Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

Limbaugh’s Creative Accounting

I understand Rush Limbaugh has nominated George W. Bush for the next vacancy on Mount Rushmore because “the United States” has not been attacked since 9/11.  Okay, if you ignore the fact that more Americans have been killed in aggressive foreign wars since 9/11 than were killed on the day the World Trade Center and Pentagon were hit and that Osama bin Laden got what he was after: American imperial overreach and a financial hemorrhage that won’t be stanched.


MarkZ said...

One of the goals of the wars is to move the battlefield overseas. For the most part, this goal has been achieved, at least for now. Yes, it's meant the loss of american lives, but these are willing combatants as opposed to noncombatants. Even conservatives will often acknowledge the difference.

Of course, conservatives don't generally care about the loss of non-american lives, so the innocent brown victims are of no consequence. If you accept that hateful premise, and also accept the premise that there's no such thing as too much spending when it comes to "national defense", then Rush is probably correct -- these policies have reduced the likelihood of american civilian casualties (*relative* to the previous strategies).

So, I wouldn't say he's wrong or illogical. I'd say his differences are more axiomatic -- he's just a bigot who has no problem with a military-driven economy and curtailing freedoms in the name of "defense".

Kevin Carson said...

Lisa, I would like to buy your magic rock.

Sheldon Richman said...

MarkZ, Limbaugh's spin does not hold up. Bin Laden got his way, and the American people have paid a high price. As Eric Margolis puts it:

"He [bin Laden] repeatedly asserted that the only way to drive the U.S. from the Muslim world and defeat its satraps was by drawing Americans into a series of small but expensive wars that would ultimately bankrupt them. 'Bleeding the U.S.,' in his words."

So...we have al Qaeda right where it wants us.

Mike_Mac said...

I'm wondering if George W Bush ever apologized for letting 9-11 happen?

I have not heard it.....

Mike in MI