[I]f what the combat teams did to the WTC and the Pentagon can be understood as acts of war – and they can – then the same is true of every US “overflight’ of Iraqi territory since day one. The first acts of war during the current millennium thus occurred on its very first day, and were carried out by U.S. aviators acting under orders from their then-commander-in-chief, Bill Clinton. The most that can honestly be said of those involved on September 11 is that they finally responded in kind to some of what this country has dispensed to their people as a matter of course.
That they waited so long to do so is, notwithstanding the 1993 action at the WTC, more than anything a testament to their patience and restraint.
They did not license themselves to “target innocent civilians.”
There is simply no argument to be made that the Pentagon personnel killed on September 11 fill that bill. The building and those inside comprised military targets, pure and simple.
As for those in the World Trade Center, well, really, let’s get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America’s global financial empire, the “mighty engine of profit” to which the military dimension of U.S. policy has always been enslaved and they did so both willingly and knowingly.
[T]he recognition that “civilianality” is often a matter of degree, rather than a bright line, should still inform the assessment of casualty figures in wars involving terrorists, paramilitary groups and others who fight without uniforms — or help those who fight without uniforms.
Turning specifically to the current fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Hamas, the line between Israeli soldiers and civilians is relatively clear. Hezbollah missiles and Hamas rockets target and hit Israeli restaurants, apartment buildings and schools. They are loaded with anti-personnel ball-bearings designed specifically to maximize civilian casualties.
Hezbollah and Hamas militants, on the other hand, are difficult to distinguish from those “civilians” who recruit, finance, harbor and facilitate their terrorism. Nor can women and children always be counted as civilians, as some organizations do. Terrorists increasingly use women and teenagers to play important roles in their attacks.
The Israeli army has given well-publicized notice to civilians to leave those areas of southern Lebanon that have been turned into war zones. Those who voluntarily remain behind have become complicit. Some — those who cannot leave on their own — should be counted among the innocent victims.
If the media were to adopt this “continuum,” it would be informative to learn how many of the “civilian casualties” fall closer to the line of complicity and how many fall closer to the line of innocence.
The Bush administration are monsters. That is not hyperbole. There can be no other explanation as to why the secretary of state, the person in charge of American diplomacy, would be so crude and stupid.
Condi doesn’t want to talk to Hezbollah or its sponsors, Syria and Iran — “Syria knows what it needs to do,’’ she says with asperity — and she doesn’t want a cease-fire. She wants “a sustainable cease-fire,’’ which means she wants to give the Israelis more time to decimate Hezbollah bunkers with the precision-guided bombs that the Bush administration is racing to deliver.
“I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling, and it wouldn’t have been clear what I was shuttling to do,” she said.
Keep more civilians from being killed? Or at least keep America from being even more despised in the Middle East and around the globe?
Jesus. They don’t even know how to fake it anymore. Isn’t it at least smart to pretend you care about the dying children?
I guess not. These lunatics are still laboring under the false belief that the world is impressed by their macho trash talk and will capitulate just because George W. Bush says boo.
And notice that Rice says “Syria knows what it needs to do” which is apparently a reference to the leader of the free world spitting out that the Syrians need to “stop this shit” between flecks of dinner roll at the G8 conference. Any thought that he wasn’t speaking official US policy has, I think, been put to rest. Dear God. (Juan Cole noted at the time, “I come away from it shaken and trembling.” No kidding.)
Dowd continues:
Condi was as cool as ever in the State Department briefing room yesterday, perfectly groomed in a camel-colored suit with an athletic white stripe. Like her boss, she does not show any sign of tension over the fact that all of their schemes to democratize the Middle East ended up creating more fundamentalism, extremism, terrorism and anti-Americanism. Having ginned up the idea that Al Qaeda was state-sponsored terrorism backed by Saddam, now W. and Condi have to contend with the specter of real state-sponsored terrorism.
Like a professor who has grown so frustrated with one misbehaving student that she turns her focus on another, Condi put aside the sulfurous distraction of Iraq and enthused over the need to make the fragile democracy in Lebanon a centerpiece of the “new Middle East.”
She said that the carnage there represented the “birth pangs of a new Middle East, and whatever we do we have to be certain that we are pushing forward to the new Middle East, not going back to the old one.” Yet everything in the Middle East seems to be reeling backward in a scary way, and neocons are once more mocking W. as a wimp who should blow off the State Department and blow up Syria and Iran.
Having inadvertently built up Iran with his failures in Iraq, W. is eager now to send Iran a shock-and-awe message through Israel.
I honestly think that last is part of what’s motivating the warmongers. As with their last epic failure, Vietnam, they believe their hands have been tied by a bunch of liberal generals and a pansy-ass populace who refuse to let them fight the way they need to fight. They see the Israelis as their personal Rottweilers and they want to let them off the chain.
The Israelis should ask themselves if they really want to do George W. Bush’s dirty work for him. I continue to suspect they did not expect that the US would give them the green light on this (it is insane, after all) and now they have no face saving way out. America did not do its job and now things are deteriorating beyond anyone’s control.
But, you know, we didn’t want to waste time with a cease fire that might not last longer than nine or ten months. Hey, all those kids might as well die today as next year, right?
Of course, it could also just be politics. It often is. The bridegroom is a-comin’ and the warmongers are chomping at the bit. The election is right around the corner and the Republican base is dying for WWIII. Well, not dying exactly. Somebody else is doing that. They are in the throes of le petit mort — a different thing entirely.
“God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them.”
President Bush Saturday again blamed Hezbollah for the crisis but said responsibility must also be shared by Syria and Iran, which support and provide weapons to the militant Shiite Muslim political and military organization. “Their actions threaten the entire Middle East and stand in the way of resolving the current crisis and bringing lasting peace to this troubled region,” he said in his weekly radio address from his ranch in Crawford, Tex.
[…]
Bush said again that the United States is pressuring Israel to use care “to protect innocent lives and is concerned that the warfare is putting Lebanon’s democratic government in peril.
The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.
The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.
The Democratic Party today is assumed to be — well, it’s not assumed to be. The Democratic Party today is oriented around one thing — aside from its hatred of Bush — oriented around its anti-war position. The Democrat base is pure anti-war, and that’s why Lieberman is in trouble. It is such a powerful base or perceived to be by other Democrats, that Democrats like Hillary and others, John Kerry said, (paraphrasing) “If Lieberman loses, I’m not supporting him. I must support my party. My party stood behind me. I always be a Democrat,” and Hillary has pretty much said the same thing. Barbara Boxer however is in trouble, so-called.
There is a little tremor in Rush’s description of the “powerful” Democratic base (he realizes it and tries to amend his statement.)The opposition actually has him rattled for the first time in recent memory.
Unfortunately a good part of the Dem establishment is not just rattled but virtually hysterical. Ezra wrote this today:
I had it out the other night with a very pro-Lieberman writer who, it came clear to me, believed the entire concept of a primary challenge against Lieberman a simply illegitimate form of opposition. Lieberman, as a Democratic incumbent, had a claim on his party’s nomination and his Senate seat that couldn’t be challenged by a bunch of bloggers and a cable television executive named Ned. It was the impudence of the whole thing that so offended.
I’ve really been saddened, in fact, by how often, when I drill down into anti-Lamonter motivations, I find their ideological and electoral motivations mere sandrock obscuring a core rage at this affront to tradition and orderly succession. I didn’t believe this even a few months ago, but I’ve been forced to conclude that what scares folks about Lamont is that he represents an assault on privilege — Joe Lieberman’s, to be sure, but also theirs, no matter what sector of politics they currently represent.
Apparently these comfy Democratic insiders don’t mind the Republicans treating them like neutered farm animals — but I do. I take it personally when a propaganda industry makes millions spreading lies that liberals are terrorists or traitors. Yet the political establishment, including the media, doesn’t seem to think I should care about such things — even as I’ve seen my party and my country degraded and humiliated for years by this virulent strain of rightwing politics.
I was driving the other day and the announcer of the pop station I was listening to said that their most requested song was “I’m Not Ready To Make Nice” by the Dixie Chicks. I realized I had never closely listened to it before. As I drove alongside the Pacific Ocean with the windows open and the stereo blasting I think I finally understood — or admitted to myself — that much of this netroots and grassroots energy and emotional committment is coming from the simple fact that we’ve just reached the rope of our ends with these malignant Republican bullies and the people who would protect their privilege rather than stand up.
I think this song expresses how many of us feel after 20 years of a non-stop assault from the right — and the eager capitulation of those who find us a convenient strawman from whom they can distance themselves:
Forgive, sounds good. Forget, I’m not sure I could. They say time heals everything, But I’m still waiting
I’m through, with doubt, There’s nothing left for me to figure out, I’ve paid a price, and I’ll keep paying
I’m not ready to make nice, I’m not ready to back down, I’m still mad as hell And I don’t have time To go round and round and round It’s too late to make it right I probably wouldn’t if I could Cause I’m mad as hell Can’t bring myself to do what it is You think I should
I know you said Why can’t you just get over it, It turned my whole world around and I kind of like it
I made my bed and I sleep like a baby, With no regrets and I don’t mind saying, It’s a sad sad story That a mother will teach her daughter that she ought to hate a perfect stranger. And how in the world Can the words that I said Send somebody so over the edge That they’d write me a letter Saying that I better Shut up and sing Or my life will be over
Forgive, sounds good. Forget, I’m not sure I could. They say time heals everything, But I’m still waiting
Amen.
Did they think we were going to take their shit forever?
Don’t lose your nerve Democrats. I know you hate to be “unseemly” and loathe the idea that anyone will think you are “unreasonable.” I understand that having Rush say you are in thrall to the lunatic left fringe brings on a 60’s flashback that leaves you dripping in a cold sweat. But get a grip on your subconscious fear of being a feeling and breathing human being and recognize that this is a good and necessary thing for your country. (You might even come to “kinda like it” like those Dixie Chicks have.) You don’t have to be neutered farm animals anymore. If you’re ready to take it to them we’re here to get your backs.
In case anyone has forgotten just what it was that Natalie Maines said that caused people to send her death threats it was: “Just so you know, we’re ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.” They are now virtually banned from country radio. Their CD was #1 on the Billboard charts for three weeks and is still selling briskly anyway.
Italy will host an international conference next week to discuss the possibility of a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon, the Italian government said on Friday.
[…]
An Italian foreign ministry spokesman said neither Syria nor Iran – accused by Israel of sponsoring Hezbollah – had been invited, and no one from Israel was expected to attend for the time being.
Karl Rove must be very happy this morning. He is convinced that “war” (it doesn’t matter who or why) always accrues to the Republican party’s benefit. And the media agree that when things heat up, they really want the guys with the big swinging members in charge. (For some reason, they are under the misapprehension that the group of chickenhawks running the US government have such endowments.)
I realize that it is somewhat distasteful to discuss this issue with domestic politics in mind. But I can guarantee that the white house is. They view everything through the lens of domestic politics.
There was some disagreement among readers who thought that it is ridiculous to think a widening war could benefit the failed Republicans. I certainly hope that’s true.
But in case anyone thinks they aren’t going to run on their reputation for manly manliness anyway, think again:
Vice President Dick Cheney on Friday pointed to the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah as fresh evidence of the ongoing battle against terrorism that underscores the need to keep President Bush’s Republican allies in control of Congress.
“This conflict is a long way from over,” Cheney said at a fundraising appearance for a GOP congressional candidate. “It’s going to be a battle that will last for a very long time. It is absolutely essential that we stay the course.”
Cheney’s visit to Tampa helped raise about $200,000 for the campaign of Gus Bilirakis, a state legislator who is running for the Tampa Bay area congressional seat his father is vacating.
“Gus is going to remember that the first order of business is to protect the American people and to support the men and women who defend us in time of war,” Cheney told the audience at a $500-a-ticket fundraising reception. “There’s still hard work ahead in the war on terror.”
Cheney said that as Republicans make their case to voters in the midterm elections, “it’s vital that we keep issues of national security at the top of the agenda.” He faulted Democrats in Congress who have pushed for a timetable for withdrawing Americans from Iraq, saying that would send the wrong message to terrorists.
“If anyone thinks the conflict is over or soon to be over, all they have to do is look at what’s happening in the Middle East today,” he said.
I know it seems ridiculous in light of what we are seing in Iraq that they would think of running on their superior competence in dealing with the middle east. But remember, the Republicans are counting on thirty years of rightwing propaganda to get them over the line again. They expect that many voters will simply fall back into their comfortable understanding of the two parties: the Republicans are tough men who can handle national security and the Democrats are sensitive women who will help you when you need help (if you’re a pathetic loser who actually needs help that is.) The Fighters and the Lovers. This is the paradigm under which we’ve lived for many years and people find it very disconcerting to be asked to relinquish such reflexive internalized beliefs — no matter what they see before them.
I do not know that they can pull it off one more time. We may have finally reached a tipping point. But I’m not counting any chickens.
Ezra wonders why war president Bush killed off compassionate conservative president Bush.
I’ve never been entirely convinced by the explanations for why that happened. Bush’s record in Texas and his rhetoric on the campaign trail never suggested the sort of leader that would emerge. September 11 changed him, but it’s not precisely clear why it enabled such an abandonment of the domestic realm. I will, in the interest of debate, offer this thesis, which I find interesting if not convincing. I’ve adapted it from something Grover Norquist said at the Prospect breakfast: He argued that the high poll numbers of 9-11 straitjacketed the administration, leaving them terrified of downward drift. So in their efforts to retain 80 percent approval ratings, they refused to engage in the sort of divisive, unpopular fights needed to actualize their agenda. They just went with the interest groups as the path of least resistance. And by the time they were ready for domestic policies again, they couldn’t afford to split the coalition. Compassionate conservatism died because Bush became popular and wasn’t willing to sacrifice that support for issues beneath War and Peace.
I would argue that there never was a “compassionate conservative” Bush, but a political slogan that was adopted when the face of the party was the slavering beasts of the Gingrich years who shut down the government and impeached a popular president against the will of the people. The game plan was to run Bush as a Republican Clinton without the woody.
And to the extent that they actually believed any of their campaign blather about “soft bigotry of low expectations” and prescription drug coverage, it was only to massage certain constituencies they needed to cobble together a majority — which they didn’t actually manage to do in 2000. Karl was just buying votes like any smart pol does.
Bush, however, always wanted to be a “war president” and knew exactly what he wanted to do with all that political capital:
“He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999,” said author and journalist Mickey Herskowitz. “It was on his mind. He said to me: ‘One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.’ And he said, ‘My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.’ He said, ‘If I have a chance to invade … if I had that much capital, I’m not going to waste it. I’m going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I’m going to have a successful presidency.”
What we didn’t realize is that so much of his agenda had to do with expanding executive power and invading Iraq. Indeed, he probably didn’t realize it either, but he’s the type of personality who undoubtedly found those two agenda items very enticing.
They failed on social security, the big ticket domestic item of the second term, but the reason was that they always overestimated the amount of political capital a “war president” who only won a second term by 51% of the vote actually has. He had plenty of juice after 9/11 but he used it all up on Iraq — and when the WMD didn’t show, most of that evaporated over time.
But the tax cuts, the indiscriminate deregulation, the expansion of executive power (not only through the programs like the illegal wiretapping but through the passage of the Patriot Act as well) can only be considered great successes by the standard he set forth. The reason his “compassionate conservative” agenda wasn’t part of that package is because it was just an campaign ploy to begin with. After 9/11 they made the calculation that he could win by running solely on national security with a smattering of homo-hating. And he did.
The conflict in the mideast has always had a certain kabuki element. In the past when these situations would flare up, Israel would take an agrressive action to demonstrate that it wasn’t a pushover and the US would step in like a Dutch uncle and reluctantly pull the pissed off Israelis back. In a dangerous part of the world, these face-saving kabukis can prevent things from hurtling out of control while allowing each side to stage a little bloodletting. It’s an ugly, ugly business, but ultimately it has managed to help keep this volatile region from hurtling out of control. The “honest broker” thing may have always been phony, but sometimes a phony “honest broker” is all you need.
This time, the US has abandoned that role and they are letting Israel off the leash to do some real damage before they “step in.” Via Atrios I see that Bush thinks he’s smarter than everyone else on this:
When hostilities have broken out in the past, the usual U.S. response has been an immediate and public bout of diplomacy aimed at a cease-fire, in the hopes of ensuring that the crisis would not escalate. This week, however, even in the face of growing international demands, the White House has studiously avoided any hint of impatience with Israel. While making it plain it wants civilian casualties limited, the administration is also content to see the Israelis inflict the maximum damage possible on Hezbollah.
As the president’s position is described by White House officials, Bush associates and outside Middle East experts, Bush believes that the status quo — the presence in a sovereign country of a militant group with missiles capable of hitting a U.S. ally — is unacceptable.
The U.S. position also reflects Bush’s deepening belief that Israel is central to the broader campaign against terrorists and represents a shift away from a more traditional view that the United States plays an “honest broker’s” role in the Middle East.
In the administration’s view, the new conflict is not just a crisis to be managed. It is also an opportunity to seriously degrade a big threat in the region, just as Bush believes he is doing in Iraq. Israel’s crippling of Hezbollah, officials also hope, would complete the work of building a functioning democracy in Lebanon and send a strong message to the Syrian and Iranian backers of Hezbollah.
“The president believes that unless you address the root causes of the violence that has afflicted the Middle East, you cannot forge a lasting peace,” said White House counselor Dan Bartlett. “He mourns the loss of every life. Yet out of this tragic development, he believes a moment of clarity has arrived.”
One former senior administration official said Bush is only emboldened by the pressure from U.N. officials and European leaders to lead a call for a cease-fire. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan demanded yesterday that the fighting in Lebanon stop.
“He thinks he is playing in a longer-term game than the tacticians,” said the former official, who spoke anonymously so he could discuss his views candidly. “The tacticians would say: ‘Get an immediate cease-fire. Deal first with the humanitarian factors.’ The president would say: ‘You have an opportunity to really grind down Hezbollah. Let’s take it, even if there are other serious consequences that will have to be managed.’ “
They are now officially crazy.
I haven’t bought into all the 1914 stuff that’s been going around, but I’m heading that way. It will be sheer luck if we avoid serious consequences from letting these dimwit megalomaniacs loose on the world.
It seems like a good time to remind people of our vaunted leader’s history. I’m speaking, of course, of Dick Cheney. (I won’t bother with Junior– he’s a foreign policy ventriloquist dummy.)
In “A World Transformed,” the memoir that he and Bush senior published in 1998, [Brent] Scowcroft makes it clear that while all Bush senior’s top advisers had different perspectives, the fundamental division lay between Defense Secretary Richard Cheney and everyone else. By his account, and by those of others in the administration, Cheney never trusted Gorbachev. In 1989 Cheney maintained that Gorbachev’s reforms were largely cosmetic and that, rather than engage with the Soviet leader, the US should stand firm and keep up cold war pressures.
In September 1991 Cheney argued that the administration should take measures to speed the breakup of the Soviet Union—even at the risk of encouraging violence and incurring long-term Russian hostility. He opposed the idea, which originated with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell, that the US should withdraw its tactical nuclear weapons from Europe and South Korea. As a part of the preparations for the Gulf War he asked Powell for a study on how small nuclear weapons might be used against Iraqi troops in the desert.
This is the person who is playing a longer game than the tacticians, not Little Bushie. And he is playing a long game. His sharklike, relentless, predatory concentration on achieving long held goals no matter what the current circumstances is quite awesome to behold. The problem is that he’s nuts.
So apparently John “Death Squad” Negroponte has decided that rather than take the risk of information being leaked, the CIA just won’t compile National Intelligence Estimates anymore. Ken Silverstein at Harper’s blog reports that ever since the last NIE on Iraq was rejected by the Bush administration back in 2004 (for being “too negative”) they haven’t bothered to write another one.
Apparently, they want to keep the president from having to deal with bad news:
“What do you call the situation in Iraq right now?” asked one person familiar with the situation. “The analysts know that it’s a civil war, but there’s a feeling at the top that [using that term] will complicate matters.” Negroponte, said another source regarding the potential impact of a pessimistic assessment, “doesn’t want the president to have to deal with that.”
Especially going into an election.
And heaven forbid that the president of the United States be aware that his lovely little war is turning into a living nightmare:
Iraqi leaders have all but given up on holding the country together and, just two months after forming a national unity government, talk in private of “black days” of civil war ahead.
Signalling a dramatic abandonment of the U.S.-backed project for Iraq, there is even talk among them of pre-empting the worst bloodshed by agreeing to an east-west division of Baghdad into Shi’ite and Sunni Muslim zones, senior officials told Reuters.
Tens of thousands have already fled homes on either side.
“Iraq as a political project is finished,” one senior government official said — anonymously because the coalition under Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki remains committed in public to the U.S.-sponsored constitution that preserves Iraq’s unity.
One highly placed source even spoke of busying himself on government projects, despite a sense of their futility, only as a way to fight his growing depression over his nation’s future.
“The parties have moved to Plan B,” the senior official said, saying Sunni, ethnic Kurdish and majority Shi’ite blocs were looking at ways to divide power and resources and to solve the conundrum of Baghdad’s mixed population of seven million.
“There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into east and west,” he said. “We are extremely worried.”
On the eve of the first meeting of a National Reconciliation Commission and before Maliki meets President George W. Bush in Washington next week, other senior politicians also said they were close to giving up on hopes of preserving the 80-year-old, multi-ethnic, religiously mixed state in its present form.
“The situation is terrifying and black,” said Rida Jawad al -Takki, a senior member of parliament from Maliki’s dominant Shi’ite Alliance bloc, and one of the few officials from all the main factions willing to speak publicly on the issue.
“We have received information of a plan to divide Baghdad. The government is incapable of solving the situation,” he said.
As sectarian violence has mounted to claim perhaps 100 lives a day and tens of thousands flee their homes, a senior official from the once dominant Sunni minority concurred: “Everyone knows the situation is very bad,” he said. “I’m not optimistic.”
The spectacle in Lebanon has taken over the popular imagination and the attention of the media. But it really should be noted that while the death and destruction is significant — and a widening war is a frightening consequence of what’s happening there — 100 people a day are now being killed in Iraq. Many more are being wounded. There are now tens of thousands of refugees. It’s turning into a bloodbath.
I know it would be wrong to worry the president’s beautiful mind with such ugliness, but perhaps the congress ought to get off its ass and demand a comprehensive analysis of the situation from the US Intelligence community anyway. Just for the heck of it.
And by the way, are any of the national reporters covering the Lieberman-Lamont race asking old Joe whether he still thinks there is a lot of “progress” being made there? I know that the bad language we bloggers use is a much more important issue, but this does seem like a logical question that someone might think is worth asking.
Fear of an ecclesiastical conspiracy against American liberties, latent among nonconformists through all of colonial history, thus erupted into public controversy at the very same time that the first impact of new British policy in civil affairs was being felt. And though it was, in an obvious sense, a limited fear (for large parts of the population identified themselves with the Anglican Church and were not easily convinced that liberty was being threatened by a plot of the Churchmen) it nevertheless had a profound indirect effect everywhere, for it drew into public discussion — evoked in specific form — the general conviction of eighteenth-century Englishmen that the conjoining of “temporal and spiritual tyranny” was, in John Adams’ words, an event totally “calamitous to human liberty” yet an event that in the mere nature of things perpetually threatened. For, as David Hume had explained, “in all ages of the world priests have been enemies to liberty … Liberty of thinking and of expressing our thoughts is always fatal to priestly power … and by an infallible connection which prevails among all kinds of liberty, this privilege can never be enjoyed … but in free government. Hence … all princes that have aimed at despotic power [Bush, Rove] have known of what importance it was to gain the established clergy, as the clergy, on their part, have show a great facility in entering into the views of such princes.” Excerpted from The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967) by Bernard Bailyn; winner of the Bancroft Prize in American History and a Pulitzer in History; p. 97, chapter titled The Logic of Rebellion.
“new … policy in civil affairs’ … “gain the established clergy” … “despots”