In the 1970 film, Patton, General George S. Patton is a man driven by his obsession to be the best field commander in the war—and to be recognized for it.
And he views similarly egotistical British General Bernard Montgomery as a rival for that latter achievement.
So, in Algeria, he conjures up a plan that will sideline “Monty” while he, Patton, defeats the Germans–and bags the glory.
The trick lies in throwing a sumptuous dinner—in the middle of the North African desert—for a visiting British general: Harold Alexander.
George C. Scott as George S. Patton
As Patton (George C. Scott, in an Oscar-winning performance) tells his aide: “I want to give a dinner for General Alexander. I want to get to him before Montgomery does. I want the finest food and the best wine available. Everything.”
The aide pulls off the dinner–where, indeed, “the finest food and the best wine” are on full display, along with attentive waiters and a candelabra.
So think about it:
- In the middle of the desert
- while American and British forces are forced to subsist on C-rations
- and are under repeated air attack by the Luftwaffe
- and tank attack by the Afrika Korps
a handful of ultra-pampered American and British military officers find the time—and luxuries—to throw themselves a fine party.
Now, fast-forward from Algeria in 1943 to Washington, D.C. in 2016.
Returning to Congress after their traditional summer recess, House Republicans planned to cut $23 billion in food stamps for the poor. This would include include ending waivers that allow some adults to get temporary assistance, while they are in school or training for a job.
The cuts included drug tests of applicants and tougher work rules. As Republicans see it: There’s no point in “helping” the poor if you can’t humiliate them.
The food stamp program, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, served more than 46 million Americans and cost $74 billion in 2015.
Republicans claimed the program was unbearably expensive at $74.1 billion a year.
Meanwhile, Republicans were eager to spend billions of dollars for another project: An unnecessary war with Syria.
One of these right-wingers was Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard—and one of the leading instigators of the 2003 war with Iraq.
Bill Kristol
He—like senior officials on the George W. Bush administration—falsely claimed that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and planned to use them against the United States.
Another Kristol lie: Hussein planned 9/11 with Osama bin Laden.
He has never apologized for either lie—or the resulting war that killed 4,487 American soldiers and wounded another 32,226.
In a September, 2013 column, Kristol called for a return to slaughter—not only in Syria but Iran as well:
“…Soon after voting to authorize the use of force against the Assad regime, Republicans might consider moving an authorization for the use of force against the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
“They can explain that Obama’s dithering in the case of Syria shows the utility of unequivocally giving him the authority to act early with respect to Iran.”
Former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice—who also lied the nation into the needless 2003 Iraq war—was another big promoter of “give war a chance:”
“My fellow Americans, we do not have a choice. We cannot be reluctant to lead–and one cannot lead from behind.”
Among Republican U.S. Senators calling for war were John McCain (Arizona) and Lindsey Graman (South Carolina), who issued a joint statement:
“Using stand-off weapons, without boots on the ground, and at minimal risk to our men and women in uniform, we can significantly degrade Assad’s air power and ballistic missile capabilities and help to establish and defend safe areas on the ground.
“In addition, we must begin a large-scale effort to train and equip moderate, vetted elements of the Syrian opposition with the game-changing weapons they need to shift the military balance against [Syrian dictator Bashar] Assad’s forces.”
Except that there were no “moderate, vetted elements” of the Syrian opposition. The opposition was just as murderous as the Assad regime—and eager to replace one dictator with another.
In addition: A major weapon for “degrading Assad’s air power” would be Tomahawk Cruise missiles. A single one of these costs $1,410,000.
Firing of a Tomahawk Cruise missile
A protracted missile strike would have rained literally billions of dollars’ worth of American missiles on Syria.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon was spending about $27 million a week to maintain the increased U.S. Navy presence in the Mediterranean Sea and Middle East region to keep watch over Syria and be prepared to strike.
Navy officials said it cost about $25 million a week for the carrier group and $2 million a week for each destroyer.
* * * * *
Is there a lesson to be learned from all this?
Yes.
Powerful people—whether generals, politicians or the wealthy—will always find abundant money and resources available for projects they consider important.
It’s only when it comes to projects that other people actually need that the powerful will claim there is, unfortunately, a cash shortage.
Bureaucracybuster's Blog 
2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, 2020 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, ABC NEWS, ALTERNET, AMERICABLOG, AP, BABY BOOMER RESISTANCE, BARACK OBAMA, BBC, BILL KRISTOL, BLOOMBERG, BUZZFEED, CBS NEWS, CNN, CROOKS AND LIARS, DAILY KOS, FIVETHIRTYEIGHT, GEORGE W. BUSH, HARPER’S MAGAZINE, HITLER LOYALTY OATH, HOLOCAUST, HUFFINGTON POST, IRAN, IRAQ, IRAQ WAR, JANUARY 6 COUP ATTEMPT, JOHN MCCAIN, JOSEPH BIDEN, JOSEPHUS, LINDSEY GRAHAM, MEDIA MATTERS, MOTHER JONES, MOVEON, MSNBC, NBC NEWS, NEW REPUBLIC, NEWSDAY, NEWSWEEK, NOTRE DAME CATHEDRAL, NOTRE DAME CATHEDRAL FIRE, NPR, NUCLEAR WEAPONS, OSAMA BIN LADEN, PBS NEWSHOUR, PENTAGON, PHILLIPPE MARTINEZ, PIERRE DERRIEN, POLITICO, POLITICUSUSA, RAW STORY, REPUBLICANS, REUTERS, SALON, SEATTLE TIMES, SLATE, SUPPLEMENTAL NUTRITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (SNAP), SYRIA, TALKING POINTS MEMO, THE ATLANTIC, THE CHICAGO SUN-TIMES, THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE DAILY BEAST, THE DAILY BLOG, THE GUARDIAN, THE HILL, THE HUFFINGTON POST, THE INTERCEPT, THE LOS ANGELES TIMES, THE NATION, THE NEW REPUBLIC, THE NEW YORK TIMES, THE NEW YORKER, THE PENTAGON, THE VILLAGE VOICE, THE WASHINGTON POST, THINKPROGRESS, TIME, TOMAHAWK CRUISE MISSILES, TRUTHDIG, TRUTHOUT, TWO POLITICAL JUNKIES, U.S. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, UPI, USA TODAY, WEEKLY STANDARD, X, YELLOW VEST PROTESTERS
BILLIONS FOR BUILDINGS AND WARS, NONE FOR THE POOR
In Bureaucracy, Business, History, Military, Politics, Social commentary on December 29, 2023 at 12:17 amOn April 15, 2019, millions across France gasped in horror at the sight of Notre Dame Cathedral going up in flames.
The Cathedral, perhaps the most iconic building in Paris, is visited by more than 14 million people every year. Built between 1160 and 1345, it has long been one of the most important sites in Christendom.
A law passed in 1905 classified the cathedral as a Historical Monument and thus the property of the state. But its use is dedicated exclusively to the Roman Catholic Church. Catholics are estimated to comprise between 41% and 88% of France’s population.
Yet by April 19, for untold numbers of French citizens, horror and sadness had been replaced by anger.
Notre Dame Cathedral fire
LeLaisserPasserA38, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons
So what had happened to arouse this?
First, French President Emmanuel Macron addressed the nation to speak about the fire. In doing so, he totally ignored the violent protests against inequality that had erupted throughout the country since November 2018.
Low-paid workers and pensioners accused Macron’s government of favoring the rich. The activists were named Yellow Vests—after the fluorescent jackets French motorists are required to keep in their cars.
Second, in just a few hours, billionaires pledged hundreds of millions of dollars (euros) to help restore the damaged cathedral.
“You’re there, looking at all these millions accumulating, after spending five months in the streets fighting social and fiscal injustice. It’s breaking my heart,” Ingrid Levavasseur, a founding leader of the movement, told The Associated Press.
“What happened at Notre Dame is obviously a deplorable tragedy. But nobody died,” Levavasseur said. “I’ve heard someone speaking of national mourning. Are they out of their minds?”
“The yellow vests will show their anger against the billion found in four days for stones, and nothing for the needy,” wrote Pierre Derrien on Facebook.
More than $1 billion was pledged for the cathedral’s restoration, and many French citizens believed the money could be better spent elsewhere. And the billionaires’ donations entitled them to huge tax deductions.
“If they can give dozens of millions to rebuild Notre Dame, they should stop telling us there is no money to respond to the social emergency,” CGT trade union leader Philippe Martinez said.
But this is generally how the rich and powerful react to the needs of the neediest.
In 2016, returning to Congress after their traditional summer recess, House Republicans planned to cut $23 billion in food stamps for the poor. This included ending waivers that allowed some adults to get temporary assistance while they were in school or training for a job.
The cuts were to include drug tests of applicants and tougher work rules. As Republicans see it: There’s no point in “helping” the poor if you can’t humiliate them.
The food stamp program, now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, served more than 46 million Americans and cost $74 billion in 2015.
Meanwhile, Republicans were eager to spend billions of dollars for another project: An unnecessary war with Syria.
One of these right-wingers was Bill Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard—and one of the leading instigators of the 2003 war with Iraq.
Bill Kristol
He—like senior officials on the George W. Bush administration—falsely claimed that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and planned to use them against the United States.
Another Kristol lie: Hussein planned 9/11 with Osama bin Laden.
He has never apologized for either lie—or the resulting war that cost $3 trillion and killed 4,487 American soldiers and wounded another 32,226.
In a September, 2013 column, Kristol called for a return to slaughter—not only in Syria but Iran as well:
“…Soon after voting to authorize the use of force against the [Bashar al-] Assad regime, Republicans might consider moving an authorization for the use of force against the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
“They can explain that [President Barack] Obama’s dithering in the case of Syria shows the utility of unequivocally giving him the authority to act early with respect to Iran.”
Among Republican U.S. Senators calling for war were Arizona’s John McCain and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, who issued a joint statement:
“Using stand-off weapons, without boots on the ground, and at minimal risk to our men and women in uniform, we can significantly degrade Assad’s air power and ballistic missile capabilities and help to establish and defend safe areas on the ground.”
In addition: A major weapon for “degrading Assad’s air power” would be Tomahawk Cruise missiles. A single one of these costs $1,410,000.
Firing of a Tomahawk Cruise missile
A protracted missile strike would rain literally billions of dollars’ worth of American missiles on Syria.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon was spending about $27 million a week to maintain the increased U.S. Navy presence in the Mediterranean Sea and Middle East region to keep watch over Syria and be prepared to strike.
Navy officials said it cost about $25 million a week for the carrier group and $2 million a week for each destroyer.
Is there a lesson to be learned from all this?
Yes.
Powerful people—whether generals, politicians or the wealthy—will always find abundant money and resources available for pet projects they consider important.
It’s only when it comes to projects that other people actually need that the powerful will claim there is, unfortunately, a cash shortage.
Share this: