Showing posts with label Neocon. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Neocon. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

It's Over

Since America has long ago turned its attention away from our war of aggression against Iraq, which did not attack us on 9/11 no matter the lies of Dick Cheney, George Bush and their cabal, and since the Right will not give Obama credit for any of his great advances and repairs nor will the Left support him in the same organized fashion that Bush enjoyed even at his most damaging, I'm sure that Obama's achievement here will get scant acknowledgment or esteem.

I'm mainly talking to those of you out there who don't want to see the GOP take over the House or Senate and start yet another set of witchhunts, government paralysis, tax protection for the rich and gutting of both financial safeguards and the social safety net. For those of a more Conservative bent, I hope you aren't taking this opportunity to give George Bush some sort of credit for being the genius who trashed a country without provocation, created droves of refugees and sectarian warfare affecting every family in the country, and let the forces of chaos tear up the infrastructure in the days after we took Baghdad. And left Iran without a counterbalance. Dark days they were, indeed.

Yep, the neocons screwed it up. And it seems like only Rachel Maddow remembers:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy



Gobama.

Wednesday, August 05, 2009

Land of the Free

Every once in a while there's a special event that reminds us of the wonderful freedoms we do enjoy (and must be vigilant to protect) here in the U.S. of A. After 140 days in bullshit captivity by the North Korean government, the brave, young Current TV journalists, Laura Ling and Euna Lee, have returned home to free soil thanks to the visit by President Bill Clinton.

It seems impossible not to be moved by this statement by Ling:



Impossible not to be moved except, perhaps, if you're a hardened Neocon Conservative with a worldview stuck in the Cold War:
But, since Bill Clinton has a hand in their release, someone's got to step up and naysay the effort, and predictably, that task has fallen to former UN ambassador and noted rage-walrus John Bolton, who says the "Clinton trip is a significant propaganda victory for North Korea, whether or not he carried an official message from President Obama."
Thank you, John Bolton, for once again demonstrating the completely theoretical nature of Neocon philosophy. Not only does it not take into account in any way the two American lives at stake (let alone Euna Lee's young daughter with whom she was reunited) vs. some "propaganda" belt notch, but since there's no Iron Curtain or Eastern Bloc anymore, and Kim Il Sung is as marginalized as a tinpot dictator can be, that propaganda victory may be limited to his own state-run television system.

Go play your mental games with yourself, John. This is America. You know, give us your tired, your hungry, your falsely imprisoned.

Welcome back, Laura and Euna.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Hothead

The Obama campaign is clearly trying out a theme that they can develop next week: McCain is a hothead.

There's evidence of this in his personal dealings, his Senate dealings, and in how he sprung up on the Georgia issue like he already thought he was President (albeit with an advisor being paid that country). There's serious talk of a McCain Presidency being a series of foreign policy crises of his own making thanks to his Cold War-era rhetoric -- "hysteria-based foreign policy."

I think the key for Obama and the Dems is to link McCain's kneejerk neoconservatism to the current Administration, to the ideology that got us all into the Iraq War and radically diminished our prestige and heft in the world in the first place. It truly can be the worst of both worlds -- bad judgment of now standard Republican neoconservatism, heightened by McCain's own disastrous trigger-happy tendencies. Essentially it's turning that media-loved maverick label against him.

And how hard can it be, when McCain endorses a new military draft with one on-the-spot answer in a town hall appearance?

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Fight

Bill Maher's show is back on HBO for a new season and the opener was pretty raw. At opposite ends of the panel were Tim Robbins and official Cheney biographer Stephen Hayes. Robbins was, of course, right about not going into Iraq. Hayes continues to cling to a more-than-dubious Doug Feith memo to support a Sophistic connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Queda, and ipso facto Saddam attacked us on 9/11 and bully for us getting quagmired.

Robbins (and Maher) tore into neoconservative court copywriter Hayes directly:

Robbins: You’re partly responsible, you could start with an apology. You wrote a book saying there was a connection Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Hayes: You want to know why I wrote that book? Because there was a connection Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda.

Maher: No there wasn’t

Robbins: You can lie a thousand times—it doesn’t make it true.


And even better, from Robbins:
"...before we got into this war there were countless "military experts", intelligence analysts, that told us that this was a good idea, that we had to do it, that presented their information and were so terribly wrong. These people are still affecting public policy, are still considered experts. I'm sorry, but shouldn't there a law or rule that says "If you f**k things up so badly you can no longer be an expert"

There are two current MSM/GOP/Neocon questions that I think need to be beat down until we don't hear them any more, and the third panelist (in the middle), NPR's Michel Martin asked both of them:

1. Why does it have to be that someone lied? Why can't it just be that they had good intentions, there were simply mistakes made?

Answer: The lie is the crime. If liars (on such a grand scale) are still in power, they need to be exposed and vilified, and neutralized if not removed.

2. Why do we have to go over the past when it's the situation now that we have to deal with?

Answer: Of course we have to deal with the situation now, but that isn't entirely a separate issue. For one, if we don't learn from our history, no matter how recent, we will be condemned to repeat it. For another, if we don't analyze how we got into this, we may let those who got us stuck in this quagmire continue to rule, and for those Neocon/Cheney/GOP voices to continue to control the War and foreign policy.

And they cannot be trusted. Ever, ever again.

So fight.

Vanquish.

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

Neocon Insanity

Now they want to start bombing the hell out of Iran. Senior Neoconservative Norman Podhoretz, given a full page of the Wall Street Journal Wednesday:

Since a ground invasion of Iran must be ruled out for many different reasons, the job would have to be done, if it is to be done at all, by a campaign of air strikes. Furthermore, because Iran’s nuclear facilities are dispersed, and because some of them are underground, many sorties and bunker-busting munitions would be required. And because such a campaign is beyond the capabilities of Israel, and the will, let alone the courage, of any of our other allies, it could be carried out only by the United States.* Even then, we would probably be unable to get at all the underground facilities, which means that, if Iran were still intent on going nuclear, it would not have to start over again from scratch. But a bombing campaign would without question set back its nuclear program for years to come, and might even lead to the overthrow of the mullahs.

The opponents of bombing—not just the usual suspects but many both here and in Israel who have no illusions about the nature and intentions and potential capabilities of the Iranian regime—disagree that it might end in the overthrow of the mullocracy. On the contrary, they are certain that all Iranians, even the democratic dissidents, would be impelled to rally around the flag. And this is only one of the worst-case scenarios they envisage. To wit: Iran would retaliate by increasing the trouble it is already making for us in Iraq. It would attack Israel with missiles armed with non-nuclear warheads but possibly containing biological and/or chemical weapons. There would be a vast increase in the price of oil, with catastrophic consequences for every economy in the world, very much including our own. The worldwide outcry against the inevitable civilian casualties would make the anti-Americanism of today look like a love-fest.

I readily admit that it would be foolish to discount any or all of these scenarios. Each of them is, alas, only too plausible. Nevertheless, there is a good response to them, and it is the one given by John McCain. The only thing worse than bombing Iran, McCain has declared, is allowing Iran to get the bomb.


How many civilians is Podhoretz looking to kill? How many does he want dead in the subsequent social unrest? How many professors to be killed or leave Iran, the humanists? All?

What kind of blowback does he want on America? Attacks on our interests internationally, on our soil? Total war, call all the 18 year-olds up? Make the world an exponentially more dangerous place because of your unbridled fear? Remake the whole world in your fear's image?

He gives us the short answer, per his justifying McCain quote: he doesn't give a fuck.

Iran is a deeply divided society, with a bourgeoisie that hides party clothes under birkas and dances all night in private, a secular underground. This huge, mullah-hating population is America's best friend in the Middle East outside of Israel. The Iranian Americans I know who immigrated here came as Republicans, because they hated Jimmy Carter so much for not allowing the Shah to be treated medically here.

But the moment the first bomb drops, that who class in Iran, the one we're depending on for after regime change, will all go nationalist. They don't want to be invaded by troops or airplanes. It would be the single stupidest move -- to our own self-interest -- since faking 9/11 blame on Saddam Hussein and dunning our country into invading Iraq at the time.

He makes the sicko Iranian President, who's position is in practice very weak under the mullah rulers, the ones vested in stability, unless he can get exactly the kind of attention a U.S. bombing attack would bring. He'd be right, after all, having predicted the U.S. aggression.

The Baker-Hamilton Report, which Bush gives lip service to at best, talks about diplomacy. Strength through allies. And not just the Saudis.

Podhoretz and his crew, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, George Bush -- they've been wrong every step of the way since Afghanistan and thanks to them we've shown the world our ass in Iraq. If we listen to them again, naked fear-mongering over reason, even strong, tough reason, then we deserve the consequences. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...

But if you still need proof that Podhoretz in functionally insane, here's his final paragraph:
Not so George W. Bush, a man who knows evil when he sees it and who has demonstrated an unfailingly courageous willingness to endure vilification and contumely in setting his face against it. It now remains to be seen whether this President, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory, and weakened politically by the enemies of his policy in the Middle East in general and Iraq in particular, will find it possible to take the only action that can stop Iran from following through on its evil intentions both toward us and toward Israel. As an American and as a Jew, I pray with all my heart that he will.

"...this President, battered more mercilessly and with less justification than any other in living memory..." Less justification? Iraq, Katrina, North Korea, Social Security, Alberto Gonzales, Valerie Plame, global warming, science...need I go on?

This is where the Neocons are mindmeld with traditional Right Wing Conservatives. Always the stab in the back. Never the personal responsibility. If we only gave them more troops, more money, less regulation...they could have doubled the time we spent in Vietnam.

It's bullshit to say this is the only action that can be taken. Maybe back in biblical times. But our world is a much more complex place.

With this branch of the war mongers, it all comes back to Israel, and Israel's security is a deeply legitimate concern. Ahmadinejad does deny the Holocaust, and many Mid East country leaders including others in Iran have spoken of wiping Israel off the face of the map.

The Jewish homeland given over raw, deserty, as reparation for the Holocaust itself, when 6 million Jews were slaughtered. Within Podhoretz's lifetime. But this call to slaughter is madness in broadcast form.

Because the man who cries "Fire!" in the crowded theater always gets more people killed than he saves.