July 27, 2007
Neoconservatism Is Dead (Brent Budowsky)
Charles Krauthammer, not content with having been proven deadly wrong in his worldview of many years, learning nothing from the bloody disasters of the policies he so aggressively promoted, now attacks Barack Obama for suggesting America should talk with enemies as well as friends.
Our first and last neoconservative president, George W. Bush, is the lead witness for the prosecution in the case whose verdict is the death of neoconservatism.
Never has any philosophy been proven so wrong, so fatal, so disastrous for our country and so deadly for our troops as the views expounded by neoconservative theoreticians.
Their ascent to power meant tragedy, failure and death. Their arrogance and their imperial grandeur has alienated what Jefferson called the decent opinion of mankind. Their tactics have been pursued with contempt for alternate views, corruption of our democratic system, and condescension toward those who know far more about military affairs than they do.
In fact, one of the great specialties of the neoconservative movement is that so many who so ostentatiously failed to serve in the military, when their time came, so sneeringly question the patriotism of others, including those awarded medals for valor in combat.
When Ronald Reagan was changing the world with Mikhail Gorbachev, there were the neoconservatives, uttering their sneering contempt for Reagan, comparing his talks with Gorbachev to Pearl Harbor, comparing his diplomacy to Neville Chamberlain.
George Bush, Dick Cheney and their fellow neoconservatives know better than Reagan about negotiating with enemies. They know better than Eisenhower about military industrial complexes. They know better than Ford about seeking diplomatic agreements to control the spread of weapons of mass destruction. They know better than Nixon about achieving breakthroughs with our major adversaries.
They are very good about hurling insults to attack their domestic enemies and very bad about supporting wounded troops, disabled veterans and homeless heroes.
Neoconservatives are very special people, in their own eyes. When things go wrong they become the party of perjury and pardons, the party of abuse of power and abuse of executive privilege to cover up their failures and crimes.
Neoconservatives champion the politics of fear, desperately seeking to frighten the people to justify their attacks on freedoms guaranteed by statute and constitution.
Neoconservatives embody the politics of profiteering, masterminding and organizing the most corrupt occupation in world history, staffed by ideological partisans, rewarding their campaign contributors, mismanaging tens of billions of lost and stolen dollars, under the imperial arrogance of a proconsul awarded the Presidential Medal Of Freedom.
Neoconservatives know better than generals with their contempt for the Geneva Convention and their actions that civilized people call torture.
Our neoconservative theoreticians believe that George Washington was wrong and George Bush is right. Even torture is done with the big lie that they are promoting freedom and democracy with their corrupt occupation, their war against the Geneva Convention, and their shadow CIA created in the bowels of Rumsfeld’s neoconservative Department of Defense.
And then they try to keep their secrets.
And then they lie about what they do.
And then they bear false witness to Congress.
And then they claim that criminal acts are protected by privilege.
And then they complain when confronted by the law.
And then they whine when juries convict their leaders of perjury and demand the first of many presidential pardons.
And then they escalate their catastrophic war over the objection of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
And now they want to continue this war in perpetuity and dump this disaster on the desk of the successor to the man who calls himself the decider.
And there they are again, today, on the op-ed pages of the newspapers, in their discredited think tanks, on their hate-ridden right-wing radio, before the smirking courtiers of the cable networks, still claiming they are right and their deadly blunders must be escalated again and again.
While they cover up their dirty laundry, and plan their next wars, and hire their criminal attorneys, and lobby for their pardons, the clock is ticking, the day is coming, when a grateful nation will celebrate their removal from the high councils of government, once and for all.
Neoconservatism is dumb, discredited and dead.
51 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Ronald Reagan talked to the Soviet Union that was failing economically on it's own and that realized that it could not compete with SDI. Neville Chamberlain talked to a cocky fanatic, ascending towards the world domination, surrounded by fanatic supporters. The Soviets wanted to live and not to die for their cause. Iran is actively importing weapons into Iraq and now Afghanistan that are killing American troops. Reagan was historically strong on defense, and had that reputation. Both Hillary and Obama have no interest in defense. Hillary banned military uniforms in the White House. Obama believes that the US leaving Iraq to genocide is no big deal for the US. I say Obama is more like Neville Chamberlain, and since nobody knows what Hillary is really like, she could be. She not Maggie Thatcher, that's for sure. Their strange belief that talking to the mullahs will yield progress is truly mystifying.
Hitler used non-existent threats to demonize the Jews. The fear that the "neocons" supposedly use to achieve their nefarious purposes was not created by them, other than in the eyes of the conspiracy theorists, but is in fact an entirely rational reaction to a fanatical ideology hell-bent on subjugating the world, that has killed thousands of American citizens, and is killing people all over the world every day.
In a typically liberal fashion, this article shifts the blame from the murderers to those who fight them. Mark my word: Iraq will be viewed as a victory in ten years. Bush and the "neocons" may have been careless, or optimistic about the task they undertook, but they are sticking with a difficult task that will transform the Middle East and pull it out of the 7th century. Notice how the "we are in the middle of the bloody civil war" refrain has mostly shifted towards "there is a dangerous lack of political progress in Iraq". We are winning.
There is a chance that the liberals will enforce a defeat, but it's somewhat smaller today than a few months ago. Should the Hillary/Obama ticket win, we may be respected again in Spain and Venezuela, but the country will be destroyed. There is a lot at stake, and everyone uses slogans. You have to ask yourself: five years from now are we more likely to be in danger from Bush/Cheney/Halliburton or the Islamic fanatics? Based on your answer, pick your fight.
Comment by Igor R. — July 27, 2007 @ 4:29 pm
Yah, Brent!! What YOU said, man. Right ……' on,
It's hard to believe that Bush & Co have taken our beloved country to such depths and so far from our great traditions.
A year ago, I felt despair that the majority of my countrymen seemed willing to go along with them.
This year finds me optimistic and with a renewed sense of awe for the majesty of democracy and the "can do" American spirit. Now the majority of Americans have figured things out well enough to know how important it is to throw the bums out!!
Comment by Smilinjack — July 27, 2007 @ 5:33 pm
You're wrong Igor. And you are a neocon, a part of the problem. You have no soloutions to offer as you are a part (enabler) of the problem. All you can do now is criticizes and offer up solutions? And that is the whole point of Brent's column above. For you to criticize ANYTHING is totally without credibility. You've exposed your total faith in a disastrous Administration and policies.
There never was a radical faction in Iraq, period. Now there is thanks to Bush and his sympathizers (neocons). And the Iaqi's are NOT going to invade America. Get over your fears.
You, Igor, are falling for the lies. Brent itemized for you, in over-simplistic terms of FACT, what went and continues to go wrong with neocon philosophy. An utter failure. And youo have contributed to the utter disaster.
And the neocons continue to put thier hands over thier eyes in hopes it will all go away. It is gutless of youo neocons. Leave the GOP Igor as you are NOT wanted.
Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol and all the neocon columnists are flat out WRONG.
Comment by Chris in NM — July 27, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
[…] Wesley Clark Contact the Webmaster Link to Article barack obama Neoconservatism Is Dead » Posted at The Hill’s Pundit Blog on Friday, July 27, 2007 Charles Krauthammer, not content with having been proven deadly wrong in his worldview of many years, learning nothing from the bloody disasters of the policies he so aggressively promoted, now attacks Barack Obama for suggesting America should talk with enemies as well as friends. Our first View Original Article » […]
Pingback by University Update - Barack Obama - Neoconservatism Is Dead — July 27, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
I can speak for Oklahoma; neocons have been identified and shunned here. We've lost too many of our Oklahoma kid's for the pack of lies this President sold to us. Bush and his neocon cabinet have been found out here in Oklahoma.
Comment by Cody Buck — July 27, 2007 @ 7:07 pm
As much as I appreciate the historical references, please re-read this excellent post by Mr. Budowsky. Sadly, we live in the world of today. A world, I'm afraid, that sees the United States as lass than instead of greater than.
We could argue for days about good v. evil, conservative v. liberal, but, good sir, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by guessing you are not a neoconservative, for your words ring more like someone defending their political party. Unfortunately for the country, and for the world at this point, neoconservatism is an accomplice to murder. You're smart…follow the money. I'm just asking as so many common sense American's are right now that we start making decisions, criticisms, and finding solutions with our eyes wide open. That's not too much to ask, is it?
As for what ten years form now will tell, well, for me anyway, it's tell a story of my eldest son who served his country with pride during a failed war and provided me with a loving and beautiful grandson. I'll also remember the hundreds of thousands of human lives forever changed by neo-conservatism, and I'm betting millions of our citizens both home and abroad will as well.
I will pick a fight. I side with the liberals. If nothing else, they've proven with great compassion that they will at least listen.
And, don’t place all your money on Hillary/Obama just yet, unless you know something about the election process I don't. I for one would like to see the process play out and it's only the first inning!
Comment by Tony Trupiano — July 27, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
George Bush recently had five benign polyps removed, the only part of him that was, and he remains, as Igor says, the leader of "a fanatical [neocon] ideology hell-bent on subjugating the world, that has killed thousands of American citizens, and is killing people all over the world every day".
The war on Iraq has been rightly called by US generals the largest foreign policy blunder in US history and now the repubrats are jumping ship. The ones running for re-election won't touch Bush with a ten-foot pole. He's part of a contagious virus that needs to be stamped out, and there are only a few spores left. They'll be gone soon–hurrah!
Comment by Don Bacon — July 27, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
Ouch Brent, you just hit a raw nerve with the neocons.
It reminds of the movie "A Few Good Men" when Jack Nicholson shouts;
"You can't handle the truth".
Was Jack talking to the neocons? It is hilarious to read the neocon posts above. Ouch. They are scared.
Comment by Paul Brewster — July 27, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
I'm a single guy, and the other night I chatted with a very attractive Mulsim woman, who lives in England and is a university professor. She is a devout Muslim and has visited Mecca so many times that she can't remember…at least 40 times! She then proceeded to tell me that George Bush is not the antichrist himself, but is working with the antichrist, and is not a Christian, but is pretending to be a Christian. After I told her that she was the "deciever", (and blocked her from sending me any messages), it suddenly dawned on me that there is no reasoning with these people, and there has been no reasoning with these people for thousands of years. They are the enemy of western civilization. They must ultimately be defeated on the battlefield (which is how Mecca was conquered by their prophet in the first place) not by reason, or by wisdom or through faith…but by the brute force of the sword. Obama can talk to their leaders all he wants. The bottom line is that they must be killed and conquered and vanquished. To think otherwise, places the entire world at great risk.
Comment by David Erlichman — July 27, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
Igor, you want to bomb Iran and pay so much for gas that you can't get to work? Or do you just sit at your computer all day. Our fragile economy is tanking and the stock market is tanking without attacking Iran. Iran will be our "third pearl harbor" as we stick ourselves through the heart with a stake.
BTW, neoconism is not done until Cheney is out of office.
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 27, 2007 @ 11:21 pm
History will tell if noe-conservatism is dead…
Americans think geopolitics is like a Hollywood movie, they want it to be done in 2 hours and must have happy ending.
Comment by Frieda — July 28, 2007 @ 2:27 am
If the Democratic Party in Congress doesn't put a de-funded end to Dick and Dubya's boondoggle debacles in Iraq and Afghanistan — and do it on the Republican's watch watch where the disasters began and continue — then the Democrat who "wins" the Presidency in 2008 will desrve getting the twin stinking dead albatrosses hung around his or her own stupid neck. The Republicans only have one desperate strategy left, as the first comment above crudely illustrates: namely, to stall and run out the clock until January of 2009 so that the perps Dick and Dubya can escape from their crimes unscathed to spend the rest of their unnatural lives blaming their successors for their own eight years of monumental, unforced folly. If the Democratic Pary "leaders" cannot see this obvious trap yawning nakedly in front of them, then stupidity has indeed no expiration date in the puerile, posturing politics of America.
Comment by Michael Murry — July 28, 2007 @ 2:34 am
Bush has made one huge mistake. Trying to promote the passage of the immigration amnesty bill. Ironically, that was a liberal action, and not the slightest bit conservative. Other than that you can debate what he has done, but you can't claim military offensives can be dismissed as neoconservative. On all other fronts he has been successful. The economy has never been better, and the passage of the minimum wage bill didn't get much attention because the majority of people could care less about such trifles. Bush's big problem is that he has had a tendency to spend money on questionable social programs like a liberal. America's tolerance on torture will only last until the next terrorist attack. Other than that, the were two Presidents in recent history who knowingly aided or abetted crimes. The first was Richard Nixon with the Watergate burglars. The second was William Jefferson Clinton who knowingly lied to a federal grand jury. I notice you are not calling for his indictment and conviction. He got off lucky. No one in Congress wanted a disruption in the earmarking process so they went through the charade of an impeachment. We no longer have to worry about labeling people as to their political beliefs. We have an incumbent class. The party designations are mostly a charade.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — July 28, 2007 @ 7:58 am
Neoconservatism dead? I'm OK with that.
That said, this life-long Democrat thinks that Krauthammer is absolutely correct with regards to preconditions being a prerequisite to Presidential diplomacy.
Comment by JoeCHI — July 28, 2007 @ 10:34 am
I'm willing to take the word of countless military experts who say that our military is nearing irevocable damage, and that it will take decades to rebuild it to its former strength.
The right battle is the one that targets bin-Laden. Everyone can agree on that, I imagine.
Again, these discussions are why people hate politics and why our country has grown so cynical.
Stop bickering and start using common sense to bring about change for our country!
Comment by Mike S — July 28, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
Igor, not one single Iraqi was among the terrorists on 9/11. Why did neoconservatives lie to go to this war with Iraq? The terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center the first time are now in Jail for life and no one bombed a country that had nothing to do with the attack. The mastermind behind the first attack was Radical Egyptian cleric Omar Abdel-Rahman and he was caught and resides in a Federal Prison in Springfield, Missouri. All this while a liberal was President. Where is Osama Bin Laden?
Comment by Judith — July 28, 2007 @ 4:35 pm
1. Neoconservatism was–morally, strategically, and intellectual–DOA in the first place. But like a a zombi, it keeps on walking, unaware of its own death. It will keep on marching until someone stands in its way and stops it.
2. Memo to "Igor R." et alia.
Time to stop flogging the inaccurate analogies to World War II, casting the hapless Bush as Churchill, the Democrats as Chamberlain, and the jihadists as Hitler. Nazi Germany was the most industrialized nation in Europe; the jihadists are an ad hoc group of desperate people who can kill people here and there but could never defeat the United States. One had reason to fear that Hitler would defeat the Allies and impose fascism; the jihadists can do nothing of the sort.
Moreover, military power is not very effective in dealing with stateless terrorism. We spend more money on the military than all the rest of the nations of the world combined, and what do we have to show for it? Chaos in Iraq, erosion of what had seemed a victory in Afghanistan; an exhausted armed forces compelled to do second and third tours of duty, stretched too thin to cope with a third emergency should it arise. (And yet the neocons are making noises about attacking Iran. As the old schoolyard retort goes, "You and whose army?"
So just maybe it's time to try something other than brute force. Like thinking, for example.
Comment by Paul B. — July 28, 2007 @ 4:41 pm
[…] Neoconservatism Is Dead […]
Pingback by Make Them Accountable / Funeral Dirge for Neoconservatism — July 28, 2007 @ 5:35 pm
[…] Read more Neoconservatism […]
Pingback by True Blue Liberal » Neoconservatism Is Dead — July 28, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
Short sighted zealots often overlook two obvious prepositions.
1. Be willing to talk to someone does not mean one is willing to captitulate to them. Sometimes you keep your friends close and your enemies closer.
2. This is not a false choice between Bush/Cheney and "Islamic fanatics." Bush/Cheney are Christofascist corporatist fanatics and Osama Bin Laden is an evil murdering terrorist who I would gladly kill with my bare hands. Recognizing that George W Bush is a sociopath and a murderer does not make one sympathetic to our real enemies. (The ones Bush conveniently ignores by the way.)
So I'll choose choice C.
Comment by davefromqueens — July 28, 2007 @ 5:59 pm
Ah, Igor - you are impressively deluded. I can tell you right now - Bush/Cheney/Halliburton have already damaged this country far beyond what any Islamic fanatic could ever have dreamed of doing.
Bush's Iraqi adventure and the "war on terror" has not ended or even slowed down terrorism - it has drastically increased it, and has created sympathy in the Muslim world for those fanatics. And it's cost anywhere from 500 billion to 2 trillion dollars and killed anywhere from 70,000 to half a million civilians. It has killed or wounded 40,000 American troops. This is your idea of winning?
We still haven't caught the alleged mastermind of 9-11. We're so "safe" over here (since we're fighting them over there) that we can't bring milk on planes to feed babies, and have to remove our shoes to fly.
I've picked my fight, and it's against neo-cons and their absurd followers, rank with hypocrisy and lies. They are endlessly spouting propaganda and blatant untruths, and try to use fear and racism to promote their aganda.
Kid yourself all you want, but the Bush administration will go down in history as one of the absolute worst of all time, and we will be paying for these idiot mistakes in the Middle East for decades.
Comment by MK — July 28, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
It appears Igor is writing his disertation above. Problem is, there is quantity but absolutely no quality. Where's the beef Igor? You're speaking in cliches made popular back in the 1990's.
You still beleive in conservative vs liberal reasoning? That is a bit over-simplified in this day and age. It sounds like you voted for Bush; or at least I'll presume that is the origin of your disconnect.
Comment by Robert Cartwright — July 28, 2007 @ 8:51 pm
Memo to "Igor R." et alia
Time to stop flogging the ludicrous World War II analogy, in which the hapless Bush is cast as Churchill, the Democratic Party as Chamberlain, and a loose confederacy of desperate jihadists as the Third Reich.
Germany was the most industrialized nation in Europe when it launched WWII; it overran and occupied several European countries before the United States entered the fray.
There is no doubt that jihadist terrorism is a serious danger, but it is several sizes too small for the Nazi role. The Islamic extremists have found that they can kill people here and there without much money and organization. And they did pull off a horrible atrocity six years ago. (Bush's most unChurchillian response to a presidential briefing warning of just such an attack on August 6 was to cut some more brush in Crawford.) But no sane person need fear that they will defeat and occupy the United States.
The Bush administration has responded to the events of 9/11 with a lot of tough talk and military power but no strategy or intelligent thought. The attack on Iraq, a nation that had no ties to the jihadists, should never have happened–it siphoned off resources from the reconstruction of Afghanistan, which has been sliding back toward its former condition; it has killed by even the most conservative estimates hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians, driven millions into exile, and created a failed state in which terrorists can regroup. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration assumed, with characteristic stupidity and arrogance, that once military victory had been achieved, there was nothing more to do; the reconstruction of both countries has been scandalously underfunded, and in Iraq, scandalously incompetent and corrupt.
The administration also failed (remember?) to capture the Al-Qaeda leaders they had cornered in Tora Bora. So now Al-Qaeda is holed up in western Pakistan. Musharraf is in an impossible position, because if he cracks down too hard, he is likely to be overthrown. And guess who would be in charge then.
Military power alone can't defeat stateless terrorism. We spend more on the military than all the other countries of the world combined, and what do we have to show for our investment? Chaos in Iraq, erosion of what had seemed a victory in Afghanistan, an exhausted and overextended military, with second and even third tours of duty. (And now the neocons want to attack Iran. As the old schooyard retort goes, "You and whose army?") If another crisis requiring a military response should arise, we'll be tied down in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the rest of the world knows it.
Military power will get you nowhere without imaginative and intelligent strategic thinking and diplomatic alliance-building. You can keep on killing "terrorists," but every time you also kill innocent civilians (which happens a lot, especially in air strikes), you recruit ten for every one you've killed. It's like the old myth of Hercules fighting the many-headed Hydra. Each time he struck off a head, more grew in its place. He finally had the wit to heat his weapon and cauterize the wound. He was the strongest man in the world, but it was thinking, not brute force, that allowed him to prevail.
Finally, to answer Igor's quest5ion: I see much more danger from Bush/Cheney/Halliburton than from the Islamic fanatics. And I say this despite having relatives in New York who were there during the 9/11 attacks. (You'll notice that the voters of New York and the District of Columbia, the cities struck on that date, are not big fans of Bush.) The terrorists can kill people now and again, and that is a danger I take very seriously. But Bush, Cheney, and their crew have steadily destroyed our country from within, chipping away at constitutional safeguards and scorning the rule of law. We will find out in the next year or two whether we are still a democracy, however corrupt and compromised, or have become an authoritarian state.
Igor R. compares people on my side of the argument with Chamberlain, implying that we are cowards. But he's the person who sounds terrified of the terrorists. I am concerned about them, but I am much less frightened of them than he appears to be.
Comment by Paul Breslin — July 28, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
Here's one guy who has Bush's number:
click here
Comment by Don Bacon — July 29, 2007 @ 1:09 am
The Neo-Cons are alive and well.
Who do you think is still in power?
They are just the current incarnation of the 'Corpirate' Stupid State.
Robbing everyone blind, for fun and profit.
I am a realist.
What is,
Is!
We could talk a million years about semantics and never get to the heart of the problem.
In fact that what they want.
People to argue instead of effecting Positive Progressive Change.
They are looting the treasury.
and killing hundreds of thousands of people,
For what?
corporate GREED.
When we stop looking at the Neo-Cons and start looking at the system that created them and is behind them, we will begin to solve the problem.
The present system has been co-opted by special interest.
The special economic interests of a few wealthy industrialists. Capital interests.
Only by redistributing the wealth and abundance to the many, instead of the few, will we begin to make meaningful change.
What changes?
To make the System fair.
We must level the playing field.
Take the Money out of politics.
Stop special interest from buying our government officials.
Break up the Media Conglomerates
A open, locally owned and run, Media is essential
To the survival of our country.
Level the playing field in Politics
By public financing of all elections.
Stop the Revolving door in Washington.
Ban Corpirate lobbyists from Government.
Change the one party ‘Corpirate’ system
To a true Multi party system.
Decentralize:
The Media Conglomerates
Manufacturing
Farming
and
Energy Production
Have a Armed Forces for defensive purposes only.
Stop Corporate Welfare!
Re-institute all of
The Bush & Co Tax breaks
Close all Tax Loopholes and
End all Tax Shelters.
With all of these savings
Guarantee:
Fairness
Universal Health care
A Livable wage
A clean environment
Education
Housing
And
Subsidence
To all.
The richest country in the world surely can afford these things,
That our poorer neighbors easily provide.
Stop Bullying the World.
Let’s start acting Compassionate
Good Deeds are a lot stronger than empty rhetoric.
Take care of our own first.
We are measured by how we treat the least amongst us.
The Poor
Homeless
And
The Sick!
Comment by William Eon — July 29, 2007 @ 10:18 am
What is so ironic though is, while his son "the decider" is ripping up the constitution in shreds. His daddy, I believe, is on the board of the constitution center in Philadelphia?
Comment by Joseph N Caucci — July 29, 2007 @ 10:51 am
Igor: Great job in pointing to the truth with such a well thought out and level headed debate. You have hit their nerve and exposed their lack of understanding of the enemy we face. Brent is a blow hard with little substance. I have given up wasting my time reading his diatribe and go directly to your response to get the real story. Thank you. You deserve this pundit slot…
Comment by Rich — July 29, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
Igor, if you get more popular I will barf. This whole thread is dominated by people who think you are "deluded". I have tried to warn you in the past, but you never listened. Now this.
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 29, 2007 @ 7:48 pm
Just as war has continued for years in "post"-war Iraq and Afghanistan, neo-conservatism (i.e., rabid recrudescent reaction) will continue — just as "intelligent design" has continued "creation science" — only under another euphemism: say, for example, something like "post-liberal-Bushism," or some other fatuous piece of nonsense.
Primitive word magic always works in crypto-fascist America, since the subservient, indoctrinated masses uncritically assume that where a name exists, some "thing" must also exist for the name to designate. This undemonstrated proposition has remained the stock-in-trade of sophists in every age of this earth, but sub-educated Americans swallow it uncritically as an article of faith over and over again.
So let us not prematurely announce the demise of stupidity — and the political crimes that feed on it — in TV-gawking America: as linguistically naive and dumbed-down a demographic as any charlatan or snake-oil salesman could ever hope to beguile with his (or her) worthless wares.
"Post-sovereign" military occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, anyone? "No one ever went broke," as I believe a wise scoundrel once said, "underestimating the intelligence of the American people." Neo-conservatism, or generic "neo-new-ism," will just re-brand itself with more Owellian double-thinking Newspeak and continue on its fascist way, promising that we will "really" understand what it "really" all meant once we realize and accept how the "liberal" Dick Cheney and George W. Bush f*cked it all up through their own misunderstanding and incompetence.
Charles Krauthammer, Holy Joe Leiberman, Hillary Clinton, or some other shameless shill for apartheid Israeli zionism will never quit trying to guilt-trip and browbeat the American taxpayer with ever-more-strident demands for ever-more-extravagant subsidies and reflexive support for the Crusader entity that Jesus will just convert and/or obliterate when he "comes back" in his spaceship on Armageddon Day, real soon now.
"Neo-conservatism" really means chutzpah, cynicism, and a lust for power too naked and ugly for most decent people to countenance. As the late Kurt Vonnegut said of the seventeenth century sea-pirates (the neo-conservatives of their day) who robbed the North American aborigines of their home continent: "Their chief weapon was the capacity to astonish. Nobody else could believe, until it was much too late, how heartless and greedy they were." And that, fellow Crimestoppers, pretty much sums up "neo-conservatism" in a nutshell: namely, heartless greed, with nothing either "new" or "conservative" about it.
Comment by Michael Murry — July 29, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
Mr. Eon, There are a number of countries you could move to and enjoy the kind of government you espouse. Somehow I doubt that you would enjoy the misery.
Comment by Ron Forte — July 29, 2007 @ 10:34 pm
There are moderate Zionists who want peace. But unfortunately right wing Israelis and PNAC neocons and the CIA have all the power now. Neoconism will probably not stop with the end of George Bush and Dick Cheney. However, it may slow down. However, I believe this shadow government has the hots for nuking Iran. I view it as inevitable, no matter who is president. I just hope that there is no false flag operation killing more innocent Americans prior to the big event as Ron Paul has warned could happen.
Of course, if the big event in Iran doesn't work, then this country will be in a world of hurt economically. We have more dollars floating around than we ever should have. And if people try to cash them in our economic system will fry.
This country is in trouble economically because the Bush admin actually piled more debt on to finance a war that was supposed to bring cheap oil. So now we are all in debt, and oil will go up not down if Iran is attacked. This on top of the bond fiasco may prove to be too much on our financial system.
But the rich really don't care. A depression could allow the neocons to really do some bad stuff. Prescott Bush tried to organize an assassination Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Murder is the Bush family business.
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 29, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
Thanks to an accident of timing and the slowness of updating the comments during the weekend, my response was the only one there for quite a while and has generated a number of comments. Thank you all those who took the time to comment. Let me respond to some now.
Chris, I don't just criticize, and you have seen enough of my posts to know better. My solution is to fight the Islamic terror and its alien ideology everywhere with extreme means. I can provide details in the future.
Tony, any major political philosophy changes lives, by choices made and not made. Even though I went along with the term "neocon" for the sake of avoiding a semantic argument, even those who are characterized as "neocons" don't like that characterization and don't agree on many details. The term could mean anything from "those powerful Jews that use the US military to fight for Israel" to "those who want to impose Democracy on the Middle East by a long war and state building". You ask to follow the money, anywhere I look in politics there is money. Clinton sold the White House for Chinese influence, yet I don't believe that Clinton was a Chinese agent. I'm not sure exactly what you mean, but I don't believe the war in Iraq was started to give Halliburton more contracts.
Don, among the more recent (as in 40 years) blunders, I would consider what Jimmy Carter allowed and encouraged to happen in Iran a lot bigger than anything Bush has done. I can immediately think of five more that are bigger. I wouldn't take a general's word for what's a foreign policy blunder. Once again, time will tell, and it's only the Democrats and perhaps China and those who can deliver nuclear weapons to the terrorists who can turn Iraq into a really big blunder. Don't forget, it's still going on.
David, I fully agree.
Gary, I would rather pay more for gas than have Iran acquire nuclear weapons.
Judith, the ideas was "now that we see how much damage the pan-islamic (or arab middle eastern, to be precise) ideology can do, let's now allow one of those nuts access to damaging weapons". All Saddam had to do was to abide by the spirit of his surrender agreement, meaning unfetterred access to the inspectors. Meanwhile he was playing games and shooting at American planes. It was definitely not an unprovoked aggression. Now we can argue about the subtleties of the situation, but that would take too long for this post. You also don't know eveything. You don't know where the WMDs really went if they existed, and there are theories, and you don't know because of Bill and Al why TWA flight 800 happened to have had mechanical difficulties on the most major holiday in Iraq.
Paul: all complex analogies are arguably inaccurate. I didn't make the first one. But why are the jihaddis dangerous today in spite of the good points you made? The answer: nuclear weapons. Also, today assymetric warfare can do trillions in damage to our economy.
MK, your post deserves a longer answer, but let me say this: historically, fighting the Muslims has been the only way to reverse their march. Explaining things to them doesn't work real well. There is also a benefit from the war to the US understanding of how to fight them in the future.
davefromqueens, talking to someone doesn't mean you are surrendering to them, but you have to have something to trade first. Also, you don't see the police negotiating with heinous killers unless they have hostages.
Robert, the beef is to fight them like there is no tomorrow. Or there won't be.
Paul, Chamberlain was an appeaser, not a coward. Your side unfortunately is the appeaser side. Once again, why are they so dangerous? Assymetric warfare, including nuclear weapons.
Rich, thank you so much!
Gary, popularity isn't all it's made out to be.
Comment by Igor R. — July 30, 2007 @ 1:58 am
Excellent analysis. Budowsky hits the neocon nail right on its' flat head. We have to be careful, though. As the old character actor Walter Brennan said in "To Have and Have Not" - "a dead bee can sting ya' just as much as a live one." We need to IMPEACH THE BASTARDS before they do something even DUMBER - like attacking IRAN.
Comment by Krashkopf — July 30, 2007 @ 11:12 am
Here's a WW2 analogy, it's already taken the US military longer to defeat Saddaam (or whatever in the hell it's trying to do) (with no end in sight) than it took them to defeat Hitler…W has taken the world's military and got its ass kicked by a third world army whose primary weapon is an IED, for that alone he should be impeached…
Comment by Rusty Austin — July 30, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
Rusty is now suggesting impeachment for poor military performance. What's next, impeaching for a recession? Large federal deficit?
The reason for the slow performance is two fold: mediocre generals and obsessive Rumsfeld (a great patriot, but no a competent military leader) who Bush was slow to replace and the embedded concern about the "innocent civilians" that prevented a quick and decisive defeat for the enemy, which, as thousands of years of military history have shown, requires crushing the will of the "innocent civilians" to support the enemy.
Comment by Igor R. — July 30, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
Well, if it isn't dead yet, it's certainly in it's "last throes." I doubt even a new battery in the heart could save it.
It's hard to imagine what neoconservatism could possibly do to discredit itself more. Deadliest act of terrorism ever on american soil? Check. Blundering response to a natural disaster that plowed through a major city? Did a heckuva job. Start a war with the wrong country? Mission accomplished. Who else but neocons could wreck our military, the CIA, the justice department, the education system, etc., etc. all while creating a crippling national debt? And of course, there are the crimes… violating the Constitution and committing perjury usually doesn't look to good on the resume.
Incidently Igor, this is what I meant by "failing miserably." When you lie to people and ignore the facts, it's not very convincing. Perhaps you should give your poor fingers a rest and think about all that's happened during the Bush administration for a while.
Comment by Derek D. — July 30, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
OK Igor, how far do you drive to work? What kind of car do you own? How much do you make? This economy is trash if gas prices double.
Comment by Gary Anderson — July 30, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
"[T]hat there is no reasoning with these people, and there has been no reasoning with these people for thousands of years. They are the enemy of western civilization. They must ultimately be defeated on the battlefield … not by reason, or by wisdom or through faith.but by the brute force of the sword. … To think otherwise, places the entire world at great risk."
That's funny, that's exactly what Adolf Hitler told the Germans about the Jews.
"The reason for the slow performance is two fold: mediocre generals and obsessive Rumsfeld (a great patriot, but no a competent military leader) who Bush was slow to replace and the embedded concern about the "innocent civilians" that prevented a quick and decisive defeat for the enemy, which, as thousands of years of military history have shown, requires crushing the will of the "innocent civilians" to support the enemy."
That's right, Igor — that strategy worked out really well for the Roman Empire two thousand years ago. And that line about mediocre generals is priceless — I feel like having it framed. It never occurs to you that the guy at the top — the 'Decider' with no combat experience and barely any military training — is just plain incompetent and in over his head? Tell me this, if he's such a great leader, why didn't he fire these mediocre generals and the incompetent Rumsfeld before they did so much harm?
There are so many great comments here on the death of neoconservatism that I haven't much to add except this anecdote: In the local blue-collar bar where I hang out occasionally, a place packed with conservative veterans of every war since WWII, and a crowd that used to support Bush, there's been a profound change in the past two years. Whenever Bush or Cheney appear on television these days, the vets demand, after a spate of cursing, that the channel on the TV be changed. The general attitude might be summed up by the Viet Vet who recently told the bartender, "Get that dumb motherf**ker off the TV!" referring to Bush. That ex-Marine voted for Bush in 2004.
Oh, yeah, the neocons are finished all right — it's all over but the delusional shouting, which we're reading right here in this thread.
Comment by RS Janes — July 30, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
RS, I don't think that Bush is such a great leader, OTHER THAN HE HANGS IN THERE WHEN TIMES ARE TOUGH. And that's the most important part of leadership. Is it paying off?
For those who haven't seen:
A War We Just Might Win
New York Times
Two Guys from the Brookings Institution, no less.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Comment by Igor R. — July 30, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
RS, about your comment comparing Hitler's comments with the ones you don't like: not everything in the world is the same just because you can invent an analogy (in case you didn't know). The jews didn't behead people on tape, blow up markets full of other jews, disemboweled people in front of their family, set them on fire, baked their children, drilled their heads, called for the world to be entirely under jewish control, have a religion that call for a few very harsh options for the infidels, or any number of other things that make the analogy imperfect.
Comment by Igor R. — July 30, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
Derek, lie to people and ignore that facts? What did I lie about and what facts did I ignore? The number of Americans killed in Iraq or the numerical value of the speed of light are "facts". Opinions about how the Iraq war is going are "opinions". The opinions about the Democrats' suitability for foreign policy decisions are also "opinions".
Your tirade about what can someone in particular do more to discredit themselves always has an answer: even more. I could ask: what could the Democratic party do more to discredit it's ability to confront external enemies? Carter gave us Iran and love Khomeini as a "holy man". He refused to stop his ascent to power because that would be "unfair". Bill Clinton sold to China missile technology for campaign contributions. He refused to kill Bin Laden because that could create a difficult to explain incident with collateral damage. He bombed an aspirin factory to pretend he is tough on terrorism. The Democrats collectively fought Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative that wound up crippling the Soviet Union's desire to compete and led to the greatest foreign policy win ever. I could go on and on.
But what more could they do to discredit themselves? If you listen to what Hillary and Obama are saying, A LOT!
Comment by Igor R. — July 30, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
Gary, I drive a 1968 Cadillac Eldorado on cross-country trips every week selling neocon propaganda door-to-door. I pay about $1000 per week in gas costs, but since I make a million a year, it doesn't really matter.
Comment by Igor R. — July 30, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
Sorry Igor, but you can't have a valid opinion unless you know the facts. For instance, the fact is that our own intelligence estimates have shown that invading and occupying Iraq, for all the death and destruction, has only strengthened Al Quida. Therefore, your statement about our heading for "victory" in Iraq is not opinion, it is a lie. Lying about President Carter and President Clinton only drives the point home all the more: neoconservatism is dead, all they have left is the lying (and the subsequent purjory charges).
I'll put another notch on my keyboard.
Comment by Derek D. — July 31, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
The desperation is palatable in these posts wishing for an American defeat in Iraq. Just because you wish it and are invested in it doesn't mean it is reality. The positive news from Iraq followed by victory for democracy and freedom for the Iraqi people, means a "slaughter' at the polls in 08 for democrats. It's a beautiful thing to be on the side of victory and freedom for Iraqis and Americans… God bless our military and their mission to rid the world of the enemies of freedom…
Comment by Rich — July 31, 2007 @ 3:24 pm
Derek, so now intelligence estimates are "facts", and more than that, "permanent facts". On top of that, every liberal always asks "what is the definition of victory", yet some intelligence estimate, or even your retelling of it's conclusions becomes equivalent to the sun rising in the east as unassailable truth about the lack of said undefined victory. This is ridiculous to the point where you're not making any sense again.
Carter did lose Iran because he was a confused idiot. And as for Clinton here something for you to read:
http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/clinton-scandals.html
Chinagate:
Attempts were made by Communist China to funnel money to the Clinton campaign and influence elections in 1996. Charlie Trie, one of Bills trusted DNC fundraisers, attempted to funnel this money. When faced with indictment he fled to China for refuge. Another money funneler for the communists and Clinton campaign, Johnny Chung, is now in jail. The funds came from divisions of the Chinese army, one of which had been caught only months earlier while attempting to smuggle AK-47's to LA street gangs. This is the government of RED CHINA - definitely a serious matter. If any scandals do catch up with him, which probably will happen, this is by far the worst. Amidst the sex scandals another DNC fundraiser scandal, Johnny Chung, openly admitted to knowingly taking funds from the Chinese government. Chung also testified that the DNC knew the source of this money was communist China. They accepted it anyway. The money is said to have been funneled through Chinese government official Liu Chao-ying then Chung and then to the DNC. Even more revealing was that Liu Chao-ying, daughter of Liu Hauqing (recent head of the Chinese military and top official of the Chinese communist party) and a Peoples Liberation Army and Chinese space agency official, attended a DNC fundraiser. Here she was photographed with Clinton. Chung also visited the White House over 45 times. Chung took several thousand dollars from commies and contributed them to a partisan candidate for President of the United States and leader of the free world. Chung was only a powerful campaign contributer/supporter with ties to the DNC and White House. Johnny Chung testified under oath to Congress on his admitted relations with the Chinese Commies and the ties to the President. Ironically Chung is one of a very small number of people who had greater White House access than Monica Lewinsky! Chung is said to have made over 50 visits compared to Monica's 39! Even better, only a week later Charlie Trie entered a guilty plea for his fundraising crimes and agreed to talk with investigators! Who next? Well it happened to be John Huang! Huang, another Clinton cronie, pled guilty to funneling Chinese funds less than a week after Trie!
Comment by Igor R. — July 31, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
Rich, you're absolutely right! The evil liberal America-haters will not face the truth, they will accuse the truth-bearers of lying. The facts cannot be denied. You know when the NYT is forced to admit things are improving, it's time for the liberals to admit defeat, not for America. But Harry Reid today denied there are any good news, his position is such that he'll be denying the truth for the rest of his days.
So you can only reveal more truth. Here's something from the guy who goes to the battles:
The Battle for Baqubah is still underway. Small TICs [Troops In Contact] continue to occur, but those enemy attacks have had little effect since combat kicked off on 19 June. As of 30 July, we lost one soldier, while the enemy losses number about a hundred. This battle is best measured not in the losses, but the gains. The people of Baqubah have been demonstrably ecstatic. Other than in the Kurdish areas, I have never seen such overt gratitude from so many Iraqis. Iraqis continue pointing out al Qaeda operatives and their hidden bombs. Despite that many al Qaeda escaped, the success so far is overwhelmingly obvious. The challenge remains to make it stick, but the gains are undeniable and the sense of momentum is palpable.
http://www.michaelyon-online.com/wp/bread-and-a-circus-part-i-of-ii.htm
Read the rest, it's worth it, and it will expose those like Derek above as the devious truth-deniers!
Comment by Igor R. — July 31, 2007 @ 4:27 pm
Heheh I've never heard of anyone being desperate for a defeat Rich; I think what you're sensing must be Republicans that are desperate to hold on to their jobs.
Comment by Derek D. — July 31, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
Derek is denying the truth again. Not desperate for a defeat?
Read this article about how the liberal blogosphere is treating the two Brookings scholars, sort of liberal, that DARED to report any good news from Iraq. Hell hath no fury like the truth denier on Iraq contradicted.
Bloggers unleash fury on optimistic op-ed
By: Avi Zenilman and Mike Allen
Jul 31, 2007 11:31 AM EST
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0707/5174.html
Comment by Igor R. — July 31, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
Positive news could be a problem for the Democrats: House Majority Whip says so. Talk about the endangered investment in defeat! I think these investors are going bankrupt.
Clyburn: Positive Report by Petraeus Could Split House Democrats on War
By Dan Balz and Chris Cillizza
Washington Post Staff Writer and Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Monday, July 30, 2007; 6:26 PM
"Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be "a real big problem for us."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001380.html
NEVER had an important Democrat reveal the truth about their evil priorities to this degree. The truth IS setting them free.
Comment by Igor R. — July 31, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
The British are NOT surrendering, despite the Democrats' best hopes. What are the truth-deniers to do now??? Deny the truth of course!
"We are at one in fighting the battle against terrorism, and that struggle is one that we will fight with determination and with resilience and right across the world," Mr. Brown said at a press conference at the presidential mountain retreat.
While repeating his aim to hand over to "the democratic government of Iraq" the administration of the southern Iraqi province that surrounds Basra when security conditions allow, Mr. Brown did not flinch from his support of Mr. Bush, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, or the wider war against terrorism.
Mr. Brown said it was "a great honor" to visit with Mr. Bush and "to be able to affirm and to celebrate the historic partnership of shared purpose between our two countries." The prime minister quoted Winston Churchill, who described the relationship between America and Britain as one of "the joint inheritance of liberty, a belief in opportunity for all, a belief in the dignity of every human being."
"Terrorism is not a cause, it is a crime, and it is a crime against humanity. And there should be no safe haven and no hiding place for those who practice terrorist violence or preach terrorist extremism," he said. "This is a battle for which we can give no quarter."
http://www.nysun.com/article/59460
Comment by Igor R. — July 31, 2007 @ 7:29 pm
The defeatocrats can't stand to listen to the good news from Iraq, literally. But Derek has never heard of anyone being desperate for defeat, what a joker!
"Illustrating that point, one freshman Democrat, Rep. Nancy Boyda (D-KS) literally walked out of a House Armed Services Committee hearing on Friday because she couldn't stand listening to the good news being delivered to that committee by General Keane (Ret.). Here's the transcript of her explaining her tantrum:
And I just will make some statements more for the record based on what I heard from — mainly from General Keane. As many of us — there was only so much that you could take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while. So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things — after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.
But let me first just say that the description of Iraq as in some way or another that it's a place that I might take the family for a vacation — things are going so well — those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, here's the reality of the problem. And people, we have to come together and deal with the reality of this issue.
Dealing with the reality of this issue means acknowledging the significant progress made by American forces under the command of General Petraeus. The only way the Democrats can now avoid that, it seems, is to cover their eyes and ears–or walk out of the room.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/07/a_war_we_just_might_win.asp
Comment by Igor R. — July 31, 2007 @ 8:16 pm