Die reine Wahrheit über dem Boot
Who, or what, is a Boot. Wikipedia gives us a cursory description:
Boot was born in 1969 in Moscow. His parents, both Russian Jews, later emigrated from the Soviet Union to Los Angeles, where he was raised. Boot earned a Bachelor’s Degree in History from the University of California, Berkeley in 1991, and a Master’s Degree in Diplomatic History from Yale University in 1992. He started his journalistic career writing columns for the Berkeley student newspaper The Daily Californian. He later stated that he believes he is the only conservative writer in that paper’s history. Boot and his family currently live in New York City.
A shorter description might be ‘Warmonger par excellence’…but that would be getting ahead of ourselves.
Having previously tossed brickbats at progressives and conservatives, we cannot overlook that political class known far and wide as Neo-Conservatives. Their title, though, is beyond me, as there is nothing conservative about them (Bombs away!) and little that seems to connote ‘neo’.
The rise of the neo-Cons (or Neo-Con Men), as they are affectionately known, is much like the rise of the machines in Arnold’s Terminator world. (And lovely little machines they appear to be). Neo-Cons and their origins have been widely discussed throughout the known universe. See this, for instance.
And dear little Max seems to be a paragon of NeoCon virtue.
Now this is nothing new, of course, but Robert Parry’s column brought this all back to mind. Just a sample:
Boot constructed what purported to be a historical narrative demonstrating why it was always a mistake for the U.S. government to trim back its standing army, arguing that such cutbacks caused troubles from the Whiskey Rebellion after the Revolutionary War to George W. Bush’s botched occupation of Iraq.
The lesson, according to Boot, is to maintain a very large military even after a major conflict ends and to view the current defense budget – which is approaching nearly half of what the entire world spends on military costs – as “a bargain considering the historic consequences of letting our guard down.”
And Boot is not just some obscure neocon hawk. He is Gen. David Petraeus’s BFF(Butt-Fucking Friend?). In one recently publicized e-mail exchange between them, they discussed how the general could back away from his congressional testimony which mildly criticized Israel. At the end of one e-mail, Petraeus thanked Boot with a sideways happy face made from a colon, a hyphen and a closed parenthesis, 🙂 .
Boot also is employed by the powerful Council on Foreign Relations, so his writings are treated with great respect in Washington opinion circles.
Anyway, butt-fucker or not, Max seems to have a certain caché, rating a column in that popular scandal tabloid known as the Washington Post. Ever the consummate diplomat, das Boot contributes this to the discussion:
If there were ever evidence that it’s impossible to learn from history — or at least that it’s difficult for politicians to do so — this is it. Before they rush to cut defense spending, lawmakers should consider the consequences of previous attempts to cash in on a “peace dividend.”
(Wasn’t it a Santana, Carlos?, who said that ‘Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it’? )
And the very first example he presents is the Whiskey Rebellion:
The Whiskey Rebellion, less commonly known as the Whiskey Insurrection, was a resistance movement in the western part of the United States in the 1790s, during the presidency of George Washington. The conflict was rooted in western dissatisfaction with various policies of the eastern-based national government. The name of the uprising comes from a 1791 excise tax on whiskey that was a central grievance of the westerners. The tax was a part of treasury secretary Alexander Hamilton’s program to centralize and fund the national debt. Wikipedia.
Said rebellion ‘might have been averted if the new republic had had an army and a navy that commanded the respect of prospective enemies, foreign and domestic.’ We especially like that ‘domestic’ part, as obviously that was the purpose of the Department of War (before it was euphemized to Department of Defense). Well, that will be next, I guess – using the armed forces to go out into the Land to collect taxes. While we are at it, maybe we can waterboard the evaders, just for the fun of it.
The Pièce de résistance of young Boot’s discourse on the pleasures of killing off those who displeasure one is this:
It might still make sense to cut the defense budget — if it were bankrupting us and undermining our economic well-being. But that’s not the case. Defense spending is less than 4 percent of gross domestic product and less than 20 percent of the federal budget. That means our armed forces are much less costly in relative terms than they were throughout much of the 20th century. Even at roughly $549 billion, our core defense budget is eminently affordable. It is, in fact, a bargain considering the historic consequences of letting our guard down.
It all sounds so reasonable – a bargain, even.
All das Boot has to do is help us out with some sort of cost/benefit analysis, which would no doubt convince us beyond all doubt that $549,000,000,000 is, indeed, as small price to pay to guarantee the pursuit of peace, security and happiness, as the Declaration declares (I think). And no doubt hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, Afghanis and other assorted sandniggers, ragheads and rugriders would agree, if they weren’t already dead.
[And although Parry does seem to pound a nail into the Boot on this one, it does surprise me a bit that a progressive, such as he, would deign to resort to original intent:
So, when the Founders opted for a Republic, they placed most of the power in the hands of the legislators in Congress, not with the chief executive, the President. The accompanying decision – to maintain a relatively modest professional army and navy – was deliberate, out of concern that otherwise the President might be tempted to use the military to assert dictatorial powers.
Now, if we could just get Progressives to agree to the rest of the Constitution.]
But back to the Boot-
As they teach us in the NFL, the best offense is a good defense, and you can never have too much defense, especially when it seems to be as defensively offensive as it is. Hey, what’s $549,000,000,000 or so, especially when it is not coming out of Boot’s booty.
But, you know, I’ll bet $549,000,000,000 that little Boot has a secret agenda. And it has nothing to do with defending the Indispensible Nation. Here is Boot at his ass-kicking best:
You would think that the United States was Nazi Germany preparing to launch a war of aggression on Poland based on a fabricated provocation. (Adolf Hitler’s Sept. 1, 1939, blitzkrieg was preceded by SS troops in Polish uniforms pretending to attack a German radio station on the border.) In reality, it is the United States and our allies that are the victims in the confrontation with Iran.
Faced with such a flagrant casus belli, not to mention President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s blood-curdling threats against our ally, Israel, the U.S. would be perfectly justified in hitting Iran now, before it acquires nuclear weapons. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that such an attack is the best strategy at the moment or the one that the administration is pursuing.
My best guess, and correct me if I am wrong, is that das Boot is more concerned about defending Israel than he is about defending the United States of America. If so, maybe he is the one that should cough up the necessary $549,000,000,000 to do so.
But it is time to sink das Boot, or give him the boot, or just send him to Tehran where he can exchange blood-curdling threats with Ahmadinejad. Just leave the rest of us in peace.