End of Neocons - GOOD RIDDANCE!!!

[Bowmaster]

Terror, torture and the political consequences
A ghastly week
May 13th 2004
From The Economist print edition

Donald Rumsfeld may survive; so may George Bush; but the neo-conservative moment is surely drawing to a close Predicting the impact of Abu Ghraib on the election is probably a mug's game. But it definitely marks the end of an extraordinary phase in American foreign policy.

September 11th gave birth to a foreign policy that was characterised by a heady mixture of optimism and moral clarity. The neo-conservatives had been something of minority sect in foreign policy. But after the terrorist attacks, George Bush?and, more crucially, that conservative half of America?firmly endorsed the neo-conservative vision of using American power to bring about a region-wide transformation of one of the world's most backward places. The president also talked about a war of good against evil.

But democratising the Middle East is much easier to talk about in a think-tank beside the Potomac than a prison in Baghdad. The neo-cons have tried to pin the blame for the manifold failures in Iraq on the administration's bungling; even before the current furore, Mr Rumsfeld was widely blamed for not putting enough troops in the country (on that at least, the neo-cons and the generals who despise them as armchair warriors agree).

Yet there is a growing sense on the right that the neo-cons have been revealed as naïve optimists. Pat Buchanan, their traditional enemy, crows that the neo-conservative ?hour is up in national politics...As Richard Nixon used to say, ?they've broken their pick'?. David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, points out that the right is much more receptive to Mr Buchanan's arguments.

It is not just a matter of factional politics at the Bush court. The moral clarity that seemed so important to American foreign policy is beginning to go fuzzy at the edges. Mr Berg's decapitation may have reinforced many Americans' belief that they are, indeed, at war with evil. But the grisly pictures from Abu Ghraib are raising doubts, even in the heartland, about whether American power is an unalloyed force for good in the world.

SEE YA!!!

 

[lozina]

It's no way near over for them yet, they still have plenty of tricks up their sleeves and plenty of time to use them before November.

America's public opinion can change drastically with a single headline.

 

[irwincur]

If they mean it is over in the sense that the liberal media made it all up, yes. People are sick of hearing this stupid name, that the press made up sometime around 2000. It because a catchphrase for morons and conspiracy theorists (also the media) for four years now. It is about time that it was dropped.

Whatever the case, the media does not seem to understand that there are now clearly more Conservatives in this nation than there ever were. Nor do they understand that the numbers of true liberals (the ones that still have the balls to call themselves that and not moderates) is down to about 20%.

 

[Passions]

Who are the exact neo-cons in office?

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: irwincur
People are sick of hearing this stupid name, that the press made up sometime around 2000.

Speak for yourself, buddy.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: irwincur
If they mean it is over in the sense that the liberal media made it all up, yes. People are sick of hearing this stupid name, that the press made up sometime around 2000. It because a catchphrase for morons and conspiracy theorists (also the media) for four years now. It is about time that it was dropped.

Whatever the case, the media does not seem to understand that there are now clearly more Conservatives in this nation than there ever were. Nor do they understand that the numbers of true liberals (the ones that still have the balls to call themselves that and not moderates) is down to about 20%.

Do you think the economist is a liberal media outlet?

Do you have any evidence for your statements in your second paragraph?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Passions
Who are the exact neo-cons in office?

People like Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Libby, Rove and I'm sure they had no trouble bringing Cheney under their wing.


http://www.newamericancentury.org


and also http://www.pnac.info

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: irwincur
If they mean it is over in the sense that the liberal media made it all up, yes. People are sick of hearing this stupid name, that the press made up sometime around 2000. It because a catchphrase for morons and conspiracy theorists (also the media) for four years now. It is about time that it was dropped.

Whatever the case, the media does not seem to understand that there are now clearly more Conservatives in this nation than there ever were. Nor do they understand that the numbers of true liberals (the ones that still have the balls to call themselves that and not moderates) is down to about 20%.

What made you decide to suddenly change from lurking for 2 years to trolling?

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: irwincur
If they mean it is over in the sense that the liberal media made it all up, yes. People are sick of hearing this stupid name, that the press made up sometime around 2000. It because a catchphrase for morons and conspiracy theorists (also the media) for four years now. It is about time that it was dropped.

Whatever the case, the media does not seem to understand that there are now clearly more Conservatives in this nation than there ever were. Nor do they understand that the numbers of true liberals (the ones that still have the balls to call themselves that and not moderates) is down to about 20%.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

neoconservatism, n.
A new or revived form of conservatism.

1883 H. DUNCKLEY in Contemp. Rev. 43 149 If these are the principles of Neo-conservatism, our case is made out with a superfluity of proof. 1944 C. VON OSSIETSKY tr. in H. R. Crippen Germany 291 Every notion of literary antiSemitism is nebulous and fuzzy. Its confusion is no different from that of neo-conservatism or the national romanticism so much the vogue today. 1952 Mississippi Valley Hist. Rev. 39 348 Mr. McCloskey depicts brilliantly how neoconservatism succeeded then in turning traditional democratic values..upside down. 1960 Encounter Nov. 78/1 If anything can render neo-conservatism intellectually respectable, it is writing of this kind. 1979 Maclean's 13 Aug. 49/2 He is a man entranced by the siren song of neoconservatism. 1987 Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev. 249/2 Krieger's condemnation of neoconservatism is focused on the social politics that it entails. 1999 Time 15 Feb. 78/1 In 1960 he became editor in chief of the leftist journal Commentary; after his conversion he repositioned it as a leading organ of neoconservatism.

Just because you were unaware of the term prior to four years ago, that doesn't mean it didn't exist.

cumhail

 

[irwincur]

I was not commenting on the Economist, nor did I credit them for defining the name. I was commenting on how the classification arose, and why it was actually pretty stupid. Or at least worthless. Plus, I thought that the liberals were always the ones against lables and name calling - why do they always participate and create predudices?

Do you have any evidence for your statements in your second paragraph?

The only proof you need is the 2002 election. Not only did Conservative members of congress kick a$$, but they did better than any other politcal group in American history, bucked a 100 year trend, and took 13 more seats than predicted. If this does not define a major shift in American politcs you must be blind.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: irwincur
If they mean it is over in the sense that the liberal media made it all up, yes. People are sick of hearing this stupid name, that the press made up sometime around 2000. It because a catchphrase for morons and conspiracy theorists (also the media) for four years now. It is about time that it was dropped.

Whatever the case, the media does not seem to understand that there are now clearly more Conservatives in this nation than there ever were. Nor do they understand that the numbers of true liberals (the ones that still have the balls to call themselves that and not moderates) is down to about 20%.

Apparently anyone not willing to sign on with one of the two crazy extremist sides now lacks balls.

 

[Bowmaster]

Whatever the case, the media does not seem to understand that there are now clearly more Conservatives in this nation than there ever were. Nor do they understand that the numbers of true liberals (the ones that still have the balls to call themselves that and not moderates) is down to about 20%.

I'm not sure if I believe those numbers. What I DO believe is that most (80%) of the people in the US are MODERATES. Some of us swing to the left or right, but the time of the far-right swing is OVER!

 

[Kappo]

Who is the author of that article?

But the grisly pictures from Abu Ghraib are raising doubts, even in the heartland, about whether American power is an unalloyed force for good in the world.

That statement qualifies as a purely liberal statement.

What is good for the US is bad for liberals. Plain and simple. Why do you think there is such negative reporting by (roflmao - right) non partisan news sources such as LNN...errr CNN? Anything that makes the US look good is buried on page 7, but you get something that is remotely questionable, even if it doesnt mean a damn thing, blam <FRONT PAGE> with an editorial presented as fact.

 

[irwincur]

What made you decide to suddenly change from lurking for 2 years to trolling?

Got sick of my other forums. Wanted to change it up a bit, plus I had forgotten about this place for quite some time.

About me trolling. I don't see how actually answering and responding is trolling. Do you percieve me as a threat to the crap that you spread on this forum? Afraid of a little balance here?

The fact that you hadn't heard of it more than four years ago doesn't make it mean that it didn't exist.

Just because it was defined in 1883 does not mean that it was popuarly used over the past 110 years. Please, tell me in all truth that you commonly used this term for your whole life. I am an avid new watch and politcal follower and the first time I heard this term in active use was around 2000. Sure during the Reagan years it may have popped up, but it was not nearly as overused as it was during this term.

Just because a word exists does not necessarily guarantee that it is commonly used. Hell every whacko these days spits the term out every time they see a black helicopter ot watch Al Jazeera for their daily does of propaganda. Oh, did I say whacko - I meant liberal - umm, Democrat.

 

[Genesys]

i'd like to see a resurgence in good old fashioned conservatism. limited govt, limited taxes, good military [and intelligence orginizations] funding/support, etc...

 

[Zephyr106]

Originally posted by: Kappo
Who is the author of that article?

But the grisly pictures from Abu Ghraib are raising doubts, even in the heartland, about whether American power is an unalloyed force for good in the world.

That statement qualifies as a purely liberal statement.

What is good for the US is bad for liberals. Plain and simple. Why do you think there is such negative reporting by (roflmao - right) non partisan news sources such as LNN...errr CNN? Anything that makes the US look good is buried on page 7, but you get something that is remotely questionable, even if it doesnt mean a damn thing, blam <FRONT PAGE> with an editorial presented as fact.

Yeah, abusing prisoners isn't bad. And maybe more importantly, it isn't shooting our efforts to pacify Iraq in the foot. But continue living in your dream world.

And about your media claims. Surely you realize that doom and gloom sell more than some pansy good news story? That is human nature and I would be concerned if it were any other way, because it would mean that people are inured to violence and suffering. How about the hysteria on Fox News the other day about "children sex bracelets?"

Zephyr

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Genesys
i'd like to see a resurgence in good old fashioned conservatism. limited govt, limited taxes, good military [and intelligence orginizations] funding/support, etc...

:beer: to that

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: irwincur
I was not commenting on the Economist, nor did I credit them for defining the name. I was commenting on how the classification arose, and why it was actually pretty stupid. Or at least worthless. Plus, I thought that the liberals were always the ones against lables and name calling - why do they always participate and create predudices?

Do you have any evidence for your statements in your second paragraph?

The only proof you need is the 2002 election. Not only did Conservative members of congress kick a$$, but they did better than any other politcal group in American history, bucked a 100 year trend, and took 13 more seats than predicted. If this does not define a major shift in American politcs you must be blind.

"I was not commenting on the Economist"
Fair enough.

"media does not seem to understand that there are now clearly more Conservatives in this nation than there ever were"
How does this show that the media does not understand there are more conservatives in America than there ever was before?

"Nor do they understand that the numbers of true liberals (the ones that still have the balls to call themselves that and not moderates) is down to about 20%."
How do you know they don't understand that?

 

[cumhail]

Originally posted by: irwincur

The fact that you hadn't heard of it more than four years ago doesn't make it mean that it didn't exist.

Just because it was defined in 1883 does not mean that it was popuarly used over the past 110 years. Please, tell me in all truth that you commonly used this term for your whole life. I am an avid new watch and politcal follower and the first time I heard this term in active use was around 2000. Sure during the Reagan years it may have popped up, but it was not nearly as overused as it was during this term.

Just because a word exists does not necessarily guarantee that it is commonly used. Hell every whacko these days spits the term out every time they see a black helicopter ot watch Al Jazeera for their daily does of propaganda. Oh, did I say whacko - I meant liberal - umm, Democrat.

My whole life? No, of course not. At 3, for example, I imagine that I would have had immense trouble sounding it out... .

More seriously, the word came into its most current usage in the early 90's , as it's come to refer to the ideologies of a group of Reagan-era and post-Reagan conservatives. To learn more about their world views, you can get it directly from them by going to http://www.newamericancentury.org, the web site of the "Project for a New American Century." This group of neoconservatives is not the only such group, of course; but it's a particularly relevant one to the discussion since its charter members include(d) Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Jeb Bush. To see their names listed among other signatories whose names that should be familiar, just take a look at their "Statement of Principles Page," available at: http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm.

All that said, I meant mostly to dispute the notion that the term is the creation of a biased liberal press or of a group of "whackos," which you seem(ed) to be implying. For someone mocking "tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists," by the way, you seem all too willing to believe in conspiracy theories so long as they're of a kind that work to support your views and demonize those who would dare to oppose them.

Just my two cents,

cumhail

 

[irwincur]

Yeah, abusing prisoners isn't bad. And maybe more importantly, it isn't shooting our efforts to pacify Iraq in the foot. But continue living in your dream world.

I think you missed the point, because obviously you have problems readin between the lines.

It is not that the abuse occured, or that some of it was bad. It is about the fact that as an issue compared to its relatively tiny scale, it has been OVERBLOWN by the media. For one reason. A calculated attack against Bush. The media cannot wait for Kerry, he is going nowhere and making poor news coverage. They need a major crisis to jumpstart everything and that is what they got, err created here.

In a non election year this issue would have been in the paper for a week tops. Now in an election year with a media ready to pounce and a weak Democrat that people don't know, this equals a major crisis for Bush. At least in their eyes. What they fail to see is that once again people are seeing the oversaturation of the media and getting sick of it. The press did the same thing with the 911 commission and it eventually backfired. Their new thing is to talk about how dead Bush and the Republicans are, while at the same time failing to mention that Kerry too is dropping in the polls. Will the media ever get it, even with their slant polls and push polls (a la LA Times during the recall - had Arnold losing by a large margin until the day of the election, then oops, looks like our polling was wrong) they cannot get anything substantial.

 

[Kappo]

And about your media claims. Surely you realize that doom and gloom sell more than some pansy good news story? That is human nature and I would be concerned if it were any other way, because it would mean that people are inured to violence and suffering. How about the hysteria on Fox News the other day about "children sex bracelets?"

Actually, CNN has an agenda. If you do not see it, or refuse to acknowledge it, that is your issue of blindness, not mine. I should know that they have an agenda. I worked for them for a few years.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: irwincur

Yeah, abusing prisoners isn't bad. And maybe more importantly, it isn't shooting our efforts to pacify Iraq in the foot. But continue living in your dream world.

I think you missed the point, because obviously you have problems readin between the lines.

It is not that the abuse occured, or that some of it was bad. It is about the fact that as an issue compared to its relatively tiny scale, it has been OVERBLOWN by the media. For one reason. A calculated attack against Bush. The media cannot wait for Kerry, he is going nowhere and making poor news coverage. They need a major crisis to jumpstart everything and that is what they got, err created here.

In a non election year this issue would have been in the paper for a week tops. Now in an election year with a media ready to pounce and a weak Democrat that people don't know, this equals a major crisis for Bush. At least in their eyes. What they fail to see is that once again people are seeing the oversaturation of the media and getting sick of it. The press did the same thing with the 911 commission and it eventually backfired. Their new thing is to talk about how dead Bush and the Republicans are, while at the same time failing to mention that Kerry too is dropping in the polls. Will the media ever get it, even with their slant polls and push polls (a la LA Times during the recall - had Arnold losing by a large margin until the day of the election, then oops, looks like our polling was wrong) they cannot get anything substantial.

Two words for you: Monica Lewniski.

Wipe your tears and get used to it. The media sensationalizes anything scandalous- it brings viewers- you know- ratings?

 

[irwincur]

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm.

Hmm, at least some people in Washington are setting goals and laying out groundwork. I mean when is the last time the left ever developed a policy more complicated than 'we'll see'? You may not agree with what they say, but at least they have the balls to say it in the open, not behind closed doors. It may also dissapoint you that these guys don't seem to care what people think, I mean they are not poll chaser like liberal luminaries such as Al Gore, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry. I would fall over if the left, and all of their seperate interests could come together into a cohesive gorup, but alas, the Unions will always be at odds with the Evirofreaks, and on and on.

In short, you mock these men for actually having vision, sticking their necks out, and taking risks. Yet you probably praise every liberal that complains, insults, and then complains agian while never once offering an alternative plan or solution. If anything this website tells me who is really with it, and who is really serious about government.

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: Kappo
And about your media claims. Surely you realize that doom and gloom sell more than some pansy good news story? That is human nature and I would be concerned if it were any other way, because it would mean that people are inured to violence and suffering. How about the hysteria on Fox News the other day about "children sex bracelets?"

Actually, CNN has an agenda. If you do not see it, or refuse to acknowledge it, that is your issue of blindness, not mine. I should know that they have an agenda. I worked for them for a few years.

Yeah, I worked for Pepsico, so now I should know their agenda? Give me a break.

 

[irwincur]

Two words for you: Monica Lewniski.

Well a President committing felony perjury is actually a pretty serious offense. Not to mention participating in the morally dispicable act of cheating on his wife. Or how about the way he attempted to first cover it, and then justify it.

There is a reason 12 and 13 year old are having sex and oral sex en mass these days - BILL CLINTON. He perverted society and made it OK to be a delinquent.