@BretStephensNYT on the ‘Real Russian Scandal’. Committed Observer points to two American movies, as demonstrative of this Neo-Con’s ‘other’ historical antecedents.

The reader of Mr. Stephens latest essay portentously titled “The Real Russia Scandal’ has to be unimpressed as he restates the ‘evidence’ of Russian meddling in the American election, and it corollary of Trump and his minions being active co-conspirators with Putin. Yet the whole of Stephens essay rests on leaks from the CIA and other National Security agencies and ‘reports’ from The Washington Post, a newspaper owned by Jeff Bezos, a contractee of the CIA. Not to speak of the notorious liars Clapper and Brennan, or of Hillary Clinton’s loud proclamations of that Russian meddling, allied to the myth of American innocence.

But never mind those ascertainable facts of the political present. Mr Stephens writes inept political propaganda. The animus of the Neo-Conservatives to Russia has deep roots that date back to the late 30’s, and his intellectual precursors.  Mr. Stephens reference to his 2006 Premature Anti-Russianism in the Wall Street Journal is evidence of the long duration of that Neo-Conservative perpetual bellicosity. Note too that these Neo-Cons, like Stephens and Wm. Kristol beat the war drum without any military experience, that might just temper, or at the least, lead to a kind of diplomatic restraint/rationalism.

The reader need only look to American popular culture, for the historical characters that reflects the Cold War mentality re-expressed by Stephens. Look to United States Air Force Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper in Stanley Kubrick movie Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bombscript by Stanley Kubrick, Terry Southern, Peter George.  Or to Sidney Lumet’s  Fail Safe  script by Walter Bernstein
Peter George and the character of Dr. Groeteschele.

Committed Observer


About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.' https://www.lrb.co.uk/v15/n20/perry-anderson/diary
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.