See the all-new STEVE PIECZENIK TALKS at StevePieczenik.com
THAT WAS A TERRIFIC EXPLANATION OF THE "STATE OF THE UNION"!Use it for an audition!If idiot, Mike Rogers can secure a lucrative contract, you certainly can!Rogers is a welfare deadbeat, & a pathological liar.http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140512/POLITICS03/305120025/Rep-Mike-Rogers-hopes-smart-debate-radio-show1. Why not YOU teach an MIT CLASS?The students are in desperate need of a CRASH COURSE IN NATIONAL CORRUPTION & LOOTING.2. What happened to my country?3. George poppy Bush fought in WWII . Why did he throw Patriotism in the trash can?...For the greatest deadly SIN of GREED?4.What is he leaving behind for his GRANDKIDS?5. Was he clueless or under mind control?6. You never explained WHY aka OBAMA was installed after the other 2 stooges, Bush '43 & Clinton.7. Other than the dynasty angle , who is putting in these puppets? It had to be a small collective not the baking or military industrial complex.Certainly, not the military.Alex interrupted you while you were naming who should be indicted.All that was audible was Jarrett.8. Who else?BRENNAN should be tried for Treason, but I fear Gowdy, like Roberts, will be threatened to shut the investigation down before November.9. Can Gowdy expand, like an independent counsel, his area of discovery to include obama/Shabbazz fraudulent identity? His counterfeit selective service registration, etc. His treasonous Violation of amendments 1,4,5,6?I believe his biological mother is living in the White House, which is a great source of acrimony for him & his wife.After all he dismissed her FBI fugitive case ex parte in Dc federal court .On June 17, 2009 shortly after usurping the presidency.http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/dt/elizabeth-anna-dukehttp://www.montgomeryblairsibley.com/library/DukeOrder.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Ann_Duke
What happened to your country is that it was never what you thought it was.
I just don't agree with Dr.P's view that corporations, the wealthy, and government bureaucrats and politicians were more concerned with the national interest and less concerned with their own careers in the past.What's changed is that globalization has made it possible to leave the borders. But I think people were just as concerned with their own careers at the expense of everyone else in the past.Remember, it was Eisenhower who said when speaking of James Killian at MIT that,"Only Killian and his people at MIT are the only people I've seen in government who are more interested with what's right for the country rather than themselves."As for MIT when I was there in the early 1980s in the heat of the Reagan "Evil Empire" dayz of KAL whatever and the Pershing II missile crisis and Strategic Defense Initiative....Some of the Professors there like Rathjens, Ruina, Meyers and Miller were excellent scholars and engineers. However they didn't have any experience in Covert Action or psychological warfare or any of the things that I found mattered. They lived in ivory towers of scholarship with little direct experience in government much less intelligence work or politics. One of the people who was in and out while I was there was Danny Ellsberg, and his view of government was from "studies" at such places as Rand, etc. The "defense intelligensia" was out of touch, and frankly little I learned at MIT helped me whatsoever. I was great in understanding the specifics about strategic nuclear weapons, the engineering of the w80 warhead, the history of the CPSU and so forth. But this was all policy analysis stuff. I guess that's what MIT was for. I could give a great speech about countermeasures for ballistic missile defense and so forth. And I suppose broader things like the theory of the causes of war, etc., which was just too "theoretical."Once I got into the world I discovered that the causes of war are about 98% emotional, as are most issues in international conflict.It's a huge mistake to try to use rational models and look for grand strategy in these things.In the imperial era there was grand strategy but not in the modern age after 1904.The Great War was started AND CONTINUED for reasons of pride, honor, etc., upon which all other issues of national interest and even life itself was thrown away.All the wars since have been exactly the same.There are some exceptions though. Israel and Iran are both pretty rational and ruthless in their policies. Pakistan is also. Regional powers are rational and purposeful in their long term strategies, but the superpowers or great powers are not.
Remember it's always been considered that the greatest threat from China was always Taiwan, because of emotional reasons.It was the failure in understanding the emotional motivations of the communists in Vietnam which spelled the doom of America's strategy of countervailing their efforts.And the whole American commitment to preventing communists from winning in Vietnam was based on emotion. The Americans, particularly the ones I knew personally, were willing to do anything to prevent the communists from winning simply as a matter of pride.
Remember in the Second World War in the US there was tremendous profiteering, fraud, people shirking the draft, etc......That war was just like every other American war, and there was much ambivolence and opportunism involved. Things weren't like you see in "Saving Private Ryan" or other stupid hollywood movies.60% of men under arms had to be drafted, and most of them tried to get out of combat duty.Remember was well that before the US entered the war that it was ARMS MANUFACTURERS who were cooperating with the British MI-6/SIS in agitating the American public into war with Germany.US aviation companies and arms manufacturers wanted a war simply so they could sell more products to the government.They didn't give a shit about American national interests or anyone elses but there own.
Look at how badly the US military performed in Korea in 1950 and you'll see that the reasons why the US won WWII was because of having powerful allies, tactical air power, and overwelming firepower and logistics....not leadership or morale or competence.
I think CIA officer Jack Devine was at the Kennedy , School or someplace. The Kennedy School likes to have people with real world experience. But Devine was what kind of officer? He played a key role in the coup in Chile in 1973 and then was key in Afghanistan.....People like him always lie about what happened and what they did.
When I worked with Walt Rostow I caught him in lies constantly. He was too careless and wouldn't even remember what lies he's told me before, and many of his yarns were just perposterous. He viewed himself as a propagandist, a polemicist and a liar to the pubic, but it was ridiculous that he lied also to myself and everyone else. He was just a patholgical liar and lied to everyone all the time, and I don't know if he even knew or cared what the facts actually were.
Look at the British actions in the Boer War, the Falklands War, WWI and WWII and you'll see this crusading emotional motivation in which the population cries out for justice and to show the bad guys a lesson!Americans are the same way, and you can see this bullshit in the American/British criticisms of Germany leading up to Sept. 1940, and you can see the same stupid American media and politicians crying for war over Ukraine today.The surest way to have a war is with attitudes like these because most of the time the public and press is simply misunderstanding what the other side is doing and what their motives are.In my day public support for the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan was very high because Americans falsely thought that the Russian motives were aggressive rather than defensive, which was the opposite of the truth.
I do agree with Dr.P in that the last three Presidents have been utterly incompetent. Most Presidents have been incompetent, such as Truman, etc. But Clinton, Bush and Obama have no knowledge or even curiosity in foreign matters whatsoever.In contrast John Kennedy carried at least four or five books around with him constantly, always reading about such matters.This was a life-long habit. Look at his memos for example and you will see he's often referring to similar problems in history, and cites the Boer war, the Crimean war, WWI or the Russo-Japanese war of 1904.................Kennedy was well-read and understood the modern history of war and conflict.Could you imagine Clinton, W Bush or Obama referring to the Boer war or the Russo-Japanese war to cite examples of anything??????
Just because Kennedy liked to have sex with a different girl every day didn't mean he was any less of an intellectual; it actually meant he was more of one. Kennedy was perhaps the most intellectual of any President the US has ever had. He was very "bookish."
In the Cuban missile crisis strategic assessments reported that the Russian missiles did nothing to effect the strategic balance.[see Garthoff, A Walk Through the Cold War]However American officials treated the matter with exaggerationfor all the emotional reasons which they thought the public would adopt when they found out about it. Therefore in negotiations the Administration took a hard line, and at the beginning dismissed out of hand the option of simply trading US missiles in Turkey for those in Cuba because that would be considered a humiliation.Yet in the end the compromised which prevented war was exactly that solution, made in secret because of the emotional impact it would have had on the American public and military.
Human beings are emotional creatures, and their motives are based on emotion far, far more than they consider to be the case.What functions as rationality in decision making is almost always rationalities and psuedo-rational justifications for emotional factors.Every advertising professional or salesman knows that, and it's as true of intellectuals as the man on the street.
The problem with professionals and intellectuals is that they aren't even aware of the emotional basis of their views.
Here's your interview, one of your best!http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AIlLyDRMOrM
MITmichael keepin it real.Thank you.