Philosophers and Kings

[Dari]

link

Philosophers and kings

A strange waltz involving George Bush, ancient Greece and a dead German thinker


FROM the moment George Bush moved into the White House, the search has been on for the man (or woman) who is pulling his strings. Is the puppeteer Dick Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld? Karl Rove or Condoleezza Rice? Big Oil or old-time religion? Each has had their spell in the spotlight. But now all are forgotten in the fuss about the most surprising suspect of all: Leo Strauss, a political philosopher who died in 1973 and wrote such page-turners as ?Xenophon's Socratic Discourse?.

In March the Executive Intelligence Review, an eccentric website run by Lyndon LaRouche, posted a profile of Strauss entitled ?Fascist Godfather of the Neo-Cons?. You might have thought that the article's overheated language and conspiracy-mongering would have killed the argument. But since then a flotilla of respectable publications, from the New Yorker to Le Monde, have jumped on the bandwagon. Who on earth was Leo Strauss?

The ?Fascist Godfather of the Neo-Cons? was, in fact, a German Jew who fled the Holocaust to find a safe haven in the United States. He produced a series of learned studies of political theorists that are variously described as seminal and utterly opaque. But his real talent was for teaching. He taught at the University of Chicago for two decades, and produced a small army of devoted pupils who spread the word.

One reason why Strauss is in the news is because so many of his admirers are now important figures in conservative Washington. Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defence, invariably tops the list, but other Straussians in or around the administration include Abram Shulsky, director of the Pentagon's Office of Special Plans, John Walters, the drug tsar, and Leon Kass, the head of the president's council on bioethics. Irving Kristol, one of the first neocons, has passed the creed down to his son Bill, the ubiquitous editor of the Weekly Standard. Every July 4th, about 60 Washington Straussians have a picnic.

The second reason why Strauss is so controversial is that a little selective quotation can be used to give his thinking a decidedly sinister tinge. Strauss emphasised both the fragility of democracy and the importance of intellectual elites. He was also a devotee of Plato, who famously argued that ?philosopher kings? sometimes had to be willing to tell ?noble lies? in order to keep the ignorant masses in line. The implication: Mr Wolfowitz and his fellow Straussians deliberately lied about Saddam Hussein's nukes to advance their political cause.

This is stretching it. Strauss was critical of democracy in much the same way that Winston Churchill was: he believed (unlike Plato) that it was the worst political system apart from all the others. He focused on the weaknesses of liberal democracy?particularly its habit of underestimating the dangers of tyranny?precisely because he had seen the Weimar Republic destroyed at close hand.

As for Mr Wolfowitz, he is a clever cove, but deputy defence secretaries don't go around making the country's foreign policy?particularly when they have men like Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Cheney sitting above them. Nor is Mr Wolfowitz a pure Straussian. He may have studied with Strauss's alter ego, Allan Bloom, and even earned a walk-on part in Saul Bellow's novel, ?Ravelstein?, but the biggest influence on his thinking was Albert Wohlstetter, a mathematician-cum-military strategist.

So is the flap about Strauss a pointless waltz? Arguably, Mr LaRouche and the New Yorker have been looking in the wrong place. The true impact of all these Straussians walking the corridors of power is not really to do with telling noble fibs in diplomacy; it has to do with domestic policy.

Having a Platonic relationship. No, really

The rise of the Straussians suggests that American conservatism has shifted its focus from liberty to virtue. Ronald Reagan was surrounded with free-marketers in Adam Smith ties. Newt Gingrich regarded the government as a monster that needed to be beheaded. But Mr Bush is an intensely religious man who has no qualms about using big government to improve people's behaviour. Strauss was an agnostic, but he also stressed the cultivation of personal virtue, and his followers (perhaps traducing him, and certainly outraging Plato) have argued that organised religion is a necessary buttress of civilisation.

Strauss's paternalist side would have warmed to the way that Mr Bush has expanded the Department of Education, has started promoting marriage through the Department of Health and Human Services and has toughened America's drug policies. Straussians such as Mr Walters and Mr Kass have helped to clothe Mr Bush's Christian instincts in the non-religious language of moral philosophy and practical policy.

More than anything, however, the Straussians show what a strangely intellectual place Washington is. It may be led by a man who regarded Yale as a drinking competition (which he damn-near won). But it is a place where PhDs are a dime a dozen and where people seriously debate everything from ?rules and tools for running an empire? (the topic of a seminar on June 16th) to the cultural contradictions of capitalism. In what other world capital, except perhaps Paris, could 60 Plato-worshipping politicos and academics have a picnic?

The rise of the Straussians also illustrates an odd point about modern American conservatism. Despite all their bile about Old Europe, the American right has repeatedly found its inspiration in European thinkers. A few years ago, it was an Austrian libertarian called Friedrich Hayek. Now it is a German Jew who regarded ancient Greece as the fountain of all wisdom. With European constitution-makers seeking inspiration in the Philadelphia Convention, and American conservatives embracing European philosophical tracts, perhaps transatlantic relations aren't quite as bad as all that.

 

[Zebo]

I don't care from what PhD these washington types haved leaned from. What they all need to do (dems, repubs, carrer long beurocrates is read and re-read the Consititution. To learn is to unlearn.

I do like what the man says about religion.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I don't care from what PhD these washington types haved leaned from. What they all need to do (dems, repubs, carrer long beurocrates is read and re-read the Consititution. To learn is to unlearn.

I do like what the man says about religion.

yes, religion serves a purpose. but its purpose should not be confused with its message, for the enlightened at least.

 

[sMiLeYz]

The second reason why Strauss is so controversial is that a little selective quotation can be used to give his thinking a decidedly sinister tinge. Strauss emphasised both the fragility of democracy and the importance of intellectual elites. He was also a devotee of Plato, who famously argued that ?philosopher kings? sometimes had to be willing to tell ?noble lies? in order to keep the ignorant masses in line. The implication: Mr Wolfowitz and his fellow Straussians deliberately lied about Saddam Hussein's nukes to advance their political cause.

That is precisely the dangerous type of thinking that is fundamentally unamerican, neocon thinking is everything our forefathers wanted to avoid. For one thing, Wolfowitz is a believer in neo imperialism or "nation building", keep in mind this guy was obssessed with the "Greatness" of Imperialistic Roman Empire as a kid. Why does he listen to Strauss? Why not Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, who were all were adamantly against sticking their noses in other countries affairs much less nation building.

Plato was long dead before the enlightment, the true renassiance of european philosophy. Plato was never a king (thank god) just a simple philosopher who had good ideas. "Noble lies to keeep ignorant masses in line? Straight out of Nazi handbook, which Hitler used the same lies to justify an unprovoked invasion of Poland. There justification? Poland "attacked" first. It's scary how history is repeating itself.

Neo conservatism, the religious right and big business interests have formed an alliance to sabotage washington. I rarely hear moderate voices (Powell) anymore in the Republican party. Religious fundamentalists are running unchecked in positions of high power (DeLay and Ashcroft), while business men and politicians are often the same thing (Cheney). Bush is the very embodiment of this alliance, being a Evangelical bussiness tycoon himself and a Reaganite.

You know what you call that alliance? Neo Fascism. An affront to true conservatism and true conservatives (Dole). True conservatism preached small government and fiscal responsibility. The government presense in our lives has expanded ten folds since the conception of this administration; they've taken our national deficit and ran wild with it.

The rise of the Straussians suggests that American conservatism has shifted its focus from liberty to virtue

Great, except... America is all about liberty, truth, justice and the American way. None of which are characteristics of the Neocon way.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Damn, that was an interesting article. I'm not sure it completely tackled who or what is 'pulling Bush's strings,' but it presented a host of good points to consider.


BTW Smileyz, fix your sig to read 'liberty nor safety.'

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

The second reason why Strauss is so controversial is that a little selective quotation can be used to give his thinking a decidedly sinister tinge. Strauss emphasised both the fragility of democracy and the importance of intellectual elites. He was also a devotee of Plato, who famously argued that ?philosopher kings? sometimes had to be willing to tell ?noble lies? in order to keep the ignorant masses in line. The implication: Mr Wolfowitz and his fellow Straussians deliberately lied about Saddam Hussein's nukes to advance their political cause.

That is precisely the dangerous type of thinking that is fundamentally unamerican, neocon thinking is everything our forefathers wanted to avoid. For one thing, Wolfowitz is a believer in neo imperialism or "nation building", keep in mind this guy was obssessed with the "Greatness" of Imperialistic Roman Empire as a kid. Why does he listen to Strauss? Why not Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, who were all were adamantly against sticking their noses in other countries affairs much less nation building.

Plato was long dead before the enlightment, the true renassiance of european philosophy. Plato was never a king (thank god) just a simple philosopher who had good ideas. "Noble lies to keeep ignorant masses in line? Straight out of Nazi handbook, which Hitler used the same lies to justify an unprovoked invasion of Poland. There justification? Poland "attacked" first. It's scary how history is repeating itself.

Neo conservatism, the religious right and big business interests have formed an alliance to sabotage washington. I rarely hear moderate voices (Powell) anymore in the Republican party. Religious fundamentalists are running unchecked in positions of high power (DeLay and Ashcroft), while business men and politicians are often the same thing (Cheney). Bush is the very embodiment of this alliance, being a Evangelical bussiness tycoon himself and a Reaganite.

You know what you call that alliance? Neo Fascism. An affront to true conservatism and true conservatives (Dole). True conservatism preached small government and fiscal responsibility. The government presense in our lives has expanded ten folds since the conception of this administration; they've taken our national deficit and ran wild with it.

The rise of the Straussians suggests that American conservatism has shifted its focus from liberty to virtue

Great, except... America is all about liberty, truth, justice and the American way. None of which are characteristics of the Neocon way.

you obviously didn't read the whole article and chose not to quote the entire paragraph.

you also forget that neo-conservatism was a democratic (as in Democratic Party) movement in the 1950s and 1960s. It was started and mainly composed of common sense democrats who opposed the left-wing ideologies that were taking over the party. this splinter group still retains some of the fundamental beliefs of the Democratic Party, but saw a changing world and adjusted to it. I guess instead of calling them neo-cons or "fascists," you're better of calling them realists.

 

[Dari]

The truth about neo-conservatives. Dated April 24th, 2003

link

The Shadow Men

War in Iraq has helped to create a new American foreign-policy establishment. Neo-conservatives are only part of it

IN 2000, a close-knit group of about 20 people took their places in the Bush administration, hoping to overthrow Saddam Hussein and spread American ideas of democracy throughout the Middle East. They called themselves ?neo-conservatives? and, for two years, no one paid them much notice.

Now the tyrant has gone, and governments around the world are nervously wondering what this much suspected group of men mean to do next. With Baghdad still burning, the neo-cons' most senior official, Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy secretary of defence, popped up to say that ?there has got to be change in Syria?. That comment ushered in two weeks of harsh diplomatic pressure from the Bush administration about the other Baath regime, though Mr Wolfowitz quickly added that ?change? did not, in this case, mean regime change.

Such talk rattles chancelleries round the world. Those in power try to be diplomatic about their concerns. But Lord Jopling, a former British cabinet minister, spoke for many when he told the House of Lords on March 18th that ?neo-conservatives...now have a stranglehold on the Pentagon and seem, as well, to have a compliant armlock on the president himself.?

Robert Kagan, a neo-conservative writer living in Brussels, says ?One finds Britain's finest minds propounding...conspiracy theories concerning the ?neo-conservative' (read: Jewish) hijacking of American foreign policy. In Paris, all the talk is of oil and ?imperialism??and Jews.? A member of the French parliament quoted his country's foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, saying ?the hawks in the US administration [are] in the hands of [Ariel] Sharon??a comment seen in some circles as a coded message about undue pro-Israeli influence exercised by neo-cons, most of whom are Jewish, at the heart of the administration.

So has a cabal taken over the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world? Is a tiny group of ideologues using undue power to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, create an empire, trash international law?and damn the consequences?

Not really. To argue that an intellectual clique has usurped American foreign policy is to give them both too much credit, and too little. American foreign policy has not been captured by a tiny, ideological clique that has imposed its narrow views on others. Rather, the neo-cons are part of a broader movement endorsed by the president, and espoused, to different degrees, by almost all the principals involved, from Vice-President Dick Cheney down (Colin Powell, the secretary of state, is a notable exception). Strands of neo-conservatism can even be found among some Democrats, which is why it makes sense to think that a new foreign-policy establishment may be emerging.

For the same reason, the criticism neglects the role of others. Near-consensus is found around the notion that America should use its power vigorously to reshape the world. Yet because parts of the neo-con agenda have been adopted by a president who is a mostly pragmatic decision-maker, and because the neo-cons themselves are politically astute, the neo-cons do not have things all their own way. They are powerful in so far as the president listens to them, rather than in their own right. The result is that American foreign policy is becoming a mixture of neo-conservative ideas, the president's instincts?and the realities of power.

How they grew

To see how this came about, start with who the neo-cons are. It is understandable that they are seen as a clique, because, to begin with, they were. The group started in the 1960s as a breakaway faction from the Democratic Party. This first generation emerged as critics of the liberal establishment of their day; paradoxically, considering their reputation as ideologues, their main complaint was that Democrats had lost touch with the practical results of their policies. The term ?neo? (new) was an insult thrown at them by the left, but it distinguished them from ?real? conservatives; one of their founders, Irving Kristol, joked that a neo-conservative was a liberal ?mugged by reality?. Foreign policy was only part of the original neo-con agenda: social policy was at least as important.

The second generation of neo-cons is different. Few are Democrats or former Democrats. They are unapologetic Republicans. And while they retain distinctive views on domestic matters (for example, neo-cons were among the fiercest critics of the former Republican Senate leader Trent Lott, who was obliged to step down for making racist remarks), foreign policy is their focus?partly because their main social-policy proposals, such as welfare reform and the dismantling of affirmative action, have become mainstream.

The second generation forms a clique intellectually and socially, but not politically. Most come from similar backgrounds, whether professors (like Mr Wolfowitz and Steve Cambone, also at the Pentagon) or lawyers (like Doug Feith, the Pentagon's number three, Scooter Libby, Mr Cheney's chief of staff, and the State Department's John Bolton). They join the same think-tanks, such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) where Richard Perle, perhaps their most flamboyant spokesman, is a fellow. They write for and read the same magazine, the Weekly Standard, edited by Bill Kristol, son of one of the neo-cons' founders. They co-author the same studies (five of the 27 authors of ?Rebuilding America's Defences?, a highly influential report published in 2000, are in the administration). They are, in short, Washington talkers and intellectuals.

In most other countries, where foreign policy is made by permanent bureaucracies, it would be unthinkable for a small group of professors and lawyers to take any sort of policymaking role, let alone a dominant one. In America, with its traditions of entrepreneurial policy advocacy and political appointees, it is not so odd.

What is unusual is that the neo-cons are so different from the Texan business establishment gathered around George Bush. They also differ from the corporate chieftains the president hired for top jobs, such as Mr Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld (both former CEOs). Many neo-cons backed John McCain, Mr Bush's Republican rival, in the campaign; a few had even supported Al Gore.

So it was hardly surprising that, at the start, neo-cons were merely one among several groups vying for foreign-policy influence?and without much success. On the campaign trail, Mr Bush talked about a ?humble, but strong? policy and was critical of ?nation-building??very un-neo-con stances. The dominant foreign-policy voice in the president's early days was that of Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser. Ms Rice's main concern was to improve America's ties with other great powers?a policy that, while part of the neo-con agenda, was hardly uppermost in it.

Even Mr Cheney, who was to become the neo-cons' most powerful backer, seemed to differ from them early on. As defence secretary under the first President Bush, he had supported the decision not to overthrow Saddam in 1991 (to Mr Wolfowitz's dismay). And he was on record as being critical of Israel and its settlement policies?anathema to the most pro-Israeli neo-cons. Even in the aftermath of September 11th 2001, when Mr Wolfowitz went to the president to argue his case that the terrorist attacks showed America needed urgently to address the threat of Saddam Hussein, he was fobbed off.

Intellect v Chaos

So how did the neo-cons go from being one group among several to the positions of influence they now occupy? By articulating views that came to seem more important after September 11th 2001?but which many conservatives agreed with even before that.

Neo-cons start with the notion that America faces the challenge of managing a ?unipolar world? (a phrase coined by a neo-conservative commentator, Charles Krauthammer, in 1991). They see the world in terms of good and evil. They think America should be willing to use military power to defeat the forces of chaos. Admittedly, they go on to advocate democratic transformation in the Middle East, a view that is not shared throughout the administration. (This is an extremely radical policy, so not only are neo-cons not ?neo', they are not, in the normal sense of the term, conservative either.) But that apart, their views are not so different from others in the administration.

Neo-cons are also energetic in style, preferring moral clarity to diplomatic finesse, and confrontation to the pursuit of incremental advantage. They are sceptical of multilateral institutions that limit American power and effectiveness; they prefer to focus on new threats and opportunities, rather than old alliances.

Again, these views are not unique to neo-cons. The trends have been visible in American policy since the end of the cold war. Indeed, as Walter Russell Mead of the Council on Foreign Relations points out, opinion in the Republican Party has been shifting for longer than that. The movement away from Euro-centric east-coasters towards Sunbelt conservatives more concerned about Asia, Latin America and the Middle East began with Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan in the 1970s.

These common intellectual roots made it possible for neo-cons to maintain close ties with traditional conservative politicians such as Messrs Rumsfeld and Cheney. Though neither really counts as a neo-con, Mr Rumsfeld signed a letter to President Bill Clinton in 1998 urging him to make removing Saddam Hussein and his regime ?the aim of American foreign policy?, and the founding document of neo-con policy was the Defence Planning Guidance drafted for Mr Cheney in 1992 during his stint as defence secretary. Written by Mr Wolfowitz and Mr Libby, it raised the notion of pre-emptive attacks and called on America to increase military spending to the point where it could not be challenged. Ten years later, both ideas have been enshrined as official policy in the 2002 National Security Strategy.

The event that turned general like-mindedness into specific influence was the terrorist assault of September 11th 2001. ?Night fell on a different world,? Mr Bush said. Neo-cons had long been obsessed with the Middle East and with ?undeterrable? threats, such as nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists. Traditional Republican internationalists, who had less to say on either count, offered little intellectual alternative. As the old rule of politics says, ?You can't fight something with nothing.? Mr Bush therefore embraced large parts of the neo-con agenda.

But not immediately. The decision to take on Saddam by force seems to have been made sometime between September 2001 and March 2002. In January 2002, in his state-of-the-union address, Mr Bush invoked the infamous ?axis of evil??which could have been lifted from a neo-con handbook. This February, he gave a speech to the AEI about building democracy in Iraq and encouraging political reform in the Middle East.

How much to blame?

Some Europeans seem to think the neo-cons' influence is a direct result of Mr Bush's inability to grasp basic foreign-policy ideas. The recent evolution of American policy does not bear out this patronising view. The new policy was adopted in response to a cataclysmic event. It enjoys support at almost every level of government, including Congress (the main exceptions are the State Department and serving officers in the armed forces). Above all, the new policy is defined by the president himself. The neo-con clique depends on Mr Bush, not the other way around.

Fine, you might argue, but this just shifts the focus of concern from the cabal to the consensus. Whoever formulates policy, it is still, say critics, inimical to the interests of (some) Europeans, international law, multilateral institutions and traditional alliances. Moreover, if policy is run by a coalition of people, of whom neo-cons are just the first among equals, then that raises questions about the stability of the coalition, and whether there are internal tensions waiting to erupt between neo-cons and others.

The worries about America's foreign policy are mostly about means and costs, not ends. Neo-cons want to liberate Iraq, spread democracy through the Middle East and improve counter-proliferation measures. Critics can hardly object to any of these, even if they do not care to focus on the aims as relentlessly as neo-cons do.

Europeans often attribute everything they dislike in American policy to the influence of this cabal. Yet to do so is obviously wrong: the administration's?indeed, America's?disengagement from certain international treaties long predated the neo-cons' ascendancy. It is true that neo-cons are more unsparing than most in their disdain for multilateral bodies that they think act against American interests. But their attitude to ?entangling alliances? is pragmatic, rather than hostile across the board. Many, though not all, like NATO because of its role in uniting eastern and western Europe after the collapse of communism. When France and Germany held up a Turkish request to NATO for supplies of defensive equipment before the Iraq war, the administration found a way round the obstacle within the organisation, rather than acting outside it. The neo-cons' main ire is reserved for the United Nations and, sometimes, the European Union (see article) .

Clearly there have been big diplomatic ructions in the past year, notably in the Security Council over the second Iraq resolution. But it is hard to blame the neo-cons entirely, or even at all. The French and Russians were responsible for much of the bad blood, while the department largely responsible for American diplomacy in that unhappy hour was the very un-neo-con State.

The one area where neo-conservative influence may really prove inimical to the interests of others is Israel. Neo-cons are among Ariel Sharon's staunchest defenders. Most fear the ?road map? will endanger Israel's security, and will do everything they can to stop it.

On the other hand, the map is itself an indication of the limits of their influence. If neo-cons really ran the show, as they are said to, there would almost certainly be no such map. That there is testifies to the other forces acting on Mr Bush: the State Department, the National Security Council, even Tony Blair.

These forces will continue to influence the president and moderate the neo-cons' power. This could be good or bad. Good in that the wildest flights of neo-con fancy will be grounded; bad if the result is policy incoherence. At the moment, the good outcome seems the more likely.

The limits of influence

Iraq is the neo-cons' test case. Military victory has increased the group's influence hugely; a serious reversal could undo it. But successful post-war reconstruction would embolden them to press the president to adopt other bits of their agenda. This does not mean sending troops to Damascus (the neo-cons write what they mean: they have always singled out Iraq, and no other country, for military action). Rather, it means putting pressure on Syria to stop supporting Hizbullah and on the Saudis to stop exporting Wahhabi extremism; and it means backing the internal opposition in Iran to the clerical regime.

But there will be constraints on getting this wish-list through. The neo-cons have waited more than ten years to reform Iraq. They will not lose interest in it, as happened in Afghanistan. But they could be distracted by, say, a crisis in North Korea or on the Indian subcontinent. They could be defeated in Congress over the cost of their plans, especially if the economy falters. Or fault lines could re-emerge with mainstream conservatives over how long to keep troops abroad, with the mainstream, backed by the cautious realists in the armed forces, demanding that troops return home as soon as possible.

Lastly, there is Mr Bush himself. His main concern is re-election, and he has already started to switch his attention back to the economy to avoid his father's fate. That may do more than anything to temper the neo-cons' influence.

European and other governments could add their weight to these countervailing trends if they chose. But, with the exception of Britain, they have not, preferring to demonise the neo-cons as a cabal. This is almost certainly a mistake. The neo- cons are not a marginal group. They are providing much of the intellectual framework for America's foreign policy. Barring a serious reversal abroad, that will continue?and demonising them will merely marginalise their critics.

 

[Moonbeam]

Robert Scheer:
The Fact That Hussein's Gone Doesn't Make Lying Right

There was a time when the sickness of the political far left could best be defined by the rationale that the ends justified the means. Happily, support for revolutionary regimes claiming to advance the interests of their people through atrocious acts is now seen as an evil dead end by most on the left. Immoral and undemocratic means lead inevitably to immoral and undemocratic ends.

Unfortunately, junior Machiavellis claiming to wear the white hat still are running amok among us. This time, however, they are on the right, apologists for the Bush administration arguing that noble ends justify deceitful means.

With the administration's core rationale for invading Iraq ? saving the world from Saddam Hussein's deadly arsenal ? almost wholly discredited, the Republicans now want us to believe that any distortions of the truth should have been forgotten once we took Baghdad.

As Newt Gingrich put it last week: "Does even the most left-wing Democrat want to defend the proposition that the world would be better off with Saddam in power?"

The quick answer is that we don't know what the future holds for Iraq. Our track record of military interventions in the Middle East and elsewhere would lead any competent historian or Vegas bookie to conclude that a stable secular dictatorship is about the best outcome we can predict. But the larger, more frightening meaning of Gingrich's statement is that in order to rid the world of a tinhorn dictator who posed no credible threat to the United States, it was just dandy to lie to the people.

It was OK to lie about the nonexistent evidence of ties between Hussein and Al Qaeda. It was OK to lie about the U.N. weapons inspectors, claiming they were suckered by Hussein. It was OK to lie, not only to Americans but to our allies in this war, about "intelligence" alleging that Iraq's military had chemical and biological weapons deployed in the field. Only it's not OK. Washington's verbal attack on the U.N. inspectors, for example, is of no small consequence, undermining global efforts to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation.

Meanwhile, to justify a political faction's blunder we ignore core values upon which this country was built. The New York Times on Friday blithely referred to the use of "coercive" measures in interrogating former Iraqi scientists and officials. Apparently, protections in international treaties for political prisoners do not apply to us.

Similarly, the indefensible gambit of preemptive war has seriously damaged two of this nation's most precious commodities ? our democracy and the reputation of our form of government. By giving Congress distorted and incomplete intelligence on Iraq, the Bush administration mocks what is most significant in the U.S. model: the notion of separation of powers and the spirit of the Constitution's mandate that only Congress has the power to declare war.

Is this an exaggeration? Consider that on Oct. 7, 2002, four days before Congress authorized the Iraq war, President Bush asserted that intelligence data proved Iraq had trained Al Qaeda "in bomb making and poisons and deadly gases." Yet no such proof existed. Never in modern times have we beheld a Congress so easily manipulated by the executive branch. Last week, the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee caved in and dropped their opposition to closed hearings on whether Congress was lied to. How can they not be open to the public, which is expected under our system to hold the president and Congress accountable?

To be sure, many Americans were never fooled, and many more have become upset at seeing continuing casualties and chaos in Iraq after Bush's pricey aircraft carrier photo op signaled that the war was over. But much of our public has been too easily conned. For contrast, consider that in Britain the citizens, Parliament and media have been far more seriously engaged in questioning the premises of their government's participation in the invasion of Iraq.

This administration's behavior is an affront to the nation's founders and the system of governance they crafted. It is sad that we now have a president who acts like a king and a Congress that is his pawn.

 

[tcsenter]

Oh that's rich, following two highly articulate and balanced articles from the Economist with the likes of Bush-hating pundit Robert Scheer. Oh that's rich I say!

Scheer is the LA Times hack from which stench like 'The Bush Administration gave $43 million to the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan back in May of 2001' emanates, when of course this was such a fantastic distortion that even the veracity-challenged LA Times felt obligated to print a correction.

That's a bit like following Hume or Locke with Homer Simpson. lol!

you also forget that neo-conservatism was a democratic (as in Democratic Party) movement in the 1950s and 1960s. It was started and mainly composed of common sense democrats who opposed the left-wing ideologies that were taking over the party. this splinter group still retains some of the fundamental beliefs of the Democratic Party, but saw a changing world and adjusted to it. I guess instead of calling them neo-cons or "fascists," you're better of calling them realists.

The late Senator Patrick Moynihan was a notable neoconservative Democrat, 'fascist' that he was (according to fruity-toon LaRouche).

Indeed, John F. Kennedy was arguably among the first and most prominent neoconservatives.

 

[Moonbeam]

Oh that's rich, following a highly articulate and balanced articles from the LA Times with the likes of life-hating dweeb like tcsenter. Oh that's ad hominemly rich I say!

Tcsenter is the AT politics and news hack from which stench like 'old people severely burned by coffee don't matter' emanates, when of course this was such a fantastic distortion that even the veracity-challenged people's jury felt obligated to force the payment of punitive damages.

That's a bit like following Hume or Locke with Homer Simpson. lol!

Naturally it would have been nice to address the counterpoints to the Scheer article that tc made but there weren't any. We have only the assurance that if he thinks it wrong it must be right. Thanks. The second article ended with ".....and demonizing them will merely marginalize their critics." Nice to see how much attention people really pay to " highly articulate and balanced articles". Of course the assumption and implication always is that marginalization is already a fact.
--------------------------------

These so called articulate and balanced articles, in fact tell us not much at all. The implication was made that neocon is of democratic origin like a turd that falls in the outhouse is from the dinner table. What was has evolved into something completely different. We realists deal with what is today.

What the articles fail to address head on is the implications of a switch from the notion of liberty to virtue. The assumption is that they have a special insight into what that is, that this is a special province of the elite. This is a profoundly dangerous idea because it is claimed only by those consumed with fear. The nature of mental illness is that it is a form of paranoia that manifests in a need for control. The sick mind is compelled to arrange the world in such a way as to avoid remembering the source of its own illness. This creates the dynamic of an inevitable centripetal force. The mind is compelled to forget its pain but to return to if for life. The result is that the neurotic mind recreates the conditions of its illness externally so it can re-experience vicariously without direct memory. Since most people are completely unprepared for and thus completely unable even to begin to understand this, it would require that very remembering, to put it more simply, we become what we fear. To be caught up in the duality of good and evil is to bring into existence that evil as sure as hell. The Armageddon we fear is the one we will create. We are but moths and must die in the flame.

Intellectualism, elitism, these are all a form of sleep.

 

[tcsenter]

Naturally it would have been nice to address the counterpoints to the Scheer article that tc made but there weren't any. We have only the assurance that if he thinks it wrong it must be right. Thanks.

There is no need to address Scheer's commentary. He's proven himself to be a politically-motivated hack and liar on multiple occassions, I've provided but one particularly infamous example because it is a claim that has been circulating and recirculating so much that its now accepted as some kind of general truth. That you don't know that and continue to offer Scheer as having something credible to say is not really my problem, its yours.

And your deliberate distortion of my comments on the coffee-spill case is particularly instructive in the way your mind works...or doesn't rather.

 

[Moonbeam]

More nothing from tcsenter. Thank you again. There is no need to address your BS, but I don't mind doing so anyway. Glad you liked my distortion of your coffee-spill case comments, I wished to be equally as absurd sounding in mirroring you. Nice to know I succeeded. I guess the devil quoting scripture makes the scripture wrong.

 

[Corn]

I guess the devil quoting scripture makes the scripture wrong.

I find it interesting that you use this particular example. Assuming that the devil actually does exist--what would be his purpose be in quoting scripture? Assuming (again) that the devil is described accurately in bible, his quoting scripture would be an act of deception used to suit his own ends.

Sounds like an appropriate enough example to me. Well done Moonie, I think you just reinforced tscenter's point for him.

 

[LunarRay]

Quote from Corn:

I find it interesting that you use this particular example. Assuming that the devil actually does exist--what would be his purpose be in quoting scripture? Assuming (again) that the devil is described accurately in bible, his quoting scripture would be an act of deception used to suit his own ends.

Sounds like an appropriate enough example to me. Well done Moonie, I think you just reinforced tscenter's point for him.
*******************************
Is it harvest time already...?

God exists as does the devil. The analogy used by moonbeam is accurate to his point. The scripture is accurate no matter who or what quotes it. You focused on the reader and not the message.

 

[Corn]

You focused on the reader and not the message.

Evidently the point sailed right over your head. What "message" would the devil be trying to relay when quoting scripture? Would that message be an honest representation of said scripture?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

I guess the devil quoting scripture makes the scripture wrong.

I find it interesting that you use this particular example. Assuming that the devil actually does exist--what would be his purpose be in quoting scripture? Assuming (again) that the devil is described accurately in bible, his quoting scripture would be an act of deception used to suit his own ends.

Sounds like an appropriate enough example to me. Well done Moonie, I think you just reinforced tscenter's point for him.

Well done Corn. Now lets look at where tcsenter quotes scripture. I'll bold it for you so you won't miss it:

There is no need to address Scheer's commentary. He's proven himself to be a politically-motivated hack and liar on multiple occassions, I've provided but one particularly infamous example because it is a claim that has been circulating and recirculating so much that its now accepted as some kind of general truth. That you don't know that and continue to offer Scheer as having something credible to say is not really my problem, its yours.
-----------------------------------------
It's so nice to have everything settled, to be brain dead, and sound asleep. Scheer has nothing to say because of who he is. SUUUURE.

But more importantly, Corn, I'd value your imput on the neocons. I have great faith in your ability to distinguish truth from lie. What do you think on the real subject at hand?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

You focused on the reader and not the message.

Evidently the point sailed right over your head. What "message" would the devil be trying to relay when quoting scripture? Would that message be an honest representation of said scripture?

Well is a quote an honest representation. Of course it is. What you talk about is context. The quote and the context are different things. Naturally, HJ grasped the original intent of my question.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Corn

You focused on the reader and not the message.

Evidently the point sailed right over your head. What "message" would the devil be trying to relay when quoting scripture? Would that message be an honest representation of said scripture?

Perhaps the realization that God was right all along. What is the message the sinner (sin is evil) relays when reading the scripture? Repentance!

 

[Moonbeam]

What tc called some kind of general truth, others would call a moronic supposition.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
What tc called some kind of general truth, others would call a moronic supposition.

"General Truth" Is that kind of like almost truth... almost pregnant but not quite the truth? Maybe he means Generals accept it as truth.

 

[Moonbeam]

"General Truth" Is that kind of like almost truth... almost pregnant but not quite the truth? Maybe he means Generals accept it as truth.
-----------------------
Nah, it's just that fallacious argument that appeals to numbers. 99.4% of dentists think tc is whacked so clearly he is.

 

[Corn]

Scheer has nothing to say because of who he is. SUUUURE.

No Moonie, not who he is, but what he's done. Hypocrisy should be ignored. The author proved his inability to be truthful, requiring the editorial staff to offer a retraction. Suuure, he has something to say--don't blame me, or tscenter, for the author's lack of credibility when editorializing about the truthfulness of another.

Besides, the article you posted is laced with assumptions being presented as fact. A realist like me understands where the author is coming from.....

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
"General Truth" Is that kind of like almost truth... almost pregnant but not quite the truth? Maybe he means Generals accept it as truth.
-----------------------
Nah, it's just that fallacious argument that appeals to numbers. 99.4% of dentists think tc is whacked so clearly he is.

Ya can take that as scripture!

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Corn

Scheer has nothing to say because of who he is. SUUUURE.

No Moonie, not who he is, but what he's done. Hypocrisy should be ignored. The author proved his inability to be truthful, requiring the editorial staff to offer a retraction. Suuure, he has something to say--don't blame me, or tscenter, for the author's lack of credibility when editorializing about the truthfulness of another.

Besides, the article you posted is laced with assumptions being presented as fact. A realist like me understands where the author is coming from.....

God I hate to remind you of the time I posted Eisenhower's farewell address with a couple of minor changes and you went wild about the romantic idealism presented therein because the author, me you thought, had never had the weight of millions of lives on his shoulders. I know all about your brilliant capacity for discernment based on who you think is speaking, Corn.

 

[Corn]

Perhaps the realization that God was right all along. What is the message the sinner (sin is evil) relays when reading the scripture? Repentance!

Obviously you don't accept the literal characterization of the devil from the scriptures of the old and new testament. Interesting, evidently you must believe this scripture must be flawed in some way............

Somehow I doubt that if the devil does exist, that he would suddenly realize that god was right all along........because if the scripture is accurate, he already knows that fact and always has. The book of Revelation is pretty specific with regard to the future and fate that awaits the devil, and it doesn't mention anything about repentence..........

All scripture is quoted by sinners, is the devil a mere sinner?