Zbig, Carter, or Helmer: who is most culpable?

"If ever there was a man who displayed on his face the evil on his mind, it was Zbigniew Brzezinski, (lead image, right) who died last week at a hospital near Washington.

Former President Jimmy Carter, who employed Brzezinski as his National Security Advisor between 1977 and 1981, the only high official post Brzezinski reached, said he “helped me set vital foreign policy goals, was a source of stimulation for the departments of defense and state, and everyone valued his opinion.”  Of Carter’s three claims, only the first is true; the second is ironic hyperbole; the third is completely false. If Carter cannot tell the truth now about Brzezinski, after having 36 years to reflect on it, Carter reveals the principal source of Brzezisnki’s power, when he exercised it.   For Carter was no innocent ventriloquized by the evil Svengali (lead image, left), as in the original Svengali tale. Carter was simply more mendacious than Brzezinski, and is entirely to blame for doing what Brzezinski told him to do.  

Brzezinski was an obsessive Russia-hater from the beginning to the end. That led to the monumental failures of Carter’s term in office;  the hatreds Brzezinski released had an impact which continues to be catastrophic for the rest of the world.

...But that’s getting ahead of our little tale. Wellford told Vernamonti and me he had no choice but to give us strict orders for the meeting scheduled the following week with Carter. Our case studies might, he said, be included in the tabs to the PRP briefing book we would present to the president. But the conclusions, and the recommendations for reform of the National Security Council, would be eliminated. Then Wellford added an ultimatum:  Vernamonti and I would be allowed to sit at the meeting with Carter. But we were to say nothing unless Carter spoke to us. If that happened, we were not to mention our recommendations on Brzezinski. If we did that, we would both be fired instantly.  That would have meant the end of Vernamonti’s airforce career."

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2017/05/john-helmer-zbigniew-brzezinski-svengali-jimmy-carters-presidency-dead-evil-lives.html

[Walter Russell] Mead could have mentioned Zbigniew Brezinski,

the diplomat turned pundit who is a frequent defender of Barack Obama. Has the irony occurred to Professor Mead that he wrote an entire article about role of the press in Afghanistan while virtually ignoring the Taliban? As Mead knows (or should know) Brzezinski practically invented the Taliban back in the 1970s when he trained and armed the Afghan mujahideen to the hilt in order to give the Soviets a black eye. Of course it would be too much to expect Mead to offer even tepid criticism of Brzezinski; he is, after all, an editorial board member of the "American Interest."

According to commenter wigwag that is one thing Mead could have mentioned in his article Media Gives President a Pass Again published at the American Interest.

Wigwag goes on at length describing more things that W.R. Mead could have mentioned since Mead didn't have a problem mentioning Harold Bloom by name in an earlier piece wigwag knows that it's possible for Mead to do it. So why not? Another notable not mentioned by name would be Tom Friedman who mentioned W.R. Mead benevolently in one of his own pieces so now by not mentioning Friedman by name as one Obama's chief cheerleaders when he could for clarity must be for another reason like not messing up that good thing.

Wigwag postulates co-existential self-hate, oikophobia as another blogger insists, as the unifying reason why media align with progressive liberal politicians and protect them. Wigwag does what liberals do and recommends a book on the subject, the one that helped formulate his opinions. Why is recommending a book a thing that liberals do? Because wigwag recommends two and tells us if we haven't read then we're doing ourselves a disservice.

Read it so we can be smart as he.

Smart in the same way he is smart, along the same lines of thinking so your thoughts are formed as his thoughts are formed on the subjects at hand and we do him a disservice by not catching up.

Wigwag expands on Steel, the author of the first book. Wigwag finds it interesting the same things that informs and biases media principals and glitterati toward Obama policies are the same things that inform their attitude toward Israel because Israel is a product of the West and they harbor ill feeling for the West and its history, for themselves. Then he recommends another book.

Wigwag continues about rejection of American exceptionalism and how there is a clear split between party (with media scrutiny) and party with media support.  These are all subjects we've talked about here but it was odd seeing all splayed out by a random commenter. All of the following comments are supportive of this one by wigwag. One said wigwag's comment is better than the article, which is quite good, but again, material all well covered. Wigwag is right, W.R. Mead's piece really would have been better with names.