AMERICA IN GRIP OF MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

Finally, the issue of the State Department verses the Defense Department is making the news. Admittedly, it is not dramatic and making headlines. It is too complex an issue for political operatives and TV talking heads to reduce to bumper sticker logic; therefore, it does not receive the public scrutiny it deserves. The struggle appears economic. The media buries the story in the rhetoric surrounding the Benghazi attack. It is really much more than that. The House of Representatives controls our nation’s purse strings. When budget time rolls around, Democrats and Republicans whose home district has defense contractors vote to appropriate more money to Defense Department: job, jobs, and more jobs. Virtually every legislative district in the United States has a defense contractor of some sort; therefore, the House votes to appropriate great excess of money to the Admirals and Generals in the Pentagon. This is done openly in spite of the fact that it is blatantly wrong.  As an example of the openness, both Republicans and Democrats in the House wanted to appropriate more money than even the pentagon wants. The only opposition comes from a few representatives from districts that have radically progressive constituencies that overcome the radical hawk bias.

Then Benghazi happened, which exposed some inside dealings. The State Department had requested that the legislature provide economic support to protect our embassies and consulates. Of course, they did not receive what they needed because of the “budget deficit”; the House cut the request. This happened at the same time the House of Representative wanted to give the Pentagon more money than they had requested in spite of the “budget deficit”. It also happened just before the Benghazi attack in Libya. The Republicans led by viper McCain and his sycophant Lindsey Graham struck from a coiled and well-practiced position; they attacked Susan Rice in a clear attempt to shift the blame from the Republicans in the House of Representatives to the State Department via the hated peace keeping organization, the United Nations.  Now we have an inquiry into the attack led by an Admiral that blames the States Department for not defending the Consulate. The Admiral made such revealing remarks as saying the “Consulate was not adequately defended”. Daaaaah; we know that. We could go to the news networks and read their report on the incident and find that Benghazi was the only consulate in the World attacked by Al Qaeda, while every other one in the Muslim world was under assault by people upset over a film believed to be unfavorable to Allah.

Does it surprise you that this is not what the CIA report says? Need I remind the reader General David Petraeus’ headed the CIA, at the time?

Conclusion: At the urging of an ex fighter pilot (McCain) an Air Force Colonel
(Graham), an event investigated by the CIA headed by General (Petraeus), looked into a “defense” failure at an American consulate in a special hearing chaired by an Admiral (Mullen). The conclusion was that all the blame falls on the State Department. What is the immediate message in all of this? The Pentagon has control of all American international negotiations. The next message is that America is in the firm grip of the “Military Industrial Complex”; it me to have to admit the obvious: our economy would crash is we did not have the pentagon.