Comments on: Some lysol, bleach, heavy duty trash bags...

Some lysol, bleach, heavy duty trash bags...

troutfishing — Sun, 30 May 2004 18:06:12 -0800

- like Harvey Keitel, who has both played a 'cleaner' and become one in real life, Zbigniew Brzezinski now moves in to rectify the mess. "The present policy - justified by falsehoods, pursued with unilateral arrogance, blinded by self-delusion, and stained by sadistic excesses - cannot be corrected with a few hasty palliatives."

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Sun, 30 May 2004 18:32:52 -0800

Brzezinski's cool. Yeah, I'm a foreign policy nerd. There's hardly anything in nerdom that has escaped my grasp. I recommend that people read George Kennan and my man, Zbigny. But then, I would.

By: y2karl

y2karl — Sun, 30 May 2004 18:41:00 -0800

youse can all get fucked n shit cos that;s kust not rihgt and I'm so drunk right now but I stand by all the commmetns I've made slp yeash!!!! Now that's a definite PUI.

By: caddis

caddis — Sun, 30 May 2004 18:49:18 -0800

Well the cleaning job is about to get messier. It seems we have a little dispute brewing over who will become president. The Iraqi governing council demanded that the largely ceremonial post should go to Sheikh Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawar, an Arab businessman in his 40s who has criticized the US-led occupation and who is the council's president. Paul Bremer has apparently threatened to ignore their vote.

By: trondant

trondant — Sun, 30 May 2004 18:52:44 -0800

So, could we get this Administration naked in Tarantino's back yard and hose them all down?

By: Zonker

Zonker — Sun, 30 May 2004 19:12:41 -0800

Yes -- except they all get to wear the "I'm with stupid" shirts.

By: mr.marx

mr.marx — Sun, 30 May 2004 19:23:16 -0800

I was thinking the pliers/blowtorch treatment would be more appropriate.

By: squirrel

squirrel — Sun, 30 May 2004 20:14:32 -0800

Boy, oh boy, this thread is starting out real dodgey. You know, you can't say truthout without saying trout. Just try it. [Thanks for the great links!]

By: kablam

kablam — Sun, 30 May 2004 20:22:17 -0800

"In 1970 a young Polish intellectual named Zbigniew Brzezinski foresaw the rising economic power of Japan, and postwar Europe. Brzezinski idealized the theories of Karl Marx. In his book, Between Two Ages, as in subsequent writings, he argued that balance-of-power politics was out, and world-order politics was in. The initial world order was to be a trilateral economic linkage between Japan, Europe, and the United States. David Rockefeller funded Brzezinski, and called together an organization, named the Trilateral Commission, with Brzezinski as its first executive secretary, and director. The stated goals of the Trilateral Commission are: "Close Trilateral cooperation in keeping the peace, in managing the world economy, in fostering economic redevelopment, and alleviating world poverty will improve the chances of a smooth, and peaceful evolution of the global system." * So, can Brzezinski reasonably be described as a multilateralist, a globalist, and a proponent of the New World Order? And if so, is his criticism more based in philosophy, rather than pragmatism? I think the answer is yes. And he is upset that everybody isn't doing it his way.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Sun, 30 May 2004 22:16:29 -0800

You know, you can't say truthout without saying trout. Just try it. What are you talking about? --- Anyway, erm the part about Keitel was great. As far as the whole Iraq thing, who cares? Isn't the whole thing over and done with like a year ago?

By: thedailygrowl

thedailygrowl — Sun, 30 May 2004 22:22:32 -0800

His book "The Grand Chessboard" I believe was very influential to the PNAC neo-con crowd although he is not one of them. His latest book "The Choice" harsh criticism of the Unilateral policies that got us in the mess. Troutfishing you summed it up succintly Brez is the cleaner! But he provided a template with that helped to make the mess.

By: Fat Buddha

Fat Buddha — Mon, 31 May 2004 01:45:46 -0800

Anyway, erm the part about Keitel was great. As far as the whole Iraq thing, who cares? Isn't the whole thing over and done with like a year ago? Irony, right?

By: sic

sic — Mon, 31 May 2004 02:03:32 -0800

When will the right wing smear campaign begin? 3-2-1 . . .

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Mon, 31 May 2004 02:36:56 -0800

I liked this speech that he (not Harvey Keitel) gave last October.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Mon, 31 May 2004 07:51:10 -0800

sic - you mean on this thread, or on Zbig ? As far as the thread goes, you'll notice that I haven't alerted their search spiders with the words "Iraq" or "Bush". But I don't think anyone's going to attack Zbig. He would have wholeheartedly endorsed many types of aggressive projections of American power provided those were done with some grace, forethought, and crucially, consensus achieved by backroom arm twisting sweetened by treats and kind public pronouncements. But now, he's moving in with a sharp blade, and chloroform, to neuter the hounds of war who've been pissing all over the US' next several decade's geopolitical prospects. ___________________________________ squirrel - I do read Trouthout (or pay attention to it's collected news articles, actually) although I occasionally get the urge to squish William Rivers Pitt, like a Warner Bros. cartoon character, with a huge wooden mallet. He'd just pop back up again and keep on talking. ____________________________________ Kablam - "So, can Brzezinski reasonably be described as a multilateralist, a globalist, and a proponent of the New World Order?......I think the answer is yes." : I think the answer is yes, and no as well. The "Grand Chessboard" was quite heavily pragmatic, in a Machiavellian way. Brzezinski might be described as a "multilateralist, a globalist, and a proponent of the New World Order", yes, but that is to miss the possibility that he is - foremost - a pragmatist. The difference between an ideologue and a pragmatist is that, while for the ideologue ideology pulls the cart, the pragmatist lets observed circumstances pull the cart, and chuckles to himself, or rolls his eyes, as those carts yoked to ideology are pulled over cliffs into the abyss. [ * drum roll, or cue Warner Bros. cartoon music * ] Jealousy ? Zbig is merely disgusted by the gawdawfull mess the Busholescents have made as they go through a learning curve process - of discovering that reality doesn't always conform especially well to inside-the-beltway think tank ideology - on the public dime (err...a little more than a dime) and with incalculable consequences. Brzezinski has watched the Bush Administration, watched and waited - cautious of squandering his political capital - for a certain point when 1) he was certain of the necessity and 2) his voice could potentially tip the balance. Now, he moves in for the kill .

By: kablam

kablam — Mon, 31 May 2004 09:55:54 -0800

troutfishing: "...moves in for the kill?" Kill what? Brzezinski has long fitted into the class of those not content to see the future unfold, but who want to control the future, to help bring about its "inevitable", always "inevitable", end, as they see it. And such people are *always* disappointed with the results, when what had been their ideal future materializes into a so-so, or not what they wanted at all, present. The difference is between demanding a static future, that only has to be 'managed', as opposed to a truly pragmatic outlook, that 'there will always be new and different problems, so there must always be new and better solutions. (And it most likely will be other people who think of them.)' Brzezinski's original problem was again that "...balance-of-power politics was out, and world-order politics was in." How easy, how understandable, and how wrong to generalize ALL of what goes on in world politics under two easy to understand catagories. Balance-of-power politics is still IN. As is world-order politics. And mercantilism. And Socialism. And Capitalism. And Vandalism vs. Civilization. et cetera, et cetera. In fact, the only thing that is *almost* out is Royalism. All fighting each other, and all the time. Which is why a true pragmatic never says, "look how you screwed up." They say, "how can we adapt the *current* situation to best advantage?"

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Mon, 31 May 2004 11:59:53 -0800

Kablam - Though I agree with much of what you've just said, I thin this is really very simple - Zbig wants the Bush crowd out. They've proved too dense. Sometimes the purely pragmatic thing to do is to pull the emergency brake before the train goes or a cliff or crashes from a damaged bridge down into a swamp filled with hungry crocodiles.