I read an expose article recently about the "October Surprise" --
where the Iranians were supposedly encouraged to prolong the hostage crisis
in as a ploy to help Reagan get elected.
It seemed to be an over-narrow expose, and the following questions
seem worth bringing up:
(1) The entire "hostage crisis" episode...
Wasn't the whole "crisis" staged from the beginning? Didn't the
embassy staff (much of it CIA) provide the clear intelligence that if the
Shah got sanctuary the U.S. a takeover would occur? Didn't Kissinger
himself, knight errant of the New Order, take on the sales-job with Carter
to obtain that very sanctuary? And wasn't Carter deftly duped into the
helicopter-rescue fiasco, again by the CIA? Wasn't the whole "crisis" in
fact a carefully orchestrated nail-in-the-coffin of liberalism itself,
insuring Carter's defeat, and setting the stage for the neo-liberal
Reagan-mafia coup? Wasn't the October bit just an isolated transaction in
the overall production? And what a grand production it was! "Good
evening, this is day one hundred and thirty seven of the hostage crisis,
and here's the news..."
(2) The awesome switch in media-attitude-toward-The-President with Clinton...
Do you recall the deference and respect that Reagan was always
afforded by the press? There'd be an embarrassed silence if anyone spoke
boldly during a press conference, and Ronnie would turn to the offendor
with a pained grimace and put him in his place with a quip, to appreciative
chuckles. When his administration was under investigation for lying to
Congress, mis-appropriating funds, trading with the enemy, defying the
Constitution, and dealing drugs (ie., ContraGate) -- he never even bothered
to comment, and the press left him alone, while they turned North into a
hero. Reagan was caught with his hand in the cookie jar, bigtime,
repeatedly, and it was all just allowed to pass.
With Clinton, the media culture vis a vis The Presidency underwent
a 100% brain transplant. The change in attitude was so extreme, and so
instantaneous, that I can't believe it hasn't been written about more.
Suddenly underpaid taxes for babysitters became grounds for criticizing an
appointee! Whereas under Reagan, a fellow could be under felony
indictment, but if Reagan said "The boy has done nothing wrong" then that
was the end of it. The press has played cat-and-mouse daily with Clinton,
batting him about for the sport, while they approachd the GREAT
COMMUNICATOR as a courtier would Louix XIV. Lest we get the cart before
the horse, please note: the deference-of-approach is what CREATED the myth
of Regan being a charismatic unifier.
The ultimate irony, of course, is the Whitewater investigation,
especially the thread on the central-america drug trading. For chrissake
any such operation would obviously be a federal affair, run by the CIA.
The pilots would have to land somewhere, and the interesting question is
why Clinton was so accomodating of his to-be-rival's infrastructure
requirements. Amazing that the deferrence to the Republican past can
continue while the contempt-for-the-president mentality rages wrt Clinton.
Even more amazing that this contrast goes unremarked.
---
It is obvious which constituency motivates and benefits from all of
the above. The same one which owns the media.
Regards,
Richard
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - Wexford, Ireland
Cyberlib: www | ftp --> ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore
~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~--~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=~
Share: