Sorties du placard: Après Obama, … Lennon et Jagger ! (Closet republicans them all ?)

https://jcdurbant.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/3d453-obamamoreofthesame.jpgSi on n’est pas communiste à 20 ans, c’est qu’on a pas de cœur. Si on l’est toujours à 40 ans, c’est qu’on a pas de tête. Anonyme
John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on Jimmy Carter. Former assistant to Lennon
I was slightly surprised by all the people that were still so anti her and had all this residual resentment. In the 80s or early 90s I met her a couple of times. I don’t want to talk about what we talked about, especially now that everybody else is blabbing about her. But I reminded her that her first attempt at entering parliament was in Dartford, where I grew up. I remembered her when I was ten or something and she was campaigning. She was called Margaret Roberts then. She struck me as a peculiar politician. She was quite brittle. Most other politicians like to be liked. Most of them, even if you don’t like them before you meet them, are still likeable when you meet them, because that’s their gig – to be liked, and by people like me. And I know she had lessons to make her voice less strident, which is fine, but I don’t really think she changed for anyone. Mick Jagger (on Thatcher)
Critics suspect Obama is a closet Muslim. But maybe his real secret is that he’s a closet Republican. Steve Chapman
The problem with the NSA monitoring is not just Obama’s hypocrisy of once decrying elements of the Patriot Act only to embrace them, or indeed expand upon them. By now, everyone knows that what Obama demagogued in 2008 was what he adopted in 2009. Nor is the problem that the U.S. does not have a need to monitor the communications of potential terrorists who plan attacks through the Internet, e-mail, and cell phones. Rather, the dilemma for the Obama administration is that the apparently vastly expanded NSA surveillance came at a time when, in high-profile terrorist cases — the Tsarnaev bombing, Major Hasan’s murder spree — U.S. officials did not use the intelligence in their possession to preempt terrorist acts. (…) And of course the NSA disclosures do not appear in a vacuum, but amid a multitude of other scandals in which the administration’s initial explanations have proven deceptive. (…) the common denominator in these transgressions is that they all predated the 2012 election, were kept secret from the public, and emerged only once Barack Obama was safely elected. In that regard, they were successful operations that ensured that the voters went to the polls with the impression that al-Qaeda–inspired terror was rare, Libya was secure, the Tea Party had deflated and disappeared, and their unheralded president was, as the good leaks showed, in the shadows successfully fighting terrorists by drone, computer, SEAL teams, and double agents. Victor Davis Hanson

Après Obama,… Lennon et Jagger ?

Après les fracassantes révélations sur le crypto-bushisme du président Obama

Ne voilà-t-il pas que l’on (re)découvre ….

Le crypto-reaganisme de John Lennon …

Et le crypto-thatcherisme de Mick Jagger !

Lennon was a closet Republican: Assistant

WENN.com

June 28, 2011

John Lennon was a closet Republican, who felt a little embarrassed by his former radicalism, at the time of his death – according to the tragic Beatles star’s last personal assistant.

Fred Seaman worked alongside the music legend from 1979 to Lennon’s death at the end of 1980 and he reveals the star was a Ronald Reagan fan who enjoyed arguing with left-wing radicals who reminded him of his former self.

In new documentary Beatles Stories, Seaman tells filmmaker Seth Swirsky Lennon wasn’t the peace-loving militant fans thought he was while he was his assistant.

He says, « John, basically, made it very clear that if he were an American he would vote for Reagan because he was really sour on (Democrat) Jimmy Carter.

« He’d met Reagan back, I think, in the 70s at some sporting event… Reagan was the guy who had ordered the National Guard, I believe, to go after the young (peace) demonstrators in Berkeley, so I think that John maybe forgot about that… He did express support for Reagan, which shocked me.

« I also saw John embark in some really brutal arguments with my uncle, who’s an old-time communist… He enjoyed really provoking my uncle… Maybe he was being provocative… but it was pretty obvious to me he had moved away from his earlier radicalism.

« He was a very different person back in 1979 and 80 than he’d been when he wrote Imagine. By 1979 he looked back on that guy and was embarrassed by that guy’s naivete. »

Voir aussi:

Mick Jagger, Rock Icon, Closet Conservative?

Breitbart News

12 Jun 2013

The Rolling Stones came of age during the Flower Power movement of the 1960s, a time when questioning authority was the order of the day.

Now, lead singer Mick Jagger tells a British publication that his politics don’t align with that era’s progressive bent. He even shared his disgust over the reaction to Margaret Thatcher’s death in England earlier this year.

In a frank interview with Q Magazine, the 69-year-old appears to have revealed that he is a closet Conservative after decades of refusing to publicly disclose his political allegiances.

The Rolling Stones frontman, who was knighted in 2002, admitted having at least two one-to-one meetings with Lady Thatcher in the 1980s, and also revealed he was left stunned by the negative reaction to the former prime minister’s death this year.

Voir également:

Mick, his meetings with Maggie and how ballet keeps him fit at 69: Rolling Stones frontman makes frank admissions in interview

Sir Mick has admitted to at least two one-to-one meetings with Baroness Thatcher

He admitted being impressed by the Tory leader who ‘didn’t change for anyone’

Simon Cable

Daily Mail

11 June 2013

Back in his 1960s heyday, he was idolised as the ultimate hellraising rock and roll rebel.

But Sir Mick Jagger’s anti-establishment credentials have been dealt something of a blow after the singer confessed he enjoyed meetings with the late Margaret Thatcher.

His admission that he relies on ballet to help him stay in shape might not do too much for his wild image either.

In a frank interview with Q Magazine, the 69-year-old appears to have revealed that he is a closet Conservative after decades of refusing to publicly disclose his political allegiances.

The Rolling Stones frontman, who was knighted in 2002, admitted having at least two one-to-one meetings with Lady Thatcher in the 1980s, and also revealed he was left stunned by the negative reaction to the former prime minister’s death this year.

The singer has also admitted being impressed by the Tory leader because she ‘didn’t change for anyone’.

He said: ‘I was slightly surprised by all the people that were still so anti her and had all this residual resentment.

‘In the 80s or early 90s I met her a couple of times. I don’t want to talk about what we talked about, especially now that everybody else is blabbing about her.

‘But I reminded her that her first attempt at entering parliament was in Dartford, where I grew up.

‘I remembered her when I was ten or something and she was campaigning. She was called Margaret Roberts then.

‘She struck me as a peculiar politician. She was quite brittle. Most other politicians like to be liked.

‘Most of them, even if you don’t like them before you meet them, are still likeable when you meet them, because that’s their gig – to be liked, and by people like me.

‘And I know she had lessons to make her voice less strident, which is fine, but I don’t really think she changed for anyone.’

The star also revealed details of his tough fitness regime, which involves training up to six days a week in a bid to maintain his 28in waist and prepare him for the 12 miles he is estimated to cover during a typical stage show.

He swears by ballet to help his balance, and also studies yoga and pilates.

His routine also includes running eight miles a day, swimming, kickboxing and cycling. The star’s workouts are masterminded by Torje Eike, a Norwegian personal trainer whose previous clients include Olympic athletes and national football teams.

Sir Mick said: ‘I train five or six days a week, but I don’t go crazy.

‘I alternate between gym work and dancing, then I do sprints, things like that. I’m training for stamina.’

Ahead of a show, he says his routine involves ‘bed early the night before, about 2am. Up at 10am the next morning.

Any earlier, you’ll be too relaxed by showtime.’

The Rolling Stones are currently in the middle of their 50th anniversary tour, and are scheduled to play at the Glastonbury Festival and in Hyde Park this summer.

Sir Mick was born into a middle-class family, with his father, Basil ‘Joe’ Jagger, working as a PE teacher, and his mother, Eva, an active member of the Conservative Party.

However, he became a renowned anti-establishment figure in the 1960s as a result of his band’s hellraising behaviour, which included drug busts and sex scandals.

Voir encore:

Is Obama a Republican?

Steve Chapman

2010

Anyone who was hoping the current administration would bring a modest downsizing of the nation’s defense establishment and global military role has to be feeling like Bernard Madoff’s investors. Escalation is underway in Afghanistan, the Army is expanding, and the Pentagon is on the all-you-can-eat diet.

The American political system is set up to persuade citizens that they must choose between starkly different policies. In reality, campaigns are mostly a showy exercise in what Sigmund Freud called the “narcissism of small differences.”

When it comes to defense, history suggests that the two major parties offer a choice on the order of McDonald’s and Burger King. Anyone looking back 50 years from now at objective indicators would have trouble identifying a meaningful difference between the current president and the last one.

For that matter, it’s easy to assume that when President Obama began addressing national security policy, he accidentally picked up John McCain’s platform instead of his own. Critics suspect Obama is a closet Muslim. But maybe his real secret is that he’s a closet Republican.

The administration and its opponents both make much of its plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces from Iraq by this summer and to pull the rest out by 2012. What both prefer to forget is that the previous president agreed to the same timetable. Obama’s policy on the war he once opposed is not similar to Bush’s: It is identical.

Afghanistan? Dick Cheney faults the president for allegedly failing to “talk about how we win,” as if Obama were doing far less than the Bush administration. In fact, Obama has agreed to more than triple the U.S. troop presence in a war that his predecessor only talked about winning. McCain called for a “surge” in Afghanistan like the one in Iraq. Obama has given it to him.

Republicans nonetheless entertain the fantasy that at heart Obama is a pacifist, bent on gutting our military might and naively trusting the good faith of our adversaries. Bush White House adviser Karl Rove recently complained that under this administration, “defense spending is being flattened: Between 2009 and 2010, military outlays will rise 3.6 percent while nondefense discretionary spending climbs 12 percent.”

Read that again: Rove believes that when defense spending rises 3.6 percent, it’s not really rising.

Why? Because the rest of the budget is growing faster. By that logic, if I gained 10 pounds over the holidays but Rove gained 20, I’d need to have my pants taken in.

As it is, the United States spends more on defense than all the other countries on Earth combined. Yet we persist in thinking of ourselves as endangered by foreign countries that are military pipsqueaks.

Obama shares this view. He thinks the only problem with the American military is there isn’t enough of it. He’s expanding the size of both the Army and the Marine Corps. That’s right: After we begin leaving Iraq, the biggest military undertaking in two decades, we won’t need a smaller force. We’ll need a bigger one.

Sean Hannity accuses the president of “cutting back on defense,” but he must be holding his chart upside down. The basic Pentagon budget (excluding money for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars) is scheduled to go up every year.

Over the next five years, defense spending, adjusted for inflation, would be higher than it was in the last five years, when Fox News commentators did not complain about inadequate funding. That’s not counting the increases requested by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to provide an additional boost of nearly $60 billion over those five years.

What all this suggests is that Iraq and Afghanistan have taught us nothing about the folly of invading other countries and trying to turn them into modern democracies. The essential theme of the administration’s national security policy is reflexive continuity. Why else would we need a bigger military except to do more of the same?

So we are stuck with the consensus that has ruled Washington for decades — the expensive, aggressive policy that has inflated the federal budget and bogged us down in two unsuccessful wars while furnishing an endless, priceless recruiting message for Islamic terrorists.

Too bad. None of this would have happened if Barack Obama had been elected.

Steve Chapman blogs daily at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/steve_chapman. To find out more about Steve Chapman, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at http://www.creators.com.

Voir enfin:

Is Barack Obama a Republican Realist?

Leon Hadar

American Conservative

January 14, 2013

During the 2012 presidential campaign some of my libertarian friends would revert to the following talking-point: there is really no major difference between the foreign-policy agendas of Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Obama has proved to be very different in his diplomacy and national security from the kind of peacenik he was portrayed as during his 2008 run for the White House, with the surge in Afghanistan, confrontation with Iran, military intervention in Libya, failure to challenge Israel, etc.

The bottom line was that Obama and Romney were supposedly cut from the same foreign-policy cloth, with both supporting an interventionist military approach in the Middle East and elsewhere. Therefore libertarians and conservatives who were critical of the neoconservative policies that had been promoted by President George W. Bush should not be fooled in the way some of them were in 2008 and should refrain from casting their ballot for Obama.

In fact, in advancing this Obama-and-Romney-are-foreign-policy-twins narrative, Republicans urged libertarians to vote for the Romney-Ryan ticket. The two Republicans were, after all, advocating more free-market oriented economic policies than the Democratic White House occupant. Many libertarians did that, or supported the presidential candidacy of Gary Johnson.

In retrospect, my personal decision to vote for Obama (which was denounced at the time) makes even more sense to me today, following Obama’s decision to nominate Chuck Hagel as his Defense Secretary than it did last November.

Consider this post-Romney victory counterfactual: president-elect Romney nominates John Bolton as his next Secretary of State (after the neocons veto his first choice, Bob Zoellick) and Joe Lieberman as his Pentagon chief (with the Democrats less hostile to this “bipartisan” nominee than the Republicans are in their opposition to the selection of Hagel).

And by the way, the budget deals negotiated between the Romney White House and Congress look not very different from those approved by Congress under Obama.

The point is that American presidents make a difference on issues of war and peace, while they have much less influence on economic and domestic policies. W. could force Congress and the American people into Iraq. He could not force them into privatizing Social Security.

But let me make one thing clear. I voted for Obama in order to deprive Romney and the members of his foreign policy clique from getting us into new military adventures and quagmires that would have made the invasion of Iraq look like a picnic on the shores of the Euphrates. It was either Romney or Obama (and I consider voting for a third-party presidential candidate a form of electoral masturbation: momentarily gratifying but not the real thing).

At the same time, I never considered Obama to be a non-interventionist or a member of the peace movement. In fact, both in terms of his public statements and policies, Obama reminded me of President George H.W. Bush and his top “realist” foreign-policy advisors James Baker and Brent Scrowcroft: favoring pragmatism and a muddling-through approach over the pursuit of grand designs and ideological crusades; selective and preferring short military engagements over full-blown wars; Teddy Roosevelt over Woodrow Wilson.

Indeed, much of Obama’s cautious response to the so-called “Arab Spring” recalled Bush I’s efforts to deal with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of Communism. And the decision to kick Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait but not to invade Iraq provided a clear contrast between Bush I’s Realpolitik and the messianic foreign policy of Bush II. From that perspective, Obama’s leading-from-behind in Libya, Syria, and the rest of the Middle East, coupled with the acceleration of the military withdrawal from Iraq (and apparently from Afghanistan), are pure Bush I, which explains why many neocons hated Papa Bush with the same intensity with which they now despise Obama.

My more noninterventionist approach explained why I opposed the first Gulf War and the American invasion of Panama, although I applauded the reluctance by Bush I to intervene in the evolving civil war in the former Yugoslavia and his pressure on the then Likud government of Israel to halt the settlements buildup in the West Bank. I wish the father and not the son would have been occupying the White House after 9/11.

With the selection of Republican Hagel, an intellectual heir to the Baker-Scrowcroft Realpolitik tradition, Obama has taken a major step toward transforming his presidency into a replica of the administration of George H.W. Bush, at least when it comes to foreign policy.

In a way, much of what Obama has been advocating on domestic policy is not very different from what a Bush I administration (or Nixon, Ford or Eisenhower) would be doing, ranging from raising taxes, reforming immigration policy, or protecting the environment. Obama, in short, is not a socialist or a even a social-democrat, just a good old centrist Republican.

Leon Hadar, a Washington-based journalist and foreign policy analyst, is the author of Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East [1].

Un commentaire pour Sorties du placard: Après Obama, … Lennon et Jagger ! (Closet republicans them all ?)

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :