End-Timers & Neo-Cons - The End of Conservatives

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.zmag.org/content/sh...ctionID=76&ItemID=7056
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy during 1981-82. He was also Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review.

I remember when friends would excitedly telephone to report that Rush Limbaugh or G. Gordon Liddy had just read one of my syndicated columns over the air. That was before I became a critic of the US invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration, and the neoconservative ideologues who have seized control of the US government.

America has blundered into a needless and dangerous war, and fully half of the country's population is enthusiastic. Many Christians think that war in the Middle East signals "end times" and that they are about to be wafted up to heaven. Many patriots think that, finally, America is standing up for itself and demonstrating its righteous might. Conservatives are taking out their Vietnam frustrations on Iraqis. Karl Rove is wrapping Bush in the protective cloak of war leader. The military-industrial complex is drooling over the profits of war. And neoconservatives are laying the groundwork for Israeli territorial expansion.

The evening before Thanksgiving Rush Limbaugh was on C-Span TV explaining that these glorious developments would have been impossible if talk radio and the conservative movement had not combined to break the power of the liberal media.

In the Thanksgiving issue of National Review, editor Richard Lowry and former editor John O'Sullivan celebrate Bush's reelection triumph over "a hostile press corps." "Try as they might," crowed O'Sullivan, "they couldn't put Kerry over the top." There was a time when I could rant about the "liberal media" with the best of them. But in recent years I have puzzled over the precise location of the "liberal media."

Not so long ago I would have identified the liberal media as the New York Times and Washington Post, CNN and the three TV networks, and National Public Radio. But both the Times and the Post fell for the Bush administration's lies about WMD and supported the US invasion of Iraq. On balance CNN, the networks, and NPR have not made an issue of the Bush administration's changing explanations for the invasion.

Apparently, Rush Limbaugh and National Review think there is a liberal media because the prison torture scandal could not be suppressed and a cameraman filmed the execution of a wounded Iraqi prisoner by a US Marine. Do the Village Voice and The Nation comprise the "liberal media"? The Village Voice is known for Nat Hentoff and his columns on civil liberties. Every good conservative believes that civil liberties are liberal because they interfere with the police and let criminals go free. The Nation favors spending on the poor and disfavors gun rights, but I don't see the "liberal hate" in The Nation's feeble pages that Rush Limbaugh was denouncing on C-Span.

In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush.

The Iraqi War is serving as a great catharsis for multiple conservative frustrations: job loss, drugs, crime, homosexuals, pornography, female promiscuity, abortion, restrictions on prayer in public places, Darwinism and attacks on religion. Liberals are the cause. Liberals are against America. Anyone against the war is against America and is a liberal. "You are with us or against us."

This is the mindset of delusion, and delusion permits no facts or analysis. Blind emotion rules. Americans are right and everyone else is wrong. End of the debate.

That, gentle reader, is the full extent of talk radio, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal Editorial page, National Review, the Weekly Standard, and, indeed, of the entire concentrated corporate media where noncontroversy in the interest of advertising revenue rules.

Once upon a time there was a liberal media. It developed out of the Great Depression and the New Deal. Liberals believed that the private sector is the source of greed that must be restrained by government acting in the public interest. The liberals' mistake was to identify morality with government. Liberals had great suspicion of private power and insufficient suspicion of the power and inclination of government to do good.

Liberals became Benthamites (after Jeremy Bentham). They believed that as the people controlled government through democracy, there was no reason to fear government power, which should be increased in order to accomplish more good.

The conservative movement that I grew up in did not share the liberals' abiding faith in government. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Today it is liberals, not conservatives, who endeavor to defend civil liberties from the state. Conservatives have been won around to the old liberal view that as long as government power is in their hands, there is no reason to fear it or to limit it. Thus, the Patriot Act, which permits government to suspend a person's civil liberty by calling him a terrorist with or without proof. Thus, preemptive war, which permits the President to invade other countries based on unverified assertions.

There is nothing conservative about these positions. To label them conservative is to make the same error as labeling the 1930s German Brownshirts conservative.

American liberals called the Brownshirts "conservative," because the Brownshirts were obviously not liberal. They were ignorant, violent, delusional, and they worshipped a man of no known distinction. Brownshirts' delusions were protected by an emotional force field. Adulation of power and force prevented Brownshirts from recognizing implications for their country of their reckless doctrines.

Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy. I went overnight from being an object of conservative adulation to one of derision when I wrote that the US invasion of Iraq was a "strategic blunder."

It is amazing that only a short time ago the Bush administration and its supporters believed that all the US had to do was to appear in Iraq and we would be greeted with flowers. Has there ever been a greater example of delusion? Isn't this on a par with the Children's Crusade against the Saracens in the Middle Ages?

Delusion is still the defining characteristic of the Bush administration. We have smashed Fallujah, a city of 300,000, only to discover that the 10,000 US Marines are bogged down in the ruins of the city. If the Marines leave, the "defeated" insurgents will return. Meanwhile the insurgents have moved on to destabilize Mosul, a city five times as large. Thus, the call for more US troops.

There are no more troops. Our former allies are not going to send troops. The only way the Bush administration can continue with its Iraq policy is to reinstate the draft.

When the draft is reinstated, conservatives will loudly proclaim their pride that their sons, fathers, husbands and brothers are going to die for "our freedom." Not a single one of them will be able to explain why destroying Iraqi cities and occupying the ruins are necessary for "our freedom." But this inability will not lessen the enthusiasm for the project. To protect their delusions from "reality-based" critics, they will demand that the critics be arrested for treason and silenced. Many encouraged by talk radio already speak this way.

Because of the triumph of delusional "new conservatives" and the demise of the liberal media, this war is different from the Vietnam war. As more Americans are killed and maimed in the pointless carnage, more Americans have a powerful emotional stake that the war not be lost and not be in vain. Trapped in violence and unable to admit mistake, a reckless administration will escalate.

The rapidly collapsing US dollar is hard evidence that the world sees the US as bankrupt. Flight from the dollar as the reserve currency will adversely impact American living standards, which are already falling as a result of job outsourcing and offshore production. The US cannot afford a costly and interminable war.

Falling living standards and inability to impose our will on the Middle East will result in great frustrations that will diminish our country.
Pretty much describes everything I believe about the current situation in Iraq and the Bush administration. Not surprising given my general support of conservatives for the last 20+ years.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
I often wonder what public perception of the Bush Administration would be had they stopped at Afghanistan...while I agree with many of the points in this article, I think some of them rely too strongly on stereotypes, and it is far too simple to blame Bush's blunders on delusional leadership.

9-11 was the first significant terrorist attack on American soil (save perhaps Oklahoma City & the first bombing of the WTC)...the scope of the attack and the attitudes fueling it were so foreign to Americans that we did not know how to react...I fully supported the Bush Administration's response to 9-11, and the strategic brilliance by which we removed the Taliban from power in Afghanistan with a minimal commitment of American forces and resources.

And then the Iraq monkey business started.

For the life of me, I cannot justify in my mind nor comprehend why Bush would lie about WMD...why he would lie about Saddam Hussein...what did he possibly hope to gain in invading Iraq, against the advice of his military leaders and our allies abroad. Some people claim it was all about the oil, but I think that is the simple answer. Others claim Bush is delusional or stupid...I dont think he is either, and even if he was, many of his advisors are respectable, intelligent and competent leaders...Colin Powell being the most noteable.

The missing piece of the puzzle for me is the why...I dont agree with this whole theory that there is a Neo-Con mentality of American superiority and displays of military might...I lived for a time in a stereotypical red state/Bible belt community after 9/11, yet I did not encounter the attitudes or perceptions typically associated to supposed Neo-Cons.

I certainly recognize the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh/Anne Coulter element that is out there...but I also recognize the Michael Moore/Air America/NY Times/CBS/Hollywood element that counters and balances these right wing media outlets. It is not so much a case of the truth not being exposed, but rather people dismissing the truth in favor of their party loyalties and party worldview...and our nation is so polarized that each side is equally guilty of it.

So while it is convenient and perhaps easy to demonize the supposed Neo-Cons and End Timers for our blunders in Iraq, to truly understand how America got itself into this mess, you have to dig a bit deeper then stereotypes.

 

robertcloud

Banned
Oct 23, 2004
218
0
0
Starbuck, if I may, i'd like to offer you an idea, albeit an outlandish one, of why.

If you are familiar with the concept of peak oil, you would also be aware that if it happened, our infrastructure of consumption and lifestyle could effectively collapse.

Perhaps President Bush has unrevealed information that our oil supply is in dire condition. Perhaps Iraq was only about oil. If oil began to hike in price, or the supply didn't meet our demand, and stabilization of an America friendly Iraq happened, President Bush would be seen as a messiah. Perhaps this is why he keeps reiterating "we shan't waver."

^^is just a silly idea that I came up with when I was trying to figure why Bush would, if it in fact happened, intentially deceive the american public about Iraq. When thinking to myself, I figured the costs were simply too great, monetarily, and politically, to lie and force a war in Iraq. Surely Bush, surrounded with competent advisers, knew that democracy in Iraq would be very difficult, if not impossible. Surely he would have weighed the evidence of WMD against the possibility that there were none. Bewildering...

 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
If you are familiar with the concept of peak oil, you would also be aware that if it happened, our infrastructure of consumption and lifestyle could effectively collapse.
I have heard this theory mentioned before, but I also understand that we have petroleum alternatives, in Alaska and South America, that would prevent such a crisis within our lifetimes...certainly something future generations will have to worry about, but not something Bush necessarily had to solve during his Administration.

Bewildering indeed.
 
Nov 16, 2004
25
0
0
Originally posted by: robertcloud
Starbuck, if I may, i'd like to offer you an idea, albeit an outlandish one, of why.

If you are familiar with the concept of peak oil, you would also be aware that if it happened, our infrastructure of consumption and lifestyle could effectively collapse.

Perhaps President Bush has unrevealed information that our oil supply is in dire condition. Perhaps Iraq was only about oil. If oil began to hike in price, or the supply didn't meet our demand, and stabilization of an America friendly Iraq happened, President Bush would be seen as a messiah. Perhaps this is why he keeps reiterating "we shan't waver."

(snip)

Well the information is not unrevealed at all. Look at
this article. And here is Dick Cheney himself saying that the world with have a 50 million barrel a day deficit by 2010. I don't know about you, but I've seen a 30% hike in gas prices since 9/11 here.
 

robertcloud

Banned
Oct 23, 2004
218
0
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
If you are familiar with the concept of peak oil, you would also be aware that if it happened, our infrastructure of consumption and lifestyle could effectively collapse.
I have heard this theory mentioned before, but I also understand that we have petroleum alternatives, in Alaska and South America, that would prevent such a crisis within our lifetimes...certainly something future generations will have to worry about, but not something Bush necessarily had to solve during his Administration.

Bewildering indeed.

Yes, but that couldn't adequately meet supply. Regardless, if our supply of oil was shaken and Iraq became miraculously stable and US friendly, Bush would be seen as a savior by many.
 

robertcloud

Banned
Oct 23, 2004
218
0
0
Originally posted by: cannedcreamcorn

Well the information is not unrevealed at all. Look at
this article. And here is Dick Cheney himself saying that the world with have a 50 million barrel a day deficit by 2010. I don't know about you, but I've seen a 30% hike in gas prices since 9/11 here.

Unrevealed as in the problem is nearer or immediate.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush.
Describes a lot of people on this board to a tee :)
 

cwjerome

Diamond Member
Sep 30, 2004
4,346
26
81
Conjur, you're still up to this? Drudging out pissed conservatives as if this means..... what..... everyone doesn't agree all the time?

BTW, if you've given general support of conservatives over the past 20 years and you quote/defend Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark and other radical left-wing nuts, than I'm afraid you're either a liar or have no idea what conservative is... or both.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: SuperTool
In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush.
Describes a lot of people on this board to a tee :)

:laugh: I have no doubt that you on the left just lap this sort of drivel up - the truth doesn't taste very good so you feed your rage with anti-Bush/"neocon" tripe.

First off, not everyone who supports Bush is a neo-con. Second, I have yet to see someone "worship" Bush. Third, this irrational hatred of "neo-cons" isn't going to get you guys anywhere.

I laugh when I read these things you guy drool over, because it seems to make you even more rabid in your hatred of Bush. It's great comedy - really it is.:D

Oh, and about this opinion piece - this guy is a hoot - it's fine that someone doesn't like Bush's policies but really - do you really think you trying to build up this "neocon" boogy man image is really going work? Do you think people are really that dumb to buy into your attacks? You don't see that the hate is coming from those trying to label people "neocons" because they don't agree with them? Puhleeze - this incessant whining about "neocons" and how they are so EVAL needs to end. But hey, if you want to continue to make fools of yourself - go right ahead. I'll continue to sit here laughing all the way to the next election cycle.:p
:laugh: :laugh:

CsG
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SuperTool
In the ranks of the new conservatives, however, I see and experience much hate. It comes to me in violently worded, ignorant and irrational emails from self-professed conservatives who literally worship George Bush. Even Christians have fallen into idolatry. There appears to be a large number of Americans who are prepared to kill anyone for George Bush.
Describes a lot of people on this board to a tee :)

:laugh: I have no doubt that you on the left just lap this sort of drivel up - the truth doesn't taste very good so you feed your rage with anti-Bush/"neocon" tripe.

First off, not everyone who supports Bush is a neo-con. Second, I have yet to see someone "worship" Bush. Third, this irrational hatred of "neo-cons" isn't going to get you guys anywhere.

I laugh when I read these things you guy drool over, because it seems to make you even more rabid in your hatred of Bush. It's great comedy - really it is.:D

Oh, and about this opinion piece - this guy is a hoot - it's fine that someone doesn't like Bush's policies but really - do you really think you trying to build up this "neocon" boogy man image is really going work? Do you think people are really that dumb to buy into your attacks? You don't see that the hate is coming from those trying to label people "neocons" because they don't agree with them? Puhleeze - this incessant whining about "neocons" and how they are so EVAL needs to end. But hey, if you want to continue to make fools of yourself - go right ahead. I'll continue to sit here laughing all the way to the next election cycle.:p
:laugh: :laugh:

CsG

Thanks for providing example of what I was talking about.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: SuperTool

Thanks for providing example of what I was talking about.

I'm sure I do, to you - thus my post. Read it and you will see.(maybe)

Carry on though, the slopping trough is full - eat up! :laugh:

CsG
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SuperTool

Thanks for providing example of what I was talking about.

I'm sure I do, to you - thus my post. Read it and you will see.(maybe)

Carry on though, the slopping trough is full - eat up! :laugh:

CsG

Yep. It filled up quickly with your "post" above.

Classical conservatism is totally dead: Republicrats to the rescue.

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SuperTool

Thanks for providing example of what I was talking about.

I'm sure I do, to you - thus my post. Read it and you will see.(maybe)

Carry on though, the slopping trough is full - eat up! :laugh:

CsG

Yep. It filled up quickly with your "post" above.

Classical conservatism is totally dead: Republicrats to the rescue.

No, it was overflowing from the OP;)

I beg to differ. Conservatism is not dead no matter how much you want to claim it is. Conservatives didn't just suddenly turn into "neocons":p But hey, if you think it's going to work for you - keep it up :laugh:

CsG
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Great piece, Conjur. Right on target. It's a shame our Bush-worshipping friends can't see how they've been duped into trashing the Republican party and the conservative ideals it once represented.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Engineer
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: SuperTool

Thanks for providing example of what I was talking about.

I'm sure I do, to you - thus my post. Read it and you will see.(maybe)

Carry on though, the slopping trough is full - eat up! :laugh:

CsG

Yep. It filled up quickly with your "post" above.

Classical conservatism is totally dead: Republicrats to the rescue.

No, it was overflowing from the OP;)

I beg to differ. Conservatism is not dead no matter how much you want to claim it is. Conservatives didn't just suddenly turn into "neocons":p But hey, if you think it's going to work for you - keep it up :laugh:

CsG

Work for me? I'm very fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I would trade for the fiscal policy any day of the week. Not sure why you're jabbing me on that one. I hate debt, both private and public. Get rid of the debt and taxes could be lowered easily.

Because I hate Bush doesn't mean that I hate republicans, but even the classical so called republicans are following the radical right and have totally adbandoned many of the original principals including fiscal conservatism. Of course, the new breed of Conservaties don't care how much they spend, especially if it "rubs salt in the wound of a liberal".

 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Complete with plenty of those annoying emoticons.
Words are hard work. Gotta use pictures.

;)

I know it's easy for your type to get distracted by pictures -but atleast make an attempt at reading. Oh wait - I see you can read(things you agree with) as you've lined up at the trough too. Eat up!:laugh:

Are you all really that naive to think that Conservatives suddenly turned into neocons one day? Or turned into them just because you think Bush is a neocon? Bah - whatever you wish I guess - keep drinking at the circular trough...

*me leaves thread so it can go back to the circle jerk it was intended to be.*

CsG
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
the circular trough...

*me leaves thread so it can go back to the circle jerk it was intended to be.*

CsG

Dasm, the pivot man left.

 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Now that the trolling has vacated, thanks conjur for the article link. The author is spot on. Conservatives in the classical sense are dead....long live the Neoconservative branch of spending fools - Republicrats. The man is right.....Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: arsbanned
Complete with plenty of those annoying emoticons.
Words are hard work. Gotta use pictures.

;)

I know it's easy for your type to get distracted by pictures -but atleast make an attempt at reading. Oh wait - I see you can read(things you agree with) as you've lined up at the trough too. Eat up!:laugh:
Get over yourself.


Are you all really that naive to think that Conservatives suddenly turned into neocons one day? Or turned into them just because you think Bush is a neocon? Bah - whatever you wish I guess - keep drinking at the circular trough...
One day? Of course not. It's taken years, starting with Reagan, if not before. A little pandering to the religious extremists, a scandal or three, a record deficit, a little bit here, a bigger bit there, and the stage is set for Bush-lite to slither in and complete the assimilation, conning the Party faithful into embracing lies and anti-American positions they would have rejected without hesitation a couple decades earlier.


*me leaves thread so it can go back to the circle jerk it was intended to be.*

CsG
Yep, the truth hurts. Best for you to jerk alone, maybe pop in one of your Bush revival videos to set the mood.