The Past, Present, and Future of Neoconservatism

[Area 51]

^
I think someone has a crush on Bill Kristol.

[bigdog]

Originally Posted by Area 51

^
I think someone has a crush on Bill Kristol.

Methinks, you "think" too much, ....you have profoundly,deep,deep,deep gay thoughts. [nothing new for you leftist kooks though]

very, very intriguing indeed. LOL

[Le Kiwi]

Now, what is this called in shrink terms again, Bigcliff, back when you were pretending to be a Psy ?
Inversion ? Reflection ? Transposition ?

It's odd, but you are the one with a hero-crush on your lip-stick smeared poster of "Bloody" Billy Kristol, of the neo-pirateship PNAC who is currently sailing off with the captured virtue of Miss America, tied to the mast while "Slippery" Dick caccles and leers and frots his Steyn, and his homosexual daughter slides a hand up her quivering bound legs...

We know you get a small and insignificant boner over anything these creepy neonazi shills Rummynate, as they drool their Perles of wisdumb from such erstwhile publications as the "Weakly Standartenfuhrer" The Weekly Standard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and now the "Idiots Becoming Dumber" and it's shreiking fearorist editorials Investor's Business Daily - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wipe your lips, Bigputz, your lipstick is running.
By the way, why is it only Republicans seem to get caught with their hands around other mens equipment if they're, like you (ha ha, not !) supposed to be straight ? Isn't that "Dissimulation" ?
Scooter along, now, there's a good tappet.

[bigdog]

Of Diplomats and Men

Do foreign service officers in Washington feel no sense of solidarity with their colleagues in Baghdad?

On August 26, Al Qaeda in Iraq tried to abduct four American paratroopers on rooftop surveillance in Samarra. The plan seems to have been to hold the soldiers hostage and then behead them just as General David Petraeus was testifying before Congress.

Showing an awareness of the American media that many political consultants would envy, al Qaeda hoped that the operation would become an Iraqi Tet, demoralizing Americans on the home front.

Three of the four soldiers al Qaeda tried to abduct were part of a "Reaper" team of the 82nd Airborne.

The fourth was a highly skilled sniper. Their mission was to monitor the roads below and prevent al Qaeda from planting IEDs to ambush their fellow members of Charlie Company as they made their way back from a mission.

According to Jeff Emanuel's report of this episode in the November American Spectator, the four men were alone and isolated on their rooftop. They soon found themselves under attack from nearly 40 al Qaeda fighters. Two of the men, team leader Sergeant Josh Morley and Specialist Tracy Willis, didn't survive the attack.

The two who did, Specialists Chris Corriveau and Eric Moser, killed between 10 and 15 al Qaeda in a desperate fight over 10 long minutes. At one point, al Qaeda forces tried to grab Sergeant Morley's body as a trophy.

At great peril to himself, Specialist Moser didn't let that happen. At the time of his death, Sergeant Morley was anticipating seeing his newborn daughter for the first time. He
was 22 years old. His comrade, Tracy Willis, was 21.

Not long after the Reaper team had its deadly engagement in Iraq, the State Department found itself enmeshed in a surprisingly intense internal dust-up. Not enough career diplomats at Foggy Bottom were volunteering to serve in Baghdad.

To remedy this situation, the State Department announced its intention to assign some foreign service officers to Baghdad, whether they volunteered or not. This announcement triggered an urgent State Department "town hall" meeting that took place October 31, where one Jack Croddy, a senior foreign service officer, spoke out.

"It's one thing if someone believes in what's going on over there and volunteers, but it's another thing to send someone over there on a forced assignment," Croddy carped. "I'm sorry, but basically that's a potential death sentence and you know it. Who will raise our children if we are dead or seriously wounded?"

It is tempting but perhaps unfair to compare Croddy's "death sentence" remark, and his resolve, with the actions of the men of Sergeant Morley's Reaper Team.

As the memorial plaques at the State Department attest, a long line of foreign service officers, from the 18th century down to the present day, have given their lives in service to their country. Croddy doesn't speak for them or, we hope, for very many of his colleagues today.

Still: What has happened to any sense of decency and propriety when a senior foreign service officer can say such a thing in public? Or when the State Department countenances a meeting that invites such a public display of petulance?

Do the foreign service officers in Washington feel no sense of solidarity, if not with our soldiers, at least with Ambassador Ryan Crocker and their colleagues serving in Baghdad? Serving in Iraq is hazardous duty. It seems that three State Department employees have died there since 2004, among some 1,500 who have served or are now serving in Iraq.

CONTINUED: Of Diplomats and Men

[bigdog]

Say It's So, Joe

Vice President Lieberman?

If a senator gives a speech, and no major newspaper reports it, does it matter? Joe Lieberman spoke in Washington Thursday on "the politics of national security." The next day, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and USA Today ignored his talk. Most Democrats will ignore it. But five guys named Rudy, John, Fred, Mitt, and Mike will read it. So should you. To that end, we're happy to provide excerpts from the remarks of the independent Democrat from Connecticut:

Between 2002 and 2006, there was a battle within the Democratic Party. . . . We could rightly criticize the Bush administration when it failed to live up to its own rhetoric, or when it bungled the execution of its policies. But I felt that we should not minimize the seriousness of the threat from Islamist extremism, or the fundamental rightness of the muscular, internationalist, and morally self-confident response that President Bush had chosen in response to it.

But that was not the choice most Democrats made. . . . Since retaking Congress in November 2006, the top foreign policy priority of the Democratic Party has not been to expand the size of our military for the war on terror or to strengthen our democracy promotion efforts in the Middle East or to prevail in Afghanistan. It has been to pull our troops out of Iraq, to abandon the democratically elected government there, and to hand a defeat to President Bush.

Iraq has become the singular
litmus test for Democratic candidates. No Democratic presidential primary candidate today speaks of America's moral or strategic responsibility to stand with the Iraqi people against the totalitarian forces of radical Islam, or of the consequences of handing a victory in Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran. And if they did, their campaign would be as unsuccessful as mine was in 2006. Even as evidence has mounted that General Petraeus' new counterinsurgency strategy is succeeding, Democrats have remained emotionally invested in a narrative of defeat and retreat in Iraq, reluctant to acknowledge the progress we are now achieving. . . .

I offered an amendment earlier this fall, together with Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, urging the Bush administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization and impose economic sanctions on them.

The reason for our amendment was clear. In September, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testified before Congress about the proxy war that Iran--and in particular, the IRGC and its Quds Force subsidiary--has been waging against our troops in Iraq. Specifically, General Petraeus told us that the IRGC Quds Force has been training, funding, equipping, arming, and in some cases directing Shiite extremists who are responsible for the murder of hundreds of American soldiers. . . .

Although the Senate passed our amendment, 76-22, several Democrats, including some of the Democratic presidential candidates, soon began attacking it--and Senator Clinton, who voted for the amendment. In fact, some of the very same Democrats who had cosponsored the legislation in the spring, urging the designation of the IRGC, began denouncing our amendment for doing the exact same thing.

continued: Say It's So, Joe

[bigdog]

The Anti-Neocon Fervor

Parsing the new political discourse



Not long ago, while visiting a friend at Oxford University, I found myself in a heated political discussion with a Scotsman. The subject of our dispute was the Iraq war, but the conversation turned toward the rise of latent anti-Semitism in once-respectable quarters of British opinion.

Two years earlier, a story entitled “A Kosher Conspiracy?,” illustrated by a gold Star of David plunged into the heart of the Union Jack, graced the cover of Britain’s most prominent left-wing magazine, The New Statesman. Since then, the intellectual climate had only worsened.

In response to my remark that many use the epithet “neocon” to describe Jews, my interlocutor replied, “I’d rather be an anti-Semite than a neocon.”

Today, no other political label gets thrown around as frequently, or with as much reckless abandon, as “neocon.” The most popular liberal blogs name and shame neocons, real or imagined, on a daily basis.

The term is used in a fashion similar to the way “communist” was during the 1950s—an all-encompassing indictment—this time indicating an imperialistic and “warmongering,” even an “insane,” worldview.

The anti-neocon fervor has reached truly McCarthyite proportions: just a few months ago, Steve Clemons of the left-wing New America Foundation argued in favor of “Purging the Neocons from the American Soul.”

The term “neoconservatism” has undergone a number of shifts in meaning. It was coined in 1973 by the socialist intellectual Michael Harrington to deride liberal thinkers such as Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Nathan Glazer, who had begun to criticize the welfare state’s excesses.

By the 1980s, its meaning expanded to include a small group of former liberal intellectuals who hewed to a strong anti-Soviet line and had defected from the Democratic Party to support Ronald Reagan.

They were motivated in part by an increased awareness of, and distinctive moral clarity about, human rights in international affairs, a worthy tradition whose liberal incarnation found embodiment in figures such as Senator Scoop Jackson, labor leaders George Meaney, Lane Kirkland, and Al Shanker, and intellectuals Bayard Rustin and Michael Walzer.

None of these people held traditionally “movement conservative” views on economics or social issues—far from it; some of them were outright socialists. Neoconservatives had not been content with the détente policies of Richard Nixon, because they wanted not to coexist with communism, but to end it—a more ambitious goal that Reagan shared.

After September 11, the “neocon” label, which had fallen into disuse, came back into vogue as a way to categorize the intellectual godfathers behind the Bush Doctrine, which of course has advocated both military responses to terrorist threats and promoting liberty around the world via “regime change” (not all necessarily through military means).

According to the leftist narrative, the neocons got us into the Iraq war—never mind the widespread assumption among intelligence services around the world that Saddam Hussein did have WMDs, or that large segments of the Democratic Party and liberal opinion leaders supported the invasion of Iraq, etc., etc.

By now, “neocon” has mutated into a political curse word to discredit not just those who happily accept their status as neoconservatives, but also anyone who merely believes that the West should respond in muscular fashion to national security threats, such as those posed by the cooperation of Iran, Syria, and North Korea on nuclear weapons technology and the equipping of terrorist groups around the world.

The chief purpose of this emergent rhetorical style is to cast aspersions on anyone who believes, say, that Iran must not attain nuclear weapons, even if it requires war.

International Herald Tribune columnist Roger Cohen, for instance, notes that “neocon has morphed into an all-purpose insult for anyone who still believes that American power is inextricable from global stability and still thinks the muscular anti-totalitarian U.S. interventionism that brought down Slobodan Milosevic has a place, and still argues, like Christopher Hitchens, that ousting Saddam Hussein put the United States ‘on the right side of history.’”

Examples of this new, broader, definitional standard abound. In 2004, writing in The Nation, Michael Lind termed the National Endowment for Democracy—a nonpartisan institution that provides millions of dollars to democracy activists around the world—“the quintessential neocon institution.”

French intellectual Bernard Henri-Lévy deems France’s Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, a “neoconservative,” a label that the socialist Kouchner would likely find surprising.

But Kouchner, who founded Doctors Without Borders and was one of the very few left-wing supporters of NATO intervention in the Balkans, recently observed that “it is necessary to prepare for the worst” against Iran, adding, “The worst, it’s war”—enough to range him in the neocon camp, it seems.

When Joe Lieberman, whose positions on domestic policy are indistinguishable from those of the majority of his colleagues in the Senate Democratic caucus, makes mere mention of Iranian or Syrian support for armed elements in Iraq, Matthew Yglesias—one of the most popular leftist bloggers, writing from his perch at The Atlantic—duly calls the senator a “neocon,” a “psychotic rightwinger,” and a “warmongerer.”

The long tradition of liberal anti-totalitarianism thus appears to have come to an end, at least in mainstream political rhetoric.

What about human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch?

Largely staffed by leftists, these days they escape the neoconservative charge because they generally presume moral equivalence between democracies and anti-American thuggocracies.

Amnesty, for instance, has referred to Guantánamo as a “gulag” and Human Rights Watch has issued more press releases about the lack of gay rights in the United States than any other country on earth.

Freedom House, on the other hand, which rates countries on a scale from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free), and explicitly ranks some nations (invariably Western democracies) as “more free” than others, has long been the bane of the leftist “human rights community.”

Welcome to the new political discourse.

[Le Kiwi]

quote=bigdog;433720]
According to the leftist narrative, the neocons got us into the Iraq war—never mind the widespread assumption among intelligence services around the world that Saddam Hussein did have WMDs, or that large segments of the Democratic Party and liberal opinion leaders supported the invasion of Iraq, etc., etc.

Virtually all the information, without a shadow of a doubt, was drawn from the neocon "Office of Special plans", entirely designed to finger Saddam, so the PNAC overthrow of Saddam could, at last, be put into action.
Office of Special Plans - SourceWatch
Clarke's Take On Terror, What Bush's Ex-Adviser Says About Efforts to Stop War On Terror - CBS News

By now, “neocon” has mutated into a political curse word to discredit not just those who happily accept their status as neoconservatives, but also anyone who merely believes that the West should respond in muscular fashion to national security threats, such as those posed by the cooperation of Iran, Syria, and North Korea on nuclear weapons technology and the equipping of terrorist groups around the world.

Wrong. Neocon is used to describe these people, and these people only, because, er, they are neocons.
Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A brief history of the PNAC: a refresher « Project for the Old American Century blog

The chief purpose of this emergent rhetorical style is to cast aspersions on anyone who believes, say, that Iran must not attain nuclear weapons, even if it requires war.

As usual, wrong again. The chief purpose of alerting people to the dangers posed by the quasi-fascism of the neocon movement is to PREVENT more senseless war which will enable them to finally bring about the fascist overthrow of America from within, with hardly a shot being fired as all Americas attentions are focussed on Iran and the large part of her army is spread out far from home fighting the neocon "War for Oil and Money" crusade. Who will stop the Blackwater Praetorian Guard then ? You, with your handguns and your every detail on the NSA and Fatherland Security databases ? Ha !

International Herald Tribune columnist Roger Cohen, for instance, notes that “neocon has morphed into an all-purpose insult for anyone who still believes that American power is inextricable from global stability and still thinks the muscular anti-totalitarian U.S. interventionism that brought down Slobodan Milosevic has a place, and still argues, like Christopher Hitchens, that ousting Saddam Hussein put the United States ‘on the right side of history.’”

The differences are so blatent. One) The neocons were still fermenting their nasty little plots in their beer-hall think-tank when the UN mandated US military might to pin the Serbs down. Two ) Invading countries which have never attacked you, had no part in any "War to create Terror" and posed no threat BUT had all that oil and were militarily weak is NOT good foreign policy, but it is Neocon foreign policy...
As an aside, Global Stability has NEVER been worse since the Neocons took the power out of the hands of the people and into the claws of the 4 Horsemen, Dick, Paul, Michael and Richard.

Examples of this new, broader, definitional standard abound. In 2004, writing in The Nation, Michael Lind termed the National Endowment for Democracy—a nonpartisan institution that provides millions of dollars to democracy activists around the world—“the quintessential neocon institution.”

French intellectual Bernard Henri-Lévy deems France’s Foreign Minister, Bernard Kouchner, a “neoconservative,” a label that the socialist Kouchner would likely find surprising.

Look up the links I provided. Kouchner himself called himself a neocon.

But Kouchner, who founded Doctors Without Borders and was one of the very few left-wing supporters of NATO intervention in the Balkans, recently observed that “it is necessary to prepare for the worst” against Iran, adding, “The worst, it’s war”—enough to range him in the neocon camp, it seems.

Because, see above, he's a neocon.

When Joe Lieberman, whose positions on domestic policy are indistinguishable from those of the majority of his colleagues in the Senate Democratic caucus, makes mere mention of Iranian or Syrian support for armed elements in Iraq, Matthew Yglesias—one of the most popular leftist bloggers, writing from his perch at The Atlantic—duly calls the senator a “neocon,” a “psychotic rightwinger,” and a “warmongerer.”

A clear and precise observation, backed by clear fact and evidence.

What about human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch?

Largely staffed by leftists, these days they escape the neoconservative charge because they generally presume moral equivalence between democracies and anti-American thuggocracies.

Amnesty, for instance, has referred to Guantánamo as a “gulag” and Human Rights Watch has issued more press releases about the lack of gay rights in the United States than any other country on earth.

They are also strongly anti-neocon, because no group like the neocons has taken such a staggering step backwards since hitler went to visit Moscow.

Freedom House, on the other hand, which rates countries on a scale from 1 (most free) to 7 (least free), and explicitly ranks some nations (invariably Western democracies) as “more free” than others, has long been the bane of the leftist “human rights community.”

Ah, yes, the Freedumb House.
Freedom House - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the new political discourse.

where you will hopefully be clever enough to see through the smoke and mirrors, and gaze into the neocon abyss they are opening up for all of us. Yay.

[bigdog]

NeoConservatism: Why We Need It

By Douglas Murray




I recommend this book -- pabulum

[Le Kiwi]

I recommend a lobotomy.

[bigdog]

Neo-Con? Extreme Moderate? How about Revolutionary Liberal.

Often when I walked onto the set of the West Wing some of my colleagues would greet me with a chanting of “Ron, Ron, the neo-con.” It was all done in fun but it had an edge.

Since speaking in support of George Bush at the 2004 Republican convention I’ve become increasingly disadmired by members of my profession as well as many others. As of this writing my family tells me they still love me. I believe them, but stay tuned, as another presidential cycle is upon us.

I find myself increasingly amused as folks extrapolate my support for the Bush Doctrine and our battles in Iraq and Afghanistan to how I feel about everything. When backed into a corner I often describe my politics, quite snarkily I admit, as a little bit to the right of the left of center.

As far as I can tell, my politics, with regard to American foreign policy and projection of American power haven’t changed very much from what they’ve always been—what I would call revolutionary liberalism. I have always resisted reactionaries from the left or right, Democrat or Republican. At the moment, the reactionary forces on the left, the Democratic netroots and their supporters—Mickey Colitis from the Daily Cuss, MoveOn.org and the Moores and Sheehans—are more fearful to me than the traditional reactionary forces of the extreme right. And the Democratic Party seems to be listening to them.

Senator Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Vice-Presidential candidate only eight years ago, gave an extraordinary speech on national security last week that the mainstream media did not cover. It’s a shame. And it’s a shame the Democratic Party shunned Lieberman and tried to defeat him in a primary. They made it clear that there is no place for him in the party he’s dedicated his life to. I’m a Joe Lieberman Democrat.

JFK reportedly remarked, “sometimes the party asks too much.” He was referring to the deal his Democratic Party made with southern segregationists to maintain control of Congress. His words are as true now as they were then. Sometimes the party asks too much.

I count myself firmly in the tradition of Wilson, FDR, Truman and Kennedy…and yes, Reagan and George W. Bush. “Go anywhere, bear any burden,” “try to do our best to make a world safe for democracy.” Our national mission, a worthy and ennobling one, is to expand freedom where we can. These are revolutionary goals very much in keeping with our Founders’ vision. They are hardly conservative, let alone neo-conservative goals.

My reactionary former colleagues and friends were quite content with the status quo with Saddam in power in a post 9/11 world. I was not. Revolutionary, not reactionary. My friends sound a bit racist when they insist on Arab-Muslim incapacities to expand freedoms and maintain their faith. I believe the Arab world will work its way to achieve this. I know that it will most likely come about through internal Arab-Muslim struggles and not via external pressures, but I believe we are uniquely capable of helping it along. Uniquely, because our Founding scriptures declare, “all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights.” Revolutionary, not reactionary.
Many people felt that the threat posed by Saddam was more tolerable than the risk of removing him. I disagreed and still do. Many of these people now feel that the threat of a nuclear Iran is more tolerable than the risk involved in making sure Iran doesn’t have such capabilities. I think they have it backwards. Many people feel reluctant to acknowledge that the “war on terror” is a real war. There is an unwillingness to identify the enemy, which is clearly a world-wide, malignant, metastatic Islamic jihadism, that will only be defeated ultimately with the Islamic world rising to reject the cancer. We cannot fight a war by pretending we’re not in one. This requires transformative, upset the apple cart thinking. It requires people who are revolutionary, not reactionary. As much as we might like, we cannot return to a pre-9/11 world.

The President is challenging the world with a new order. There is always passionate opposition to change. Have grievous mistakes been made? Yes. But just as Wilson, FDR, Truman, Kennedy, and Reagan laid the foundations for fighting and prevailing in the Cold War, Bush has responded to 9/11 with a foreign policy revolution of similar magnitude: a reorganization of government institutions and appropriate legislation to meet the emerging threats.
Containment and deterrence are ineffective in this brave new world. There is no containment if you can’t see the enemy; there is no deterrence if the enemy desires death.

I believe the President’s critics are profoundly mistaken. I believe they misunderstand how he’s trying to protect us. I believe they misunderstand the nature of the threat. I believe they misunderstand history. If they succeed in dismantling what President Bush has set in motion, the results may well be catastrophic and history will never forgive them.

George W. Bush: a revolutionary liberal internationalist? History may so decree. Let’s wait and see.

My philosophy, at the end of the day, bottom line, as they say: “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but labels never hurt me.”

[cutter]

Originally Posted by Le Kiwi

Virtually all the information, without a shadow of a doubt, was drawn from the neocon "Office of Special plans", entirely designed to finger Saddam, so the PNAC overthrow of Saddam could, at last, be put into action.
Office of Special Plans - SourceWatch
Clarke's Take On Terror, What Bush's Ex-Adviser Says About Efforts to Stop War On Terror - CBS News
Wrong. Neocon is used to describe these people, and these people only, because, er, they are neocons.
Neoconservatism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A brief history of the PNAC: a refresher « Project for the Old American Century blog
As usual, wrong again. The chief purpose of alerting people to the dangers posed by the quasi-fascism of the neocon movement is to PREVENT more senseless war which will enable them to finally bring about the fascist overthrow of America from within, with hardly a shot being fired as all Americas attentions are focussed on Iran and the large part of her army is spread out far from home fighting the neocon "War for Oil and Money" crusade. Who will stop the Blackwater Praetorian Guard then ? You, with your handguns and your every detail on the NSA and Fatherland Security databases ? Ha !
The differences are so blatent. One) The neocons were still fermenting their nasty little plots in their beer-hall think-tank when the UN mandated US military might to pin the Serbs down. Two ) Invading countries which have never attacked you, had no part in any "War to create Terror" and posed no threat BUT had all that oil and were militarily weak is NOT good foreign policy, but it is Neocon foreign policy...
As an aside, Global Stability has NEVER been worse since the Neocons took the power out of the hands of the people and into the claws of the 4 Horsemen, Dick, Paul, Michael and Richard.
Look up the links I provided. Kouchner himself called himself a neocon.
Because, see above, he's a neocon.
A clear and precise observation, backed by clear fact and evidence.
They are also strongly anti-neocon, because no group like the neocons has taken such a staggering step backwards since hitler went to visit Moscow.
Ah, yes, the Freedumb House.
Freedom House - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
where you will hopefully be clever enough to see through the smoke and mirrors, and gaze into the neocon abyss they are opening up for all of us. Yay.

I just like to quote things I agree with
Funny how they still try and claw their way out of the endless crap they start, it's like a guy punching you in the face while saying sorry, then punching you in the face again and says someone else did it, then punching you in the face one more time and telling you it's your fault.

[Gog]

Freedom House - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd be surprised if any of them actually read up on who founded this great organization. It's probably dismissed as a Bolshevik/socialist/leftist/marxist/Islamofascist cult. sigh...

[Le Kiwi]

In Neocontopia, they only read what they are told to read, and believe what they are told to believe. If the neocons hadn't become more subtle and stealthy over the years, they would have had the XFBOt's and Bigdogma's marching in well-oiled precision in long ranks and files up Pennsylvania Avenue, heads snapping right as Life-President Darth salutes from the Black House podium and the Fatherland Security Patriotic Home-Game band bangs away into a rousing version of "Let the Eagles soar", with the John Ashcroft Male Voice Choir singing along as the fluttering banners and crashing of boots reflect in the Blackwater Security Service "Life-guard Dick Cheney" sunglasses as they stand clenched like the mailed fist of Darkness around the Lord High Ones throne.....

Meanwhile, the monkey throws pretzels to the subdued crowd...


No, the neocons learnt well the lessons of history. Well, some of the lessons, they seem to have skipped the "Fall of Empires" and "Totalitarian Regimes eventually collapse under the weight of their own bullshit" classes, as well as the "Never engage in unwinnable wars which will empower your enemies and discredit your International standing when subtle diplomacy and co-operation would have worked" and "Don't steal natural resources and invade sovereign countries without making sure that you are totally justified" final history exams.
They may have been playing footsie with one-another as well, during the Civic lessons, and the "What America actually stands for Constitution and Bill of Rights discovery" class...

This explains why many of the people like Matthew, XFBO, Nero, Bigdogma and Dan appear to be scizophrenic, or suffering from massive cognitive dissonance which shrinks their reasoning capacity down to the size of a pea, as they succumb to the rape of the neocons.
"Might is right and Right is might !"

By the way, Cutter. The neocons don't punch anyone in the face (their poofy little wrists would shatter like fine Kristol...) they have big hulking, brainwashed brutes do that job for them. Just like the nazi scum had the Gestapo.

[Le Kiwi]

Wow.

Matthew Yglesias (November 18, 2007) - This Sounds Like a Really Fun Mission (Foreign Policy)



People sometimes wonder why I go so ape-shit crazy about the neocons like Kagan and all the other neo-turds.
This is one of the many reasons.
In fact, honestly, everything they do and everything they say is actually reason enough to get angry at these shit-stirring monkeys.

[bigdog]

A Debate of Dwarves

If you want to know what the Democratic presidential candidates and the Democratic Party believe, the debates, often derided as intellectually inconsequential, reveal a great deal.

The problem is that news media almost never report the most important statements the candidates make. Here then are some of those statements from the most recent debate, followed by a comment on their significance.

Joseph Biden on how he'd handle Russia: "Who among us is going to pick up the phone and immediately interface with Putin and tell him to lay off Georgia because [Georgian President] Saakashvili is in real trouble?"

Sen. Biden says he would pick up the phone and tell Russian President Putin "to lay off" a neighboring country. Hasn't one of the Democrats' primary criticisms of the Bush administration been that it engages in "cowboy diplomacy"?

And what exactly does Sen. Biden think President Putin's response would be? "Yes, President Biden, whatever you say." Yet they say that President Bush is disengaged from reality.

John Edwards on Americans going hungry: "Thirty-five million Americans last year went hungry. . . .This [election] is about those 35 million people who are hungry every single year."

There is no truth to this charge against America. The only basis for it is a U.S. Department of Agriculture Report saying that about 35 million Americans experienced "household food insecurity" in 2006. That term does not, the USDA emphasized, mean hunger, but being forced to reduce "variety in their diets" or eat a "few basic foods" at various times of the year. If a country could sue for libel, America would have cause to sue Mr. Edwards.

Barack Obama on giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants: "When I was a state senator in Illinois, I voted to require that illegal aliens get trained, get a license, get insurance to protect public safety. That was my intention."

Obama on not giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants: "I am not proposing that that's what we do. What I'm saying is that we can't -- [interrupted by laughter]. No, no, no, no, look, I have already said I support the notion that we have to deal with public safety and that driver's licenses at the state level can make that happen. But what I also know, Wolf [Blitzer], is that if we keep on getting distracted by this problem, then we are not solving it."

What exactly is Sen. Obama's position on giving licenses to illegal immigrants? Clearly, he is for it and against it. But most importantly, he opposes being distracted by it.

Dennis Kucinich on giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants: "I take issue with your description of people being illegal immigrants. There aren't any illegal human beings, that's number one."

Who ever said anything about "illegal human beings"? "Illegal immigrant" describes one's immigration status, not one's humanity. Such a statement embarrasses public discourse.

Hillary Clinton (discussing Pakistan) on the link between democracy in an Islamic country and American security: "There's absolutely a connection between a democratic regime and heightened security for the United States."

Isn't that precisely what President Bush has been saying for years about Iraq? And isn't that idea exactly what Democrats have held in contempt?

Bill Richardson on why the surge is not working: "We shouldn't be talking about body counts. One American death is too much."

In assessing whether a change in military tactics is working, a man who seeks to be commander-in-chief says that "we shouldn't be talking body counts." And why? Because "one American death is too much." If someone had asked Gov. Richardson if a new traffic policy that greatly reduced traffic fatalities were working, would Gov. Richardson have responded, "We shouldn't be talking body counts . . . one American death is too much"?

Obama on the surge (Blitzer: "I'll put the same question to you: Is General Petraeus' strategy working?): "There is no doubt that because we put American troops in Iraq -- more American troops in Iraq, that they are doing a magnificent job, and they are making a difference in certain neighborhoods.

But the overall strategy is failed, because we have not seen any change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders. And that is the essence of what we should be trying to do in Iraq."

The "essence" of what troops do in war is vanquish the enemy. What does a "change in behavior among Iraq's political leaders" have to do with the question of whether the troop increase is working?

Clinton on whether she exploits her gender for votes: (Campbell Brown: "Senator Clinton, you went to your alma mater recently, Wellesley College, and you said there that your tenure had prepared you to compete in the all boys club of presidential politics.

At the same time, your campaign has accused this all boys club surrounding you on stage of piling on with their attacks against you. And then your husband recently came to your defense by saying that these, quote, 'boys,' had been getting rough with you and some have suggested that you, that your campaign, that your husband are exploiting gender as a political issue during this campaign. What's really going on here?"): "Well, I'm not exploiting anything at all. I'm not playing, as some people say, the gender card. . . . "

In light of the question, I will leave it to the reader to determine the credibility of the denial.

Richardson on whether he would pull out all contractors from Iraq ("You know that Senator Obama has said he would pull out all of the private contractors if in fact he was president. But in light of how stretched our military is, do you think that's a practical solution?"): "Yes. I would pull out all the contractors."

Who then would Sen. Obama and Gov. Richardson have do the work of reconstructing Iraq?

Obama on raising the taxable salary on Americans paying social security taxes: "What we can do is adjust the cap on the payroll tax. . . . Understand that only 6 percent of Americans make more than $97,000, so 6 percent is not the middle class -- it's the upper class."

According to Sen. Obama, a family of four whose gross income in $96,000 is in the upper class. All Americans should understand who Democrats consider "rich" when they speak about increasing taxes on "the rich."

Clinton, Obama and Edwards on abortion as a matter of privacy ("Senator Clinton, would this be a sine qua non for you, that any nominee you name to the Supreme Court would have to share your view on abortion?"):

Clinton: "Well, they'd have to share my view about privacy, and I think that goes hand in hand [with abortion]. Privacy, in my opinion, is embedded in our Constitution."

Obama: "I would not appoint somebody who doesn't believe in the right to privacy." Edwards: I would insist that they recognize the right to privacy and recognize Roe v. Wade as settled law."

It is worth noting that many pro-choice leftist scholars, such as Harvard Law School's Laurence Tribe, have spoken of Roe v. Wade's using the right to privacy to legalize abortion as poor law. There are rational arguments to be made on behalf of not criminalizing every woman who has an abortion, but arguing that killing a nascent human being is only a privacy matter is not one of them.

Obama on America teaching Muslims to love or to hate America: "We're not just going to lead militarily; we're going to lead by building schools in the Middle East that teach math and science instead of hatred of Americans."

Another Democrat who believes that anti-American hatred in the Islamic world is America's fault, and that it therefore can be undone by building schools there. And President Bush is alleged to be "disengaged from reality."

Clinton on how Americans should begin to act: "Let's enlist the best that we have in America and start acting like Americans again to solve our problems and make a difference."

Sen. Clinton uses this phrase -- "Let's start acting like Americans again" -- repeatedly. If this is some code phrase on the Left, fine. But the rest of us do not know what it means. When did Americans stop acting like Americans? And what does "acting like an American" even mean?

These are the some of the words and thoughts in just one debate of those seeking the Democratic Party's nomination as its candidate for president of the United States.

It is also important to note that as in every previous Democratic debate, not one candidate mentioned "jihadist" or "Islamic" or "Islamist" terror.

And one of them may well be the next president of the United States.

[Le Kiwi]

Confuse anyone.
Use spin and distortion, or;

Read them anything by Dennis Prager, or copy and paste anything by any of the neocon "Mouths of Sodom", like IBD, The Daily Fascist, The NY Stun, or press releases from Heritage of Fascism Foundation, The Hudson fascist Institute, PNAC, AEI, AIPAC, FDD and any number of the bottom-dwellers so beloved of Bigdogmabot.

Neoturds.

[bigdog]

Howard's End

America lost a great ally in the electoral defeat of Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Saturday. Sure, it signals the shifting currents of democracy. But it won't stop us from missing him.

If "standup guy" could apply to anyone, it's Howard. He understood the nature of the jihadi war on the West and the significance of spreading democracy to benighted parts of the world that incubate terror.

But he didn't just think it, he meant it — by contributing thousands of troops to the cause of victory in both Iraq and Afghanistan. America had no greater ally than the man who led Australia to greatness for 11 years.

Howard also gave Australia much in its spectacular economy, its full employment, its 11 straight years of growth and its rising standing in the world.

But he gave much to the rest of the world as well — by bringing order to the chaos of East Timor from 1999 to 2007, by bailing out Asian neighbors in the 1997-98 financial crisis and by rescuing Indian ocean states from the destruction of the 2004 tsunami.

Howard's successor, the agreeable left-leaning Kevin Rudd, 50, will not easily match the achievements of his doughty, determined predecessor. But like Thatcher and Churchill, Howard was ousted by voters at the zenith of his achievement.

The mysterious dynamics of democracy moved against him. Australia's voters, with the youngest having no memory of anything other than a government that worked, jobs that were plentiful and a future that was crisis-free, moved toward something new, as if these conditions could be taken for granted.

Still, like markets, maybe they showed a collective voter sense of their own interests beyond the current issues. Perhaps they anticipated that in Howard's success in the war on terror, time was coming to focus on new issues closer to home.

Whatever it was, it wasn't a poor performance as leader that moved Australia's voters to swing the political pendulum the other way. Sad as it is to see Howard's end, real democracies always change, just as seismically engineered skyscrapers must shift from side to side in the Earth's motion to always stand tall.

Howard lost resoundingly, to be sure. Labor opponents picked up 26 seats to win a majority of 80 in the 150-member House of Representatives. But what Howard built in his achievements will leave a mark on Australia for a time when voters favor change once again.

Political currents are one thing. But John Howard was more than a current. He was a unique leader whose achievements rose above political tides.

[Le Kiwi]

Howard was an anchor attached to a sinking ship.
Just like Burlyscurvi was the greasy chef that poisoned the crew, and Aznar "il fascisti" the bent propeller shaft that helped the good ship USS Neocon-Idiot yaw in circles with a gibbering monkey hooting and "Deciding" at the helm, all the flotsam and refuse that attached themselves to the Great Imperial Oil Snatch (or "War to Create Terror", whatever..) are sinking in the hubris of their own creation.

Tory Blier is already some leagues away, paddling in his stolen lifeboat (the only one, because Bosun Dick sneered that "Lifeboats won't be neccessary where we're going..." and sold them to a crony, reassuring his fellow neocon pirates that they had a "just-in-case" plan, but because they were the greatest minds on the planet, nay, in the Omniverse, they couldn't fail....)


Goodbye, and good riddance.

Bigdogma, you look to me like the axle grease on the rotating shaft of the sinking ship. Hope you can't swim.

[bigdog]

The Other Surge

The best measure of our success in Iraq is the results of the latest election — Iraqis voting with their feet. Some 4 million Iraqis who fled their homeland are returning in droves.

The improved safety and security in Baghdad, as well as in outlying provinces such as the former al-Qaida strongholds of Anbar and Diyala, may not have been acknowledged by Democrats in Congress. But Iraqis who fled their homes have taken note and are returning in numbers that are hard to keep track of.

Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, spokesman for the U.S.-Iraqi efforts to pacify Baghdad, said border crossings by returning refugees numbered 46,030 in October alone. He attributed the large numbers to the "improving security situation" resulting from the successful military surge orchestrated by Gen. David Petraeus.

"We are receiving tremendous numbers of displaced families at the borders of Syria and Jordan," says Maj. Gen. Mohsen Abdul Hassan, head of Iraq's department of border enforcement. "We have difficulties dealing with the large numbers. There are long lines of vehicles."

Convoys of Iraqis wanting to return and willing to drive themselves from Damascus to Baghdad are being organized by the Iraqi embassy in Damascus.

Syria has absorbed the lion's share of Iraqi refugees during the war. But the Times of London reports that as a result of the Iraqi return, "Saida Zaynab, the Damascus neighborhoods once dominated by many of the 1.5 million Iraqi refugees, is almost deserted. Apartment prices are plummeting and once-crowded shops and buses are half empty."

Hussein Ali Saleh, director of the National Theatre in Baghdad, stages plays for refugees in Damascus. He reports that the al-Najum theatre was filled with 400 Iraqis on an average night. Lately, barely 50 show up.

"In the last month, 60% of the Iraqis I know have returned," he told the Times. "The situation has changed completely. They all want to go back. Even my own family back in Baghdad is telling me the situation is much better."

"There is a large movement of people going back to Iraq. We are doing rapid research on this," added a spokesman for the United Nations High Commission on Refugees.

But no research is needed to confirm that the surge has worked. The Iraqi people feel safer than ever as al-Qaida is pushed out of Baghdad and outlying provinces, and the number of car bombings and civilian casualties has dropped sharply.

Even the New York Times, which like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had editorially proclaimed the war to be lost, reported Tuesday that people in Baghdad now move freely without fear, even at night. People feel free to move between Shiite and Sunni areas for everyday routines such as work, shopping and school.

Just six short months ago, the mostly Sunni neighborhood of Amariyah in western Baghdad was one of the centers of al-Qaida in Iraq operations. Some days there were as many as a dozen car bombings and shootings. Few walked the streets.

Today, as the Associated Press reports: "Twilight brings traffic jams to the main shopping district of this once-affluent corner of Baghdad, and hundreds of people stroll past well-stocked vegetable stands, bakeries and butcher shops." Women shop in its reopened stores, and men drink tea in sidewalk cafes.

Because we refused to leave, the Iraqi people are choosing to come home.


OOOOOOOOOORRRRRAAAAAHHHHH --- OOOOOORRRRAAAAHHHHH

[Gog]

Neocons are the televangelists of politics. Doesn't take much research or insight to find the intellectual crevasses these lower IQ asses inhabit! Look for an awful, shameful, arrogant slogan, being championed by aggressive brownshirts, an oily mushroom cloud and there, perched defiantly will be a bunch of filthy hypocrites masquerading as American conservatives.

One glimpse into TV evangelism in America and one quickly discovers the leaders of these charades are liars, cheaters, hypocrites, posers, users, abusers, and rich. We see they are surrounded by stupid sheep who fork over their money, sing praises for their "Kill for Jesus" policies, forgive them daily for daily transgressions, believe them when they call something evil because god told them. Like...um.. David Koresh and co. Well, political neocons are the same DNA, stupid people with sheep for brains!

The consistency of ridiculousness astounds me. One issue after another we see the staggering impact that poor education and narrow imprinting can have on people. No depth, breadth, width or truth to the endless parade of fear mongering, logic bashing, greed and down right, utter incompetence!