"I think they try, but it is drowned by the press and their "topic du jour" approach to entertaining the public."
Perhaps. But there are people like Safire in the world. These people spend each and every day pouring over this kind of stuff, looking for something (anything) that supports their position. They're pundits. It's their job. While I would not think it unlikely that the press' innattention blocks plenty of relevant information from our eyes and ears, I'm pretty sure the priority on this kind of thing is pretty high. If nothing else, it would ingratiate them with the white house, which is a very large asset in the news world.
"I would say there is a difference between using guerilla's and paramitilitaries in fighting a proxy war with USSR, than sanctioning groups to infiltrate into Moscow to assassinate members of the Politboro or blow up the Kremlin."
Well, anything as bold as that would have gotten the western world vaporized. There's a power grab, and then there's just plain old ridiculous. Usually, the groups who the US supported, especially in Latin America, were not necessarily self-defined terrorist groups (really, who is?) but rather insurgents, rebels, and "counterrevolutionaries" who fought guerrilla wars and used the methods of terrorism to further their aims (killing civilians, assassinating politicians, etc...) Often, they rose to power afterwards, which makes them look more acceptable, although most continued their "terrorist" activities once in power, under the aegis of legitimate authority. I suppose that's how al-Qaeda thinks of themselves, though, so I'm not sure what we can take from that except that it's one big slippery slope out there.
Jester
Perhaps. But there are people like Safire in the world. These people spend each and every day pouring over this kind of stuff, looking for something (anything) that supports their position. They're pundits. It's their job. While I would not think it unlikely that the press' innattention blocks plenty of relevant information from our eyes and ears, I'm pretty sure the priority on this kind of thing is pretty high. If nothing else, it would ingratiate them with the white house, which is a very large asset in the news world.
"I would say there is a difference between using guerilla's and paramitilitaries in fighting a proxy war with USSR, than sanctioning groups to infiltrate into Moscow to assassinate members of the Politboro or blow up the Kremlin."
Well, anything as bold as that would have gotten the western world vaporized. There's a power grab, and then there's just plain old ridiculous. Usually, the groups who the US supported, especially in Latin America, were not necessarily self-defined terrorist groups (really, who is?) but rather insurgents, rebels, and "counterrevolutionaries" who fought guerrilla wars and used the methods of terrorism to further their aims (killing civilians, assassinating politicians, etc...) Often, they rose to power afterwards, which makes them look more acceptable, although most continued their "terrorist" activities once in power, under the aegis of legitimate authority. I suppose that's how al-Qaeda thinks of themselves, though, so I'm not sure what we can take from that except that it's one big slippery slope out there.
Jester