One of many examples, no doubt.
Why does C.D. publish the views of men inside the CIA, State Department, and military "sciences"?
When society's intellectuals begin to include military masterminds, it means that the culture of war has fully saturated all components of society.
Long ago I pointed out (and several LIFTED the observation) that all of the following were treated as war, or through the prism of warfare:
- The War on drugs
- The War on Cancer
- The War on poverty
- The War on illiteracy
- The War on the Black community
- The War on Mexican workers ("illegal" immigrants)
- The War on women (in a rape culture replete with endless streams of porn)
- The War on terror/terrorists (who now include whistle blowers, pesky reporters, those who document crimes, and whistle blowers)
When the purported vision and would-be insight of warriors are invited into Progressive forums (as bonafide intellectual currency), it is the Internet Version of the scene in the film, "Cabaret" where the uniformed Nazis were invited inside the Cabaret.
VERY dangerous. Therefore, when C.D. regularly features these individuals... I have to question the site owners' motives (or funding sources). I now feel the same way about Tom Engelhardt chiefly for 2 reasons:
First, he NEVER questions the Official Story for the events of 911.
Second, whether due to heavy handed editing, or choosing writers who sound a lot like himself, he pushes the idea that there's a flaw in HOW wars are waged in that they are not won. This line of "reasoning" obliterates two far more important prisms:
A. On what legal/moral basis were these wars begun (and continue the BUSINESS of mass murder)
B. Why it is that winning has long NOT proved the objective. To the contrary, what keeps the financial currency moving in the MIC'S (and its war profiteers') direction is that the wars remain SUSTAINED (therefore, winning would oppose this objective).