Neocons March Left

[Garuda]

No matter what your politics, this is a very good read:

http://acuf.org/issues/issue21/040929news.asp

A lot of Republicans have been wondering recently, "What happened to domestic conservatism? Why has Bush spent all of his political capital on this unpopular Iraq Attaq, when he could have been a great government reducing social conservative (like Reagan) given the immense support and consensus he had built after 9/11? Why was he duped by Neocons and their idiotic non-Jewish allies such as Rumsfeld and Cheney, who would have America rush to Iraq?"

Well, this goes a long way to answering that. Most of these Neocons don't give a crap about social conservatism, tax cuts, government reduction, etc. They want to use America to intervene in the Middle East to make it a better place for Israel. And they will jump ship from the Republican party if they think they can extract better performance out of the Democrats.

I blame the Republican party for falling hostage to this wicked special interest group. The Neocons should be sent packing. Back to Brooklyn you go!

 

[her209]

Here's a clip from the NYT article (which had the word "nuisance"):

The neo-conservatives have advanced a viral theory of democracy. In their view, establishing a model democracy in the Arab world, by force if necessary, no matter how many years and lives it takes, would ultimately benefit not only the people of that country but also America too. A free and democratic Iraq, to take the favorite example, will cause the people of other repressive countries in the region to rise up and demand American-style freedom, and these democratic nations will no longer be breeding pools for nihilistic terrorists. Like so much of Bush's policy, this kind of thinking harks directly back to the cold war. The domino theory that took hold during the 1950's maintained that an ideological change in one nation -- ''going'' communist or democratic -- could infect its neighbor; it was based in part on the idea that ideologies could be contagious.

Bush crystallized the new incarnation of this idea in his convention speech last month, notable for the unapologetic sweep and clarity of its vision. ''The terrorists know that a vibrant, successful democracy at the heart of the Middle East will discredit their radical ideology of hate,'' the president said. ''I believe in the transformational power of liberty. As the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq seize the moment, their example will send a message of hope throughout a vital region. Palestinians will hear the message that democracy and reform are within their reach, and so is peace with our good friend Israel. Young women across the Middle East will hear the message that their day of equality and justice is coming. Young men will hear the message that national progress and dignity are found in liberty, not tyranny and terror.''

Kerry, too, envisions a freer and more democratic Middle East. But he flatly rejects the premise of viral democracy, particularly when the virus is introduced at gunpoint. ''In this administration, the approach is that democracy is the automatic, easily embraced alternative to every ill in the region,'' he told me. Kerry disagreed. ''You can't impose it on people,'' he said. ''You have to bring them to it. You have to invite them to it. You have to nurture the process.''

Those who know Kerry say this belief is in part a reaction to his own experience in Vietnam, where one understanding of the domino theory (''if Vietnam goes communist, all of Asia will fall'') led to the death of 58,000 Americans, and another (''the South Vietnamese crave democracy'') ran up against the realities of life in a poor, long-war-ravaged country. The people of Vietnam, Kerry found, were susceptible neither to the dogma of communism nor the persuasiveness of American ''liberation.'' As the young Kerry said during his 1971 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: ''We found most people didn't even know the difference between communism and democracy. They only wanted to work in rice paddies without helicopters strafing them and bombs with napalm burning their villages and tearing their country apart. They wanted everything to do with the war, particularly with this foreign presence of the United States of America, to leave them alone in peace.''

 

[faiznne]

Yeah, I agree that the neoconservatives (a.k.a. Jewish Republicans) pushed for war with Iraq. The Bush administration has been tricked into this huge mess.

General Anthony Zinni Blames Neoconservatives And Says Their Iraq Course Doomed

But, don?t take what I say at face value. Listen to the words of retired General Anthony Zinni --- no nitwit he. From 1997 to 2000, he was commander-in-chief of the U.S. Central Command. He was in charge of all American troops in the Middle East.

Following Gen. Zinni?s retirement from the Marine Corps, the Bush Administration thought so much of him that he was appointed their special envoy to the Middle East. In mid-March of 2002, President Bush said that he and Vice President D. Cheney ?both trust? Gen. Zinni. In this same month and year, Vice President Cheney called him ?a superb officer.? And in late May of this year, even after the interview I?m about to tell you about, White House press spokesman Scott McClellan said: ?We have great respect for General Zinni.?

?In one article--because I mentioned the neo-conservatives, who describe themselves as neo-conservatives, I was called anti-Semitic. I mean, you know, unbelievable that that's the kind of personal attacks that are run when you criticize a strategy of those that propose it. I certainly didn't criticize who they were. I certainly don't know what their ethnic religious backgrounds are. And I'm not interested. I know what strategy they promoted, and openly, and for a number of years, and what they have convinced the president and the secretary to do. And I don't believe there is any serious political leader, military leader, diplomat in Washington that doesn't know where it came from.?

For all of this, Gen. Zinni blames ?the civilian leadership of the Pentagon directly? and others who are so-called neoconservatives. These individuals include Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith, former Defense policy board member Richard Perle, National Security Council member Eliot Abrams, and Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Scooter Libby. He believes these persons are political ideologues who have hijacked American policy in Iraq. And they advocated an invasion of Iraq to, among other things, strengthen the position of Israel.

http://www.peroutka2004.com/sc...tview&event_id=234

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Garuda
No matter what your politics, this is a very good read:

http://acuf.org/issues/issue21/040929news.asp

A lot of Republicans have been wondering recently, "What happened to domestic conservatism? Why has Bush spent all of his political capital on this unpopular Iraq Attaq, when he could have been a great government reducing social conservative (like Reagan) given the immense support and consensus he had built after 9/11? Why was he duped by Neocons and their idiotic non-Jewish allies such as Rumsfeld and Cheney, who would have America rush to Iraq?"

Well, this goes a long way to answering that. Most of these Neocons don't give a crap about social conservatism, tax cuts, government reduction, etc. They want to use America to intervene in the Middle East to make it a better place for Israel. And they will jump ship from the Republican party if they think they can extract better performance out of the Democrats.

I blame the Republican party for falling hostage to this wicked special interest group. The Neocons should be sent packing. Back to Brooklyn you go!

It's what I've been saying for months. Makes you wonder how bitter and negative the campaign would have been had Gen. Clark or Howard Dean won the Democratic nomination?

Here are some more great reads on the control wielded by the PNAC neocons:

Selective Intelligence - Seymour Hersh
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

The Stovepipe - Seymour Hersh
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

The New Pentagon Papers - Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski
http://www.salon.com/opinion/f...2004/03/10/osp_moveon/

 

[Rob9874]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Garuda
No matter what your politics, this is a very good read:

http://acuf.org/issues/issue21/040929news.asp

A lot of Republicans have been wondering recently, "What happened to domestic conservatism? Why has Bush spent all of his political capital on this unpopular Iraq Attaq, when he could have been a great government reducing social conservative (like Reagan) given the immense support and consensus he had built after 9/11? Why was he duped by Neocons and their idiotic non-Jewish allies such as Rumsfeld and Cheney, who would have America rush to Iraq?"

Well, this goes a long way to answering that. Most of these Neocons don't give a crap about social conservatism, tax cuts, government reduction, etc. They want to use America to intervene in the Middle East to make it a better place for Israel. And they will jump ship from the Republican party if they think they can extract better performance out of the Democrats.

I blame the Republican party for falling hostage to this wicked special interest group. The Neocons should be sent packing. Back to Brooklyn you go!

It's what I've been saying for months. Makes you wonder how bitter and negative the campaign would have been had Gen. Clark or Howard Dean won the Democratic nomination?

Here are some more great reads on the control wielded by the PNAC neocons:

Selective Intelligence - Seymour Hersh
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?030512fa_fact

The Stovepipe - Seymour Hersh
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?031027fa_fact

The New Pentagon Papers - Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski
http://www.salon.com/opinion/f...2004/03/10/osp_moveon/

Boy, you really like links, don't you? Even when someone else makes a statement, your reponse is "Link?". As if links validate something as true. I'll make a webpage that says libs are dumb, and link it for you if you like.

 

[conjur]

I was just joining the fray. Besides, how else does one learn but to read articles? Those are three excellent articles that really shed a light on how much the PNAC neocons are controlling this administration in terms of foreign policy.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: conjur
I was just joining the fray. Besides, how else does one learn but to read articles? Those are three excellent articles that really shed a light on how much the PNAC neocons are controlling this administration in terms of foreign policy.

remember now, the "innernets" are void of credible information. Sure just about the entire planet has been published on it including all historically viable news sources, but just because you paste a link to a viable substantiating source of refernce does not legitimize your position. /sarcasm

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: conjur
I was just joining the fray. Besides, how else does one learn but to read articles? Those are three excellent articles that really shed a light on how much the PNAC neocons are controlling this administration in terms of foreign policy.

remember now, the "innernets" are void of credible information. Sure just about the entire planet has been published on it including all historically viable news sources, but just because you paste a link to a viable substantiating source of refernce does not legitimize your position. /sarcasm

Yeah...and darn that Seymour Hersh. Reliable fact-checking investigative journalist reponsible for uncovering stories like My Lai Massacre and Abu Ghraib...yeah....just can't trust that librul media.

And, what the heck would a Lt. Col. who worked in the OSP under the neocons know? Just another dumb broad.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Boy, you really like links, don't you? Even when someone else makes a statement, your reponse is "Link?". As if links validate something as true. I'll make a webpage that says libs are dumb, and link it for you if you like.

Why should I take your word at face-value? Why should you take mine?

 

[Maximilian Kolbe]

http://www.npr.org/templates/s...ry.php?storyId=4079773

This could be the turning point for peace in Iraq, which would be bad news for democrats. They won't be able to play on the emotions of people anymore when less and less violence emerges from Iraq. The only time democrats can win in a wartime is when US casualties are high, and then they promise to bring the troops back. Austrailia didn't fall for Kerry's sisters' BS, America won't fall for Kerry's BS.

 

[Ozoned]

Please point out the flaw in the vision......Or is it just the method.....Don't worry, Kerry has a better plan. :roll:


PNAC Statement of principle:

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.


As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.


Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

? we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


? we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


? we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


? we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

 

[conjur]

PNAC = Spreading democracy via bombs and bullets, if necessary.

"Spreading democracy to the Middle East - even if we have to kill them all."

 

[Ozoned]

<----------Wonders if Kerry would prescribe to the vision in the same way that Clinton did?