and his ilk.
• We lurch through 2011 in a state of profound crisis at all levels of our society.
• The Southern Poverty Law Center issues hysterical press releases about Nazis everywhere. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton start howling about racism. Everybody is screaming at each other about everything.
• Social anarchy is everywhere as rioting urbanites protest service cuts.
• As the USA heads into 2012 the nation is fundamentally flawed at all levels.
• Government, when it functions at all, is at a bare minimum.
• The US military watches helplessly as it is defeated overseas, forced to flee with its tail between its legs back to the USA where Obamabots openly attack it for racism, incompetence and blame the defeats on them.
• The military watches helplessly as the domestic social order frays under the economic and racial tensions of 2012.
• And as the election cycle builds up the military simply acts.
• It will act since the social order is breaking down. It will act since the system cannot deal with the crisis. It will act because the military is the power of last resort. When all else fails, the military will step in.
• The USA military simply tells Obama he is through.
• The US military simply takes over and removes all the Obamabots from the government.
• The military declares martial law for 6 years and then simply starts doing things.
• The military declares the US border sealed and sends the 82nd Airborne, showing on television the airborne drop, to the Texas border.
• The military issues execution orders for all terrorists in captivity, along with child molesters and anybody on death row.
• The military sends 1000 troops to Wall Street and begins arresting the heads of Goldman Sachs, AIG and others.
• The military deals with the usual riots by blacks and others in the cities by simply sealing them off and cutting water, food and power to them. After three weeks all organized opposition to the military coup collapses, since the armed militia made no attempt to fight the military.
• They are paraded live on television to crowds of jeering onlookers.
• The military arranges a summit of all the constitutionalist, populist, militia and patriot groups and finds strong support for its military coup de tat.
• As Muslims are rounded up for deportation; as political liberals flee the country for France, large numbers of Americans have no concern over the military coup. In fact, many welcome it.
• Whenever Hollywood types show up to protest the execution of child molesters for instance, they are savagely beaten by enraged mobs.
• The military takes direct control of all media outlets and simply replaces all the mainstream media people en mass.
• The American people neither notice or care as long as American Idol keeps running.
• Within 90 days of the military coup de tat life has returned to normal. or what passes for normal in the USA.
• The borders have been sealed, illegal immigrants and Muslims among others have either left the country or been kicked out.
• The elite will have either fled, been imprisoned or executed by the military government in an effort to maintain its popularity.
• The Federal Reserve has been abolished as the military begins the process or reindustrializing the USA.
• Like I said, large sections of the American populace will support the coup wholeheartedly. The ones who don't will either flee, be arrested or keep very quiet.
• However, the military coup will remain in power because it will have the support of the armed militias and the troops.
• The 1.25 million weapons being sold per month since Obama took power will be held by people sympathetic to the goals of a military coup.
• The coup will be launched by Constitutionalist and patriot elements inside the US military, mostly below the level of Colonel I think, when they judge the social chaos has reached the point of collapsing the country.
• When these final conditions are met, not now in 2010, but in 2012, the US military will move quickly and decisively to take power and save the USA from imploding.
• The military, as Rush Limbaugh put it so well, is designed to "break things and kill people."
• It is only a matter of time, in my opinion, before the US military decides it has had enough of Obama and his Obamabots, enough of Americans openly being murdered by Militant Islam inside the USA and enough of the politically correct idiocy which does nothing.
• When the economic conditions are dire enough, the armed militias angry enough and the military fed up enough things will flow together and create the ideal conditions for a military coup de tat.
• Hopefully, I am on every domestic terrorist list Janet Janet has; if not, I am not trying hard enough.
• Mr. Q tells me that "government types" regularly monitor the Q files.
• This essay will get the Echelon types to take their feet off the consoles no doubt.
• A military coup de tat which incorporated elements of the armed militia, populist, tea party and constitutionalist philosophy would have a very good chance of happening and then being successful.
• Some may consider this essay fiction; some may consider it madness; however, I consider it a sober and reasoned analysis of what may very well happen in the next two years or so.
• The military will move if conditions get bad enough in order to save the territorial integrity of the US, as well as its basic social framework.
• By the way, the military government will not be racist per se, but they will be merit based and have no tolerance for the types of deviant behavior common in minority communities.
• In other words, you will not get shot because you are Black or Hispanic: you will get shot because you are a drug selling, gang banging, rapist thug.
• They will apply the military method of merit based race relations to the general populace.
• This will render Jesse Jackson et all out of business.
• One of the major reasons for the success of the military coup de tat is that they will actually deliver on racial equality, unlike the racist Obama whose plan was to pit all racial groups against each other to implement his Marxist dictatorship.
• Criminal members of minority communities will be held accountable for their deviancy, but opportunity will be unlimited for those who play by the rules.
• Illegal aliens will be hunted down and deported, but legal refugees will feel no fear.
• Such policies will make the military government quite popular; as I said the liberal PC morons will simply leave the USA, shut up, or be beaten to death when they show up to demonstrate.
• The key is the response of the armed militia.
• I don't believe the armed militia would take up arms against a military government which was sealing the border and deporting illegal aliens, arresting the whores on Wall Street and kicking Muslims out of the USA.
• Nearly 20 million personal weapons have been sold since Obama was anointed, along with 10 Billion rounds of ammo.
• The USA had 9 million in the military during World War Two. The armed militia is now twice as big as the entire US military in World War Two.
• The US military can either fight the armed militia, or they can incorporate its views in a National Salvation type of government.
• I believe the US military will do the later and be hugely popular.
• In particular, any military government which executed the head of Goldman Sachs on live television would remain in power for a generation at least. No doubt about that at all in my view.

123 more annotations...